Why make changes?

[Herofan]

With Dallas, as with some other long running shoes, the writers often feel the need for change. Personally, I like things to stay as much the same as possible. Here are some things I would like to have stayed the same on Dallas:

-Bobby and Paw stayed together
- JR and Sue Ellen stayed together
-Ray and Donna stayed together
Drama within those relationships would have been fine, but no long term break ups and bringing in Mark and Jenna.
-JR didn’t lose Ewing Oil; it stayed in the family like always. It seems like JR lost his company and got it back about every other day in the last few seasons. For me, things just never were the same after he lost it and they got new offices in the latter seasons.
- I missed the “good ol’ boy” crew stopping by the office to actually talk about oil deals.

Would these things staying the same have bored the viewing audience after several years? Apparently, writers and producers thought so. What do you think?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I disagree.

 

[Herofan]

I disagree.

Absolutely fine. My views aren’t set in stone as something that would have worked. After all, I’m not a show business expert, I’m just going by what I think would have worked for me

So, do you think if the things I mentioned had stayed intact, the show would have become stale and cancelled sooner?

Another thing I would have liked was if JR had kept his edge from the early years. I thought he got wimpy.

 

[Swami]

Making JR a pushover in the last few seasons was an awful decision. Can you imagine the JR of the early seasons being hounded into a kangaroo court in Haleyville? If nothing else, Harry McSween would have fixed that at JR's behest.

Swami

 

[Herofan]

Making JR a pushover in the last few seasons was an awful decision. Can you imagine the JR of the early seasons being hounded into a kangaroo court in Haleyville? If nothing else, Harry McSween would have fixed that at JR's behest.

Swami

I agree. I’m sure people can change. Perhaps he could have mellowed in real life, but for entertainment purposes, I didn’t enjoy it. As the years went by, I think he should have become even more keen and been feared by people almost like he was in the mob.

 

[stevew]

I agree with you. I like change, characters grow, but those are subtle changes. After Bobby’s death, a traumatic experience to say the least, JR becomes more Jock like, for instance. But the total changes they sought destroyed the show, IMO. Sure subscribes things happen like Jock dying. But I agree with you - stick with the foundation, the core marriages abs company and the house. Obviously people disappeared when they saw too much change and when they came back (TNT) they quickly left when they realized it wasn’t Dallas anymore.

 

[Richard Channing]

Change is good, if it's good change. In fact it's absolutely necessary if a show is to not only survive, but thrive over a long period of time. I can understand people's nostalgia for a formula that really worked, and worked for a long time, but there are only so many times Dallas could tell the same stories. How many times can JR and Sue Ellen break up and make up? I didn't find it that unrealistic but many members on here grew tired of it. How many fights for Ewing Oil can there be? How many times can Cliff get set up?

I think when things are getting a bit stale and repetitive is when new competent writers are needed to shake things up. But sadly that's not what happened on Dallas. And when familiar faces leave they need to be replaced with equally dynamic, well cast characters who change the status quo and set the stage for new and interesting directions for the established characters to take. Again, unfortunately this didn't happen. They tried to do it with James and Cally etc. but the writing was already feeling tired and jaded at this point and they couldn't hold a candle to the core characters they were replacing.

So change was needed, in fact it was inevitable, but a series of bad choices meant a drop in quality that spelled doom for the show.

 

[tommie]

Wouldn't this just make the show a "procedural", ie plots might happen but at the end of the episode everything stays pretty much the same?

 

[Michael Torrance]

For biology, when a cell cannot engage in any further change, it is dead.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Would these things staying the same have bored the viewing audience after several years?

That depends on how good the rest of the story is.

I missed the “good ol’ boy” crew stopping by the office to actually talk about oil deals

The locations and the many supporting actors gave these shows a very vibrant and cinematic feel. Unfortunately that stopped when they became Serious Soap.
I also want to add Southfork #1 to the list.

 

[Herofan]

I agree with you. I like change, characters grow, but those are subtle changes. After Bobby’s death, a traumatic experience to say the least, JR becomes more Jock like, for instance. But the total changes they sought destroyed the show, IMO. Sure subscribes things happen like Jock dying. But I agree with you - stick with the foundation, the core marriages abs company and the house. Obviously people disappeared when they saw too much change and when they came back (TNT) they quickly left when they realized it wasn’t Dallas anymore.

