Why is Dynasty labelled as a Dallas Rip-off [Archive]

abbylexis

11-05-2002, 09:15 AM

This is gonna be the second time I watch Dynasty and I always try to wonder why people said they copied Dallas...

The show looks nothing like Dallas. If the show was called "TExas" or "HOuston" maybe....

The only themes that are found in both are oil and a dysfunctional rich family.

besides, the oil plots will dominate the entire episodes like some Dallas oil plots did.

Don't get me wrong I love Dallas two. and I think these two shows are unique in their own ways...

"I am not saying that I am having an affair with him and I am not saying that I am not. I can have him anytime I want."
Abby to Val in 1982

"If I have to make a choice between love and money. Money is going to win everytime."
Abby to Greg in 1983

"He hurt me no one gets away with that"
Abby to Karen in 1981

Michael Culhane 1967

11-05-2002, 01:12 PM

I don't know...the 2 shows are very different if you watch them but maybe when they were created there was some races between the networks. I like them both, really.

EJ_Carrington

11-05-2002, 02:19 PM

I never understood the war between Dallas and Dynasty in the 80's. I think it was network's publicity maneuvers. The only things in common between those two were oil and rich people.
An old friend of mine (Dallas Fan) always says Dynasty was a clone from Dallas because there were some plots used in Dynasty taken from Dallas like Krystle's miscarriage falling from a horse, previously seen in Dallas... (and a current miscarriage topic in daily soaps and movies before Dallas). And things like these... I've always liked both shows and I admit Dallas had stronger storylines and characters, more logical written. But Dynasty was a great show and I enjoyed it. I still do now.

abbylexis

11-05-2002, 03:45 PM

or Fallon being in a car accident while pregnant and giving birth to a premature baby....

well, of course you gonna find it in Dynasty, you find it in every soap opera. SO we should accuse Dallas, too? lots of their plots had already been done in daytime...

"I am not saying that I am having an affair with him and I am not saying that I am not. I can have him anytime I want."
Abby to Val in 1982

"If I have to make a choice between love and money. Money is going to win everytime."
Abby to Greg in 1983

"He hurt me no one gets away with that"
Abby to Karen in 1981

Ewing18

11-05-2002, 11:53 PM

I dont see why people get so irratated by Dynasty and accuse it of being a Dallas clone. I am a fan of both Dallas and Dynasty and to me they are two differnt shows! Sure they both involve the rich and oil but that's about it. Dynasty had a style that set it aside from Dallas and Vice-versa. I love them all though: Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing, And Falcon Crest. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Christine

11-06-2002, 03:25 AM

I think Dynasty gets accused of being a clone of Dallas simply because Dallas was the first PRIME TIME soap. And then Aaron Spelling comes along and kinda copies the format of the show. Which is a dysfunctional rich family in oil business. Okay, it's only two similarities but already enough! Knots Landing was totally different than Dallas and Falcon Crest was at least about a different business.
If you take a closer look you will also see that Dynasty even tried to copy the family feud thing. On Dallas you had the Ewing-Barnes feud and on Dynasty we have Matthew Blaisdale who hates Blake Carrington, just like how Digger hated Jock. And Blake gets married to Matthew's former girlfriend, just like Jock married Digger's former girlfriend! Of course the family feud thing didn't really work on Dynasty so they got rid of the plot. Thank God http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-------------------------
I've never seen the ocean
-------------------------

Wendell2002

11-12-2002, 04:09 AM

1. Rich family of oil tycoons which lives in big white house...
2. Dallas=Denver. Dallas=Dynasty. It’s officially known that the show was called Dynasty so it sounded as much as Dallas as it’s possible. First idea was to call show Denver
3. Crystle Carrington – The show starts with naive middle-class woman trying to get into rich oil-tycooned family....Pamela Ewing, anyone?
4. Crystle falls from the horse and looses her baby, it starts her depression. The fall is Alexis’ fault... Pam Ewing falls from the hayloft and looses her baby. The fall is JR’s fault..... Pam falls from the horse and looses her baby. It starts her depression........
5. Crystle/Pam. At first the family doesn’t want to accept her, but then finally does. But the one member of the family is still doing everything to break them apart. Of course, it’s Alexis... JR. Alexis is known as female JR. The only difference between them is that she ‘s ugly woman.

If Aaron Stealing can’t help himself stealing other people’ ideas, he could at least film a show NOT ABOUT OIL BUSINESS, NOT TO PLACE IT IN THE CITY WHICH NAME STARTED WITH D.
All right, forget it, we’re talking about the KING of crap... oops, I meant soaps...

Great, Christine, you pointed out something I forgot. And Yes, Knots and Dallas could have something in common, and they did, but they were different. One was a show about Community and another about The Family.
Yes, Dallas was a lot like day-time soap which made to be “big”. It’s not a secret, though, that Aaron Stealing wanted to make money on something Dallas-like, and created Dynasty. I admit though, that later Dynasty tried not to be like Dallas. That must be the reason for ridiculous storylines and crazy ideas... They did not want to be like BIG D.

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't. - Good old psycho Jill.... I have something in common with her.

Christine

11-12-2002, 05:14 AM

I love it how you always say Aaron Stealing, lol. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
It fits so well and I thought about it, he is still doing it! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Just think of Charmed - Buffy, anyone? http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

-------------------------
I've never seen the ocean
-------------------------

Brody

11-12-2002, 11:27 AM

... Well, I say 'rip-off'.

It all depends how you rate the term "rip off". I remember a tv show Esther Shapiro, co-creator of the other D, was on, and she said "The only brief we had for Dynasty was to do something that would out-do Dallas".

If you want to out-do something, the easiest way is to replicate the other, then add-to. And that is what Dynasty did shamelessly and gloriously.

I must day, I never heard of Dynasty being titled "Denver", I thought it was always going to be "Oil" before they settled on "Dynasty".

---
"Smile that cool Caress smile, and i'll smack you in that cool Caress face"
---

willie oleson

11-12-2002, 11:49 AM

More than once I read negative comments on Dynasty left by Dallas-fans but not the other way round.
I think this is because Dynasty fans are more confident about the quality of their favourite soap so they don't feel they have to disparage the OTHER one.
And there are many Dallas-fans who like Dynasty but just don't admit.
And Aaron Spelling the king of crap?
What about the other fantastic series like HOTEL, HART TO HART and SAVANNAH?

Oh well, I guess it's just a matter of GOOD taste... http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

willie oleson

11-12-2002, 12:04 PM

And Dallas was NOT the FIRST prime time soap.
That was PEYTON PLACE. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brody

11-12-2002, 02:08 PM

I am a huge Dynasty fan, but I think that anyone, however much of a fan they are, who denies that Dynasty was created for any reason other than to contend Dallas, is living in a fools paradise.

As they progressed, and Dynasty took the lead in terms of overall entertainment, the shows went in very different directions.

And Dynasty's final season is a finale to be proud of (it regained its composure after shaky season's 7 and 8; Dallas never managed this). Dallas's last few seasons usually just get brushed under the carpet.

---
"Smile that cool Caress smile, and i'll smack you in that cool Caress face"
---

willie oleson

11-12-2002, 02:37 PM

But I don't care WHY Dynasty was created.
It was a great show and so was Dallas.
I had a good time watching it and that's all that matters to me.

abbylexis

11-12-2002, 04:56 PM

it's right, Dynasty gets so criticized. i mean, this is a capitalist country so of course there's gonna be competition.

kmart vs walmart
macdonald vs Burger king

and Dallas vs Dynasty. yes Dynasty was created as a competition to Dallas. And thank God for those antitrust laws CBS did not monoplize the soap opera genre.

really, to say that Dynasty was copied from Dallas, one has to give the similarities in 1 second. But i have the feeling that some had to go back and try to compare both shows and then see the similarities that you would found on all primetime soaps including Knots Landing.

Like Pamela bellewood said in the E true hollywood story that Aaron Stealing never depended on the critics to be successful. Yes, he does steal lots of ideas, and if you look closely Melrose Place was an hip version of Knots Landing. but you see Aaron doesn;t take the shows seriously, he doesn't try to examine what storylines can we do so people can relate to it? things like that, Aaron gives you harmless fun with lots of catfights, tongue fights, sex, and over the top plots. His point is not to help people by providing relatable storylines, he wants people to enjoy tv. After a long day at work and dealing with life, you tune in and watch a big fantasy. My guess, he writes his show as a big farce and wants the audience to know about it..

take a look at melrose place, it started pretty bad cause it was too real, season 2 things went crazy and that's when it became popular.

The OTT styles used in Dynasty was totally different from dallas. Yes, the first season is very much similar to Dallas, but the guy realized that keeping it a little real may not provide good ratings so why not make it unreal

If I recall Dallas began adopting similar plots during season 8 as Dynasty, since Dynasty had become the number 1 show.