I agree.

I think a simple change in attitude makes a big difference. In the early days, things seemed to be taken more seriously. There was such a huge difference in the attitude when JR was shot the first time than when he was shot in later seasons. In later seasons, it was treated as a joke, which isn’t realistic in my opinion. When it gets to the point that a main character being shot is a joke, then what do you do for intrigue at that point?

 

[stevew]

I agree.

I think a simple change in attitude makes a big difference. In the early days, things seemed to be taken more seriously. There was such a huge difference in the attitude when JR was shot the first time than when he was shot in later seasons. In later seasons, it was treated as a joke, which isn’t realistic in my opinion. When it gets to the point that a main character being shot is a joke, then what do you do for intrigue at that point?

Also the stories became to ridiculous. So many changes and totally absurd changes. 1st Pam’s Dream - really? My god that was a detailed dream about a whole lot of people. Then by the time they’re done Miss Ellie walks away and gives Bobby several billion dollars worth of land - forget the gift tax (impossible to pay it would seem without drilling) how in the world can you do that to the rest of your family? Reality would have been to split it up. The land to the state of Texas or set up some non-profit to protect it (they had the money). Sell the cattle company to Bobby with a $1 a year lease in perpetuity for the use of the land. Give the mineral rights to a foundation with limits on how they can use them. Give the house to JR. But instead the change was dramatic, unrealistic and hurtful in the long run to the interest in the show. A weak, homeless, broken JR? Really?

 

[stevew]

Change is good, if it's good change. In fact it's absolutely necessary if a show is to not only survive, but thrive over a long period of time. I can understand people's nostalgia for a formula that really worked, and worked for a long time, but there are only so many times Dallas could tell the same stories. How many times can JR and Sue Ellen break up and make up? I didn't find it that unrealistic but many members on here grew tired of it. How many fights for Ewing Oil can there be? How many times can Cliff get set up?

I think when things are getting a bit stale and repetitive is when new competent writers are needed to shake things up. But sadly that's not what happened on Dallas. And when familiar faces leave they need to be replaced with equally dynamic, well cast characters who change the status quo and set the stage for new and interesting directions for the established characters to take. Again, unfortunately this didn't happen. They tried to do it with James and Cally etc. but the writing was already feeling tired and jaded at this point and they couldn't hold a candle to the core characters they were replacing.

So change was needed, in fact it was inevitable, but a series of bad choices meant a drop in quality that spelled doom for the show.

I see what you’re saying, but I think the idea was not to kill all change, but stick to the core of the show. Agree with you, JR and Sue Ellen can only break up and make up so many times, but that doesn’t mean they have to break up and stay broken up. They could stay together. Cliff can be replaced with other enemies. I think Herofan is on to something. It not just bad writing we saw (and bad acting), it was a loss for what the show was even about (and by TNT Dallas it was lost and smashed to pieces). I don’t think they’re suggest zero change but not to the basics. Don’t burn down the house just because JR is now sitting in his daddy’s chair. The foundation still has to be there.

 

[Rove]

Change can be a positive for any series especially when it has hit the seven year itch. If writers are simply going to regurgitate stories then viewers will simply view it as more of the same. Changes though need to be thoughtful and subtle. Dallas is a good example how changes impact viewership...and I'm not just talking about what was presented on screen. Changes behind the scenes inevitably altered the tone of Dallas which spiraled into sub-par stories, quality, viewers and the inevitable...."Not to be renewed."

I've always considered the death of Bobby in Swan Song was the reset button Dallas needed. I was looking forward to the following season to witness the thrilling ride the writers had in store for us. Sadly it was not to be.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Miss Ellie walks away and gives Bobby several billion dollars worth of land - forget the gift tax (impossible to pay it would seem without drilling) how in the world can you do that to the rest of your family?

Steve, I've got a question about that. Ranching isn't a high profit industry relative to the value of the land it requires (as far as I know). Shouldn't the gift tax be based on how profitable the ranch is? I mean, how is Southfork Ranch worth billions of dollars of they make maybe $15 million dollar a year? If Southfork even makes $50 million a year, how could any ranchers pass their ranch down to their kids? If the tax is say half billion dollars, but they're only profiting $10 million or even $20 million a year, it's just not possible to do. Yet, hadn't Southfork been passed down to one generation to the next in the past? How would Miss Ellie and Jock have afforded the inheritance tax when Ellie inherited it? Thanks!