Laura: You are such a slut!!!
Abby: It takes one to know one

"I am not saying that I am having an affair with him and I am not saying that I am not. I can have him anytime I want."
Abby to Val in 1982

"If I have to make a choice between love and money. Money is going to win everytime."
Abby to Greg in 1983

"He hurt me no one gets away with that"
Abby to Karen in 1981

Wendell2002

11-12-2002, 11:09 PM

But I can’t help myself wondering am I the only one who don’t want to be feed up with senseless stupidness, and really want writers to respect my intelligence at least a little bit? I m reading Dynasty’s summaries to refresh my memories, and actually trying to find one plot which was good. In first season it had a little promise – at least Blake was not typical hero, Fallon and Steven were good characters. It had some chance, though was very much copy of Dallas. But after about few episodes, it looks like Aaron Stealing realized that he’s doing something too normal and not idiotic enough. He thinks and loudly admits that auditory consists of idiots (at least it’s what you can read between lines) and they can not understand, nor can they appreciate anything that does make sense and not downright stupid. Well, I can! Also, I can’t stand plagiarists. Every soap has something in common with others. But Stealing goes too far. Couldn’t he at least find another business for Carringtons? No, it would mean he had to use his brains, and not simply make money on other people’s ideas. The most irritating is that we let him “shamelessly” feed us with stupidness, and even applaude that.

And YES< YES> Christine, he goes on this way. He took pretty childish idea of Buffy, and bastardize it to increadible stupidness of Charmed. What’s up with this man? Did not his mom tell him that to steal is wrong?

SPEAKING ABOUT GOOD TASTE..... Yeah, what a man with a good taste can resist intelligent, social important plots of Melrose Place, deep ideas of Beverly Hills 90210, originality and smartness of “Charmed”, freshness of “Titans”? And how I could forget about Hotel (actually, I m not the only one who forgot it completely). I mean, is Hotel Really supposed to be intellectual? Uh, I don’t think so. What’s next, Murder she Wrote? Or Charlie’s angels, another intellectual show.... about “buyouts”.
SPEAKING ABOUT GOOD TASTE SERIOUSLY
I should admit I do not have a good taste too. I mean, since when to watch Dynasty, or Melrose Place, or DALLAS FOR THAT MATTER, is a sign of good taste???? Good taste is to watch Ingmar Bergman’s films, or Fellini’s, or at least Oliver Stone’s, or at least shows like Law and Order, Street Legal, Eleanor Bromwell, Poirot, something like that. So I admit we all , including me first, spend our time watching crappy shows. But I want these crappy shows to have at least some, even if very little sense, at least to have worthwile storylines every once in a while!

Talking about success,
I remember going through site with ratings of television programmes throught years, and Dynasty topped Dallas for only ONE YEAR! Next year Dallas fell from #2 to #5, and Dynasty is NOT ON THE LIST OF Top 5. And while Dallas, maybe pretty pathetic (still I d give all little D for these seasons) tried to come back with its last seasons, Dynasty does not exist anymore! Dynasty – correct me if I wrong – started in 81 and ended in 89+had reunion movie in 1991. Dallas started in 1978 and ended in 1991+ had two reunion movies in 96 and 98. It does not prove anything, because more popular show is not necessarily better show (poor Hill Street Blues was axed too early), but I just trying to understand your points, Colby (with all due respect, trust me), and I don’t know which way Dynasty was more popular than Big D, if only for one year....

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't. - Good old psycho Jill.... I have something in common with her.

Michael Culhane 1967

11-13-2002, 04:52 AM

Hello, Wendell, I have not as you big reputation about Aaron Spelling. But I loved Dynasty, and as a Dallas fan too, I cannot say they are the same show. Sure, Dynasty is less original than Dallas, but is more glamourous, richer in dresses and jewels, is simply different. And there are a lot of very interesting characters and actors. The show is great also because there were very good people in it like writers and musicians that made a very good job. In a few words, maybe the concept is not so original, but the result is great. I love especially the first 7 seasons (the last 2 were very poor, a pale copy of former Dynasty). For me Dynasty is tv history, like Dallas or Knots Landing.

EJ_Carrington

11-13-2002, 05:01 AM

I'll never understand why so many Dallas fans hate Dynasty. It's childish! I argued in the 80's with my friend because I love Dynasty and he's a Dallas die-hard fan (even today), but we were teens then... C'mon! I loved the big D's (DALLAS and DYNASTY) and FALCON CREST. I enjoy watching the three... Every series has strong points and flaws... 20 years later we can't keep accusing one to be a copy/clon of the other. In the 80's that discussion was a way for the producers to have publicity for their series, today it has no meaning. Watch and enjoy! All!

EJ_Carrington

11-13-2002, 05:11 AM

Hey Wendell, we're talking about soaps... just entertaining series, not Bergman, nor Fellini....
And Dynasty, like Dallas, like Knots Landing (how could I forgot to include it with the other 3?), like Falcon Crest, were just that, fun...
If I want to see an intellectual story I better watch a great movie, if I just want to take a break and forget daily problems... I watch a TV soap... There's room for everything!

Wendell2002

11-13-2002, 06:06 AM

Or not?
Saying all that, I must make it clear that I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING against Dynasty fans. I still think show is dumb (sorry), but if you like it it's okay. I too was hooked on some dumb shows for some reasons, sometimes just because of some hot chick, or something like that.

I still sure Big D is smarter, more real , etc.. Even J.C. admit Dynasty was mostly about outfits. But if you think otherwise, please , I m really interested to hear why Little D was better in your opinion. I would offer you to come on Dallas' forum if you think that we blackmouthing Dynasty, but I can't because I don't know other members reaction. I can't speak for them, maybe they'll be okay, maybe not. I, for one, absolutely "pro" open discussion.
So no hard feelings, lol.
Both shows good to laugh at, it's just I m always laugh at the youngest one.
http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I must also admit I m not slightly irritated with A. stealing, and after Charmed it only get worse. But I admit I wathced MP though it was absolutely crappy, even compare to Dy, so I m not the only one to throw stones at yu all........

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't. - Good old psycho Jill.... I have something in common with her.

Gianni

11-17-2002, 07:49 PM

Has anyone thought about what Dyansty became by the mid 80's...and what it is know for.

Glamour, Fashion, Money, Parties, Sex.

What did dallas turn into my the mid 80's...it started to switch gears started doing things Dynasty style. Dallas was fighting Dynasty for the number 1. So of course it was going to do this.

And if you tell me I am wrong, just look at the facts.

Wasnt the Ewing clan ok just being normal oil rich people in late 70's to early 80's.

Sue Ellen was driving a station wagon!!!!

they had typical normal rich people stories.

Dynasty went with that but started to make adnormal stories about rich people. By the time 84-85 season role around, the storylines were all over the world. It was Dynasty's number 1 season.

The Following season...Dallas's storylines went all over the world. No Longer was just Texas the place to be, South America, Eurpope, etc was.

The outfits got expensive, the hair, and everything else.

How often did you see the Ewings set the table up anymore.!!!! Like in the first shows. When Sue Ellen was proud to be able to put forks down and didnt want Pam to be part of it.

As for Pam-Krystle miscarriage........TOTALLY DIFFERENT. JR didnt set out to cause Pam to miscarriage, Alexis did.

The only reason the show got called a rip off is in the beginning, probably more before it even premiere. Steven and Fallon was unqiue to Dyansty, Jock's children dont even have the same peronalities as Steven and Fallon.

Krystle isnt a Pam clone. Not even close. The Ewing Family wanted nothing to do with Pam, expect maybe Miss Ellie. Then Lucy came around, and everyone else soon followed.

Steven was quite nice to Krystle in the beginning. Fallon didnt want to lose her father ( A TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASON), and the help treated her like crap. Other than that, there wasnt anymore Carringtons to hate Krystle. By the time Adam, Dominique, Amanda, Ben, etc came. Fallon had gotten over her battle with Krystle.

So in my opinon Dallas and Dynasty has the same roots but totally went into different directions, with sometimes branches crossing each other.

abbylexis

11-18-2002, 04:05 PM

BRAVO! Gianni, you're just like Alexis, you just came on this forum and start to make your point, just like when Alexis came on Dynasty.

Yeah, it's true, Dallas started implementing lots of Dynasty plots when Dynasty beat Dallas, but no one ever says a think about that.

and Wendell, i like you a lot , but I gotta to disagree with you
There's no limit to soap opera, that's what makes a soap opera.

It originally started on the radio's in the 20's as housewife's life fantasies, soaps were created for escapism and escape the reality so yes, there should always be no limits to a soap opera

As a matter of facts, Dallas copied Dynasty. Dynasty started with dallas-like plots when Aaron Stealing realized that it wasn't working, it turned the show into a big joke and that worked.

and yes, Wendell, Aaron stealing steals lots of ideas, when Rescue 77 came out, I had the feelings he copied it from Baywatch and yes, when I saw Charmed, I went like "oh, my God, he's trying to do another buffy"

The way I see it, someone would come up with a hit show, Aaron would come up with the same formula only by adding more fantasies and sexy actors.