Also, suppose Miss Elle left it in her will to Bobby instead. Then there's the inheritance tax, right? Which is higher, a gift tax, or an inheritance tax?

 

[Kenny Coyote]

So, do you think if the things I mentioned had stayed intact, the show would have become stale and cancelled sooner?

Great thread @Herofan! While you're waiting for your answer from @Snarky's Ghost, I can give you my opinion on that. Ideally you'd have positive change, but if you had to choose between keeping things the same, or negative change (which is what we got), I'll take maintaining the status quo any day over decline!

I’m sure people can change. Perhaps he could have mellowed in real life, but for entertainment purposes, I didn’t enjoy it. As the years went by, I think he should have become even more keen and been feared by people almost like he was in the mob.

I think in a long running show like Dallas, for them to maintain the level quality they had in their first 8 years, they should have had people change, but as you alluded to, have them change in ways that have entertainment value! Change for the sake of change is a terrible idea. If change for the sake of change was good, TNT Dallas would have been a huge success because, after all, how much more change could you possibly have? They even changed history when they felt like it!

What I'd find interesting and entertaining to watch, is to have some characters change through either going through a process of personal growth. A lot of people are afraid of personal growth because it's a painful process . You are going to make some mistakes along the way and those mistakes hurt. That can make a great story though. JR and Sue Ellen are two characters in particular who were in need of personal growth. Without making this too long, basically the more dysfunctional you are, and the more flaws you have, the more you are in need of personal growth, so clearly JR and Sue Ellen could have benefitted from that. If they were going to stay together, it would have been absolutely essential.

How can you have a show run for 10 years or more and never have your lead characters maturing and growing as people? That doesn't mean making the characters so different they're hard to even recognize, but hopefully over time, we all learn and grow as people. For a person who is actually a fictional TV character, in most cases, learning and growing over time is essential to maintain their interest to the viewer and their entertainment value. Personal growth keeps your characters fresh and vital.

I think when things are getting a bit stale and repetitive is when new competent writers are needed to shake things up.

Yes! When you do everything yourself, you're going to burn out. I believe that's what happened with Katzman because clearly he'd been a creative guy who had contributed valuable things to the show or he wouldn't have been where he was for long. When he made the decision to do everything himself though, getting burned out was inevitable.

When that starts to happen, that's when you really need to bring in new, competent writers. I'm not even saying Katzman necessarily had to step down, but he had to become willing to bring in these talented people who had a good understanding of the show and be willing to accept their input. Sometimes when you're in a position like Katzman was, you're so involved with it that you can't see the forest for the trees. That's when it's great to bring in some outside people who will have a much more objective way of looking at what you're doing and be able to tell you what changes you need to make.

 

[stevew]

Syeve, I've got a question about that. Ranching isn't a high profit industry relative to the value of the land it requires (as far as I know). Shouldn't the gift tax be based on how much profitable the ranch is? I mean, how is Southfork Ranch worth billions of dollars of they make maybe $15 million dollar a year? If Southfork even makes $50 million a year, how could any ranchers pas their ranch down to their kids? If the tx is say half billion dollars, but they're only profiting $10 million or even $20 million a year, it's just not possible to do. Yet, hadn't Southfork been passed down to one generation to the next in the past? How would Miss Ellie and Jock have afforded the inheritance tax when Ellie inherited it? Thanks!

Also, suppose Miss Elle left it in her will to Bobby instead. Then there's the inheritance tax, right? Which is higher, a gift tax, or an inheritance tax?

The IRS would look at the value of the known oil underneath. You hit on the very issue many small businesses have - sell or their kids have to finance the business to pay the tax. I don’t know when she inherited it but there have been times when it was different, like in 2010 it was zero. And there are trusts which could be used. Plus maybe less was known about how much was down there way back then. As far as I know inheritance and gift are the same, but maybe not always. I’m going based on second hand info. Just over all it’s unrealistic to think she’d give that much to one kid. Even if he was to protect the land would his grandchildren forgo billions to do so? In such a case Bobby’s grandchildren get billions in oil and JR and Gary’s don’t. To top it off it’s not like she built the place. She got it from her had who got it from his. And she was so willing to give it to her brother but cut out her 2 sons and not for a charitable cause but to benefit Bobby? JR would have tied that up in court for years. That’s the kind of change I get that just didn’t need to happen. Poor writing left behind the very foundation of the story which shouldn’t have changed.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I've always considered the death of Bobby in Swan Song was the reset button Dallas needed. I was looking forward to the following season to witness the thrilling ride the writers had in store for us. Sadly it was not to be.