A part of the reason why people loved Dynasty was because compared to other shows Dynasty had tons of sexy actors/actresses. So yes, I may love some of his shows, but not a big fan of the guy, because he's not original...

Wendell2002

11-18-2002, 11:11 PM

I don’t think Dallas really copied Dynasty. Yes, it wasn’t more like Die, nasty, in latter years, and now it’s what we Dallas fans call Dallas’s degeneration!

Dallas had 8 seasons that were definitely better than 8 seasons of Dynasty. Die, nasty HAD EIGHT SEASONS!

Please reply to my “Guinnes” post, I need help with this question.
Sexy who? Crystle who looked like 80 years old with this hair? Strangely and ugly lookiing Joan? Or poor Claudia? All we have is two fellons and Heather Locklear... but look at her legs. Yikes!

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't. - Good old psycho Jill.... I have something in common with her.

Wendell2002

11-19-2002, 01:24 AM

Dallas looks like poor cousin-sister with good taste, who looks in shock and disgust at her younger sister, wife of neauvoriche (sorry for spelling), who put on expensive, but tasteless dress that doesn’t become her at all, put on awfull big make-up and all jewelry she could find in house, and looks like Christmas-tree. People laugh at her as they did at Dynasty and Titans... But few poor relatives without taste think that she looks classy because her purple-pink-deepblue dress with sprangles is so bright, and her jewelry is shining! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't. - Good old psycho Jill.... I have something in common with her.

Christine

12-12-2002, 06:35 AM

I think Dynasty started as a copy of Dallas but found its own way later.

Regarding Wendell's point about "stupid" storylines...I agree with Abbylexis that this is typical for soaps. Melrose Place must have been the crappiest show ever but I loved it! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
What I hate though is when shows try to come across as having quality but when you take a closer look you notice that's not the case. I am talking about Dallas here! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I am currently watching a re-run and although I love it I must say it's not any less crappier than Dynasty. It seems to me they always tried so hard to come up with quality storylines but were hardly ever able to handle them well. There are tons of examples like Pamela's depression or Lucy's rape for instance.
On Dynasty however, I never expected to see anything outstanding so I never got disappointed! It certainly was a very enertaining show for nine whole years. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

-------------------------
I've never seen the ocean
-------------------------

abbylexis

12-12-2002, 12:11 PM

right

Wendell2002

12-14-2002, 11:27 PM

Yes, it is right

Expect crap, and got it - crap!
Melrose Place was idiotic....... Only Michael Mancini was worthed watching, what were your reasons, Christine?
I agree Dallas had a LOT of stupidness, but it also had it’s great moments, something Die, Nasty, lacked.......

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't. - Good old psycho Jill.... I have something in common with her.

Brody

12-15-2002, 03:28 AM

Wendell, why do you even bother to post here if you clearly don't like Dynasty? (that's the Dynasty which pushed Dallas off its pedestal, by the way)

If I have to take sides, I take Dynasty's by a mile. When Dynasty was at its best (seasons 3-6) it just went from extreme to extreme, not seeming to stop and think whether it was sensible or realistic, but just going in head strong in the name of entertainment (Which obviously worked - and you cant contest - looking at the was the ratings soared). When Dynasty faltered (seasons 7-8) were the seasons when it became most Dallas-like (i.e. family based issues, trying to tone down the crazyness).

And what were Dallaces "moments of brilliance"? All the great memories of Dallas from the 80s were the publicity blitz of "Who Shot JR?" and the Dream? Stuff that happened on our side of the screen. The actual show, if you watch it in an un-biased way, is really quite boring. Dynasty put everything up on the screen, somewhat shamelessly, but at least it made it a fun and unpredictable show to watch.

At least Dynasty could do outrageous (re: bad) things brilliantly; Dallas couldn't even do realistic things (and important things, like rape and depression) well. Neither could Dynasty - but Dynasty never claimed to, Dallas (and all you fanatics on the Dallas board) did.

---
"Smile that cool Caress smile, and i'll smack you in that cool Caress face"
---

Wendell2002

12-15-2002, 03:46 AM

Maybe it's hard to explain why I m bothering to post here - well, first reason is that I have nothing to do at work http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif, so I m watching throught all Ultimate forums. Second reason is that there was asked question: Why Dynasty was labelled as Dallas rip-off? I knew the answer (or I do know it in my opinion) so I answered. Third and most important - it's because I m bitchy troublemaker I am. But, on other note, Like in Eminem's song "we need a little controversy".

You'll hear more of troublemaker lately.....
Hello, i was on rating-site and there Dynasty topped Dallas for one year only, and next year Dallas is number 5 and Dynasty is not even in the top 5. And a bit lately, there was no Dynasty, At all.

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't.

Christine

12-15-2002, 05:39 AM

I think this thread is a lot of fun! However, let's please play nice! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
I am not too delighted about the word "fanatic" cause it sounds a little offending to me.
But as the word "fan" comes from "fanatic" I guess we are all fan(atic)s here, right? http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'd also like to point out that everyone who watched Dynasty is very welcome to post here. No matter if he/she liked the show or not.

To answer Wendell's question: What kept me going with Melrose Place was Michael Mancini and of course Dynasty's very own Heather Locklear! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Regarding our little controversy here. I couldn't agree more with Colby. As I said before: Dynasty never tried to be a realistic show, however Dallas tried to come across so BUT failed! I definitely prefer the little D over the big one, it's much more fun to watch as I don't have to take it seriously.

Just my 2 cents. http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

-------------------------
I've never seen the ocean
-------------------------

Wendell2002

12-15-2002, 06:05 AM

I don't mind being call fanatic, after all I am, plus of course it's a bit stupid to be fanatic of soap opera as I am, yet again I 'd say it's not Ingmar Bergman's movies.....

Thomas Calabro ROX!

I am glad if <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> I'd also like to point out that everyone who watched Dynasty is very welcome to post here. No matter if he/she liked the show or not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>, it doesn't seem to be this way on Dallas board, and while I personally don't have a problem as I m a big fan, I d like to hear different opinions as well, and I appreciate good catfight when it's not personal.

what I don't get it's how someone can truly believe that Little D had more success in a long run? I mean, ask Guinnes Book of Records.

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't.

Wendell2002

12-15-2002, 06:16 AM

LAURA LEIGHTON
we're again out of topic, Christine
My fault this time http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't.

Brody

12-15-2002, 08:15 AM

Wendell: You. Me. Lily Pond. NOW!!

joke.

I never meant offense using the word fanatic, but (and this shocks me to start with) but I think I agree with Wendell on the fact that if you mention anything remotley anti-Dallas on the Dallas board you get pounced on from all sides. Here everyone can have their own opinion.

And mine is:

The candle that burned brightest burned shortest. Dynasty exploded onto the scene, de-throned the king, and left. Dallas briskly-walked onto the scene, had a spark of coolness with WhoShotJR? But then faded veeeery slowly. It never maintained its status, and never regained it. Cos Dynasty dropped out of the top 10 quicker doesn't make it worse - Dynasty never did anything slowly or moderatlwy: it succeded big, buggered it up big, and dropped out big. Dallas always played it safe - and that makes for admittedly dreary, drossy television.

In my opinion.

---
"Smile that cool Caress smile, and i'll smack you in that cool Caress face"
---

willie oleson

12-15-2002, 10:17 AM

Hi Wendell2002
If you hated Dynasty that much, why did you watch it?
Just a question...

Wendell2002

12-30-2002, 12:51 AM

of why is Dallas so superior compare to Die, nasty. I hope I'll have a time after holidays.
I can answer Willie's question: It wasn't good life that make me watch Die, nasty.....
not good at all.
Compare to all crapola we had (and have) on television, Dynasty looked okay. I mean, God, I even watched CHARMED for crying out aloud, and SANTA BARBARA for Christ sake! We have very rarely anything acceptable, mostly we have to see our own crappy shows and latino american. And latino american can be VERY good, but mostly its' the same story about servant-girl who find out that she's in love with husband of her sister and that she's daughter of owner of the house where she's working.
IF I could watch Dallas 24/7, I would, but it had ended, and I don't even have VCR...... http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

----------------------------------------------------------

I've been trying to feel sorry for you, Val... but I don't.

Christine

12-30-2002, 02:44 AM

I am sorry to hear you were sick, I hope you are fine again!
I am not sure if you noticed that I started an extra topic about Dynasty vs. Dallas...If you wish you are very welcome to post your opinion there! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But maybe you shouldn't read it, I fear you will get all sick again when you learn about my opinion! http://www.soapchat.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

-------------------------
I've never seen the ocean
-------------------------

arouet

01-10-2003, 11:38 PM

So many wrong facts and misconceptions.

Dynasty started out as a copy of "Dallas." There is no shame in admitting that! It does seem Dallas fans hate Dynasty more than the reverse but it also seems Dynasty fans refuse to admit that Dynasty started out as an obvious clone of "Dallas."