Bobby's death was one way to change things up but I'd hate to have a creative department so uncreative, that they tell me the only way they can still continue to write creative stories for our show is to kill off one of our three most popular characters. Great! What do they do the year after that? Kill JR? I think there were plenty of stories left to be told with Bobby - the potential there was only limited by the imagination of the writers.

That positive change you were hoping for as a result of Bobby's death was never going to come from people suffering from creative burnout and unfortunately, that's exactly what it looked liked happened to Katzman and the writers.

 

[stevew]

Great thread @Herofan! While you're waiting for your answer from @Snarky's Ghost, I can give you my opinion on that. Ideally you'd have positive change, but if you had to choose between keeping things the same, or negative change (which is what we got), I'll taking maintaining the status quo any day over decline!



I think in a long running show like Dallas, for them to maintain the level quality they had in their first 8 years, they should have had people change, but as you alluded to, have them change in ways that have entertainment value! Change for the sake of change is a terrible idea. If change for the sake of change was good, TNT Dallas would have been a huge success because, after all, how much more change could you possibly have? They even changed history when they felt like it!

What I'd find interesting and entertaining to watch, is to have some characters change through either going through a process of personal growth. A lot of people are afraid of personal growth because it's a painful process . You are going to make some mistakes along the way and those mistakes hurt. That can make a great story though. JR and Sue Ellen are two characters in particular who were in need of personal growth. Without making this too long, basically the more dysfunctional you are, and the more flaws you have, the more you are in need of personal growth, so clearly JR and Sue Ellen could have benefitted from that. If they were going to stay together, it would have been absolutely essential.

How can you have a show run for 10 years or more and never have your lead characters maturing and growing as people? That doesn't mean making the characters so different they're hard to even recognize, but hopefully over time, we all learn and grow as people. For a person who is actually a fictional TV character, in most cases, learning and growing over time is essential to maintain their interest to the viewer and their entertainment value. Personal growth keeps your characters fresh and vital.



Yes! When you do everything yourself, you're going to burn out. I believe that's what happened with Katzman because clearly he'd been a creative guy who had contributed valuable things to the show or he wouldn't have been where he was for long. When he made the decision to do everything himself though, getting burned out was inevitable.

When that starts to happen, that's when you really need to bring in new, competent writers. I'm not even saying Katzman necessarily had to step down, but he had to become willing to bring in these talented people who had a good understanding of the show and be willing to accept their input. Sometimes when you're in a position like Katzman was, you're so involved with it that you can't see the forest for the trees. That's when it's great to bring in some outside people who will have a much more objective way of looking at what you're doing and be able to tell you what changes you need to make.

“I'll taking maintaining the status quo any day over decline!” I agree 100%

I also agree with bringing in outside help, as long as that help appreciated the brand. If it’s someone doing their own thing, why bother. It must be someone who gets that Dallas is about a ranch family who got rich off oil, it’s about the mom and dad (deceased - big changed) and their two sons, and their wives. They were successful in adding Ray and Donna a key parts of the family, and even letting Lucy go - all chance. And Bobby’s death was change. But once they lost the core of the family business drama they were no longer the Dallas we knew.

 

[stevew]

Bobby's death was one way to change things up but I'd hate to have a creative department so uncreative, that they tell me the only way they can still continue to write creative stories for our show is to kill off one of our three most popular characters. Great! What do they do the year after that? Kill JR? I think there were plenty of stories left to be told with Bobby - the potential there was only limited by the imagination of the writers.

That positive change you were hoping for as a result of Bobby's death was never going to come from people suffering from creative burnout and unfortunately, that's exactly what it looked liked happened to Katzman and the writers.

Worse yet, I think the writers suffered from fear Dynasty would replace them and so they tried to make themselves something they weren’t. Like someone said “The Walton’s with notions” (and they didn’t mean the Sam Walton’s).