It was originally called "Oil." Blake was supposed to be a JR type character. It changed into it's own, but Dynasty fans don't have to constantly plead ignorance about it's origins because they don't want to give Dallas the least bit of credit.

And I also find it annoying to keep hearing from Dynasty fans that "Dynasty" beat "Dallas" in the ratings. "Dallas" was the number one show for 4 years. "Dynasty" was number one for 1. Every single year but 1, "Dallas" beat "Dynasty" in the ratings. It's a triumph, but certainly not what it seems when you look at the whole picture.

I agree with others and I think both shows pumped up each other and it was healthy for both. I liked both shows but I can't think of one good plot on Dynasty that doesn't seem ridiculous today. Dallas still holds up. And the season that Dynasty fans claim that it came back at the end and was really good was not that good, either. I remember it well and I'd say half that season was good and it turned back into a mess at the end.

The season where Dynasty beat Dallas, Dallas did not have a good season creatively. In fact, both had their swan songs at the top during that.

Dallas people HATE Dynasty. They HATE IT and I don't know why. It was a fun show. I watched it and thought it was good for what it was, but this was Collin's baby. She really deserves all the credit.

But Dynasty WAS A DALLAS rip-off. You're not starting at the right spot to compare it. Dallas was in it's 3rd or 4th season when Dynasty started. You compare Dynasty to Dallas's 3rd or 4th seasons, which WERE DIFFERENT from Dallas in the beginning, then you will realize how alike they really were.

You say Sue Ellen was in the station wagon BUT THAT IS ONLY in the first or second season, you're not looking right. The FILTHY RICH aspect of Dallas was stepped up alot after JR was shot. And THAT'S WHAT DYNASTY COPIED, NOT THE FIRST OR SECOND SEASON.

02-28-2003, 04:01 AM

Right said Gianni! And let's not forget the triangle Blake-Krystle-Alexis which ain't there in Dallas!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Gianni:
Has anyone thought about what Dyansty became by the mid 80's...and what it is know for.

Glamour, Fashion, Money, Parties, Sex.

What did dallas turn into my the mid 80's...it started to switch gears started doing things Dynasty style. Dallas was fighting Dynasty for the number 1. So of course it was going to do this.

And if you tell me I am wrong, just look at the facts.

Wasnt the Ewing clan ok just being normal oil rich people in late 70's to early 80's.

Sue Ellen was driving a station wagon!!!!

they had typical normal rich people stories.

Dynasty went with that but started to make adnormal stories about rich people. By the time 84-85 season role around, the storylines were all over the world. It was Dynasty's number 1 season.

The Following season...Dallas's storylines went all over the world. No Longer was just Texas the place to be, South America, Eurpope, etc was.

The outfits got expensive, the hair, and everything else.

How often did you see the Ewings set the table up anymore.!!!! Like in the first shows. When Sue Ellen was proud to be able to put forks down and didnt want Pam to be part of it.

As for Pam-Krystle miscarriage........TOTALLY DIFFERENT. JR didnt set out to cause Pam to miscarriage, Alexis did.

The only reason the show got called a rip off is in the beginning, probably more before it even premiere. Steven and Fallon was unqiue to Dyansty, Jock's children dont even have the same peronalities as Steven and Fallon.

Krystle isnt a Pam clone. Not even close. The Ewing Family wanted nothing to do with Pam, expect maybe Miss Ellie. Then Lucy came around, and everyone else soon followed.

Steven was quite nice to Krystle in the beginning. Fallon didnt want to lose her father ( A TOTALLY DIFFERENT REASON), and the help treated her like crap. Other than that, there wasnt anymore Carringtons to hate Krystle. By the time Adam, Dominique, Amanda, Ben, etc came. Fallon had gotten over her battle with Krystle.

So in my opinon Dallas and Dynasty has the same roots but totally went into different directions, with sometimes branches crossing each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

02-28-2003, 05:33 PM

The reason people who love one show hate the other is because that's just how people are... they like to take hostile sides: US versus THEM, Me vs. You.
But, objectively, there was room for both shows and both programs (despite the oil basis for both families' fortunes) had such different textures to them they were different enough that calling them rip-offs of each other is unnecessary...

True, "Dynasty" would probably never have made it to TV (at least not as we knew it) had it not been for the advent of "Dallas", but then, neither would "Falcon Crest" or any number of other shows, but people only called "Dynasty" the 'rip-off' because it was the show that came the closest to matching "Dallas'" popularity.

And, to be fair, "Dallas" was also effected by "Dynasty" glamour--- let's not forget how middleclass the Ewings' lifestyle was early on. Their downtown offices looked liked dentist offices!! Things like that needed to be upgraded at least a bit, and the competetion with "Dynasty" helped.

Ultimately, the "objective" viewer knows that accusations like "rip-off" don't mean a damn thing if one or both shows aren't doing a decent job of telling their OWN story. "Dallas" did do an excellent job of that (most of the time) but politics behind the camera created the infamous "Pam's Dream" fiasco which damaged the show irreparably, the stories and atmosphere and pacing of the show never recovering; the last two or three seasons becoming a contemptuous (and apparently intentional!!) parody of itself. "Dallas" didn't give a damn anymore and it didn't care if the audience knew it.

And while "Dynasty" started out as a much more lavish, dialogue-rich show full of actor charisma and daring plots for its time, the more popular it got, the scripts started to unravel and the actors were begun to be told to gesture and move in ways that were unnatural and not beneficial to the show (long before Moldavia occured). This caused a cardboard feel to develop about "Dynasty" while at the height of its popularity, and soon, the plots became so horrendous that "Pam's Dream", awful as it was, seemed brilliant in comparison. "Dynasty" simmered in this swill for years, and by the time Aaron Spelling finally fired those long-term writers and brought in a new team for the series' final (good) year, it was too late to save it from the axe.

So when you take that overview of what really happened to both shows-- their strengths, and travestic collapses --- discussions of "rip-offs" seem more or less irrelevant... Had both shows stayed the course, not allowed managerial politics destroy them (which IS what happened) and stayed true to their premises AND respective flavors, I'd have no problem with BOTH "Dallas" and "Dynasty" existing and could credit them with doing their own thing... It would be like comparing "Giant" and "Written on the Wind"-- the only similarity is oil (and Rock Hudson).

04-05-2003, 03:29 PM

Both shows were good and similiar in some ways, they were two very different shows, as anyone who watched them can attest to.

It's no secret Dynasty was created because of the success Dallas had in the late 70's and early 80's, but that doesn't mean it's a ripoff. Knots and Falcon Crest were also created because of Dallas, not similiar by any means to Dallas.

05-10-2004, 05:02 PM

Which ones better? They all crashed in the end badly.

James from London

05-13-2004, 10:55 AM

It does seem as though a lot of (though not all) DALLAS fans take exception to "their" show being associated with DYNASTY, as they see DYNASTY as campy and inferior. However, I think the general public (at least in the UK) have trouble telling the two series apart! Through the Ultimate DALLAS site, I've done three interviews about DALLAS, and each time the interviewer has said something like, "Do you think Joan Collins will return for the film version?" or "What about the scene with the UFO?"!

Perhaps what pisses off some DALLAS fans is that DYNASTY's over the top reputation meant that none of the nighttime soaps were taken seriously. However, none of them were taken that seriously in the UK to begin with!

A titbit from the new "25 Years of DALLAS" book:

"While DALLAS dropped to Number 2 in the overall [1984/5] season ratings, its 24.7 Nielsen rating put it only 0.3 rating points behind the new Number 1 show, DYNASTY, which DALLAS would have topped for the year had DALLAS not aired its Season 7 cliffhager -- which was DALLAS' highest rated episode of the season -- after the official close of the ratings season."

"The [DALLAS season finale] ratings outperformed DYNASTY's cliffhanger (in which the cast were gunned down by terrorists at a European royal wedding), which garnered a 25.9 rating and 39 share, but DALLAS' cliffhanger aired after the official close of the 1984-85 season and was therefore not considered in the year's seasonal rankings."

05-13-2004, 06:19 PM

Curran's partly correct. If the full year of episodes had been counted, DALLAS would have won the 84/85 season by a smidgen, but because both shows' original episodes outlasted the "official" ratings season period, DYNASTY was considered the winner.
But it wasn't the cliffhanger episodes that made the difference; they both aired in May 1985 the same week.

Christine

05-17-2004, 12:24 AM

James, it's the same here. Most people can't tell the two shows apart in Germany!
A year ago or so we had these shows paying tribute to the 80's and in one of the shows they talked about Dallas. The HOST of the show said something like this: Oh, wasn't Catherine Oxenberg so pretty?
Ha ha ha!

denvertrash

05-21-2004, 05:47 PM

was dynasty classified a dallas rip-off, yes it was but personally i do not se it myself. Whenever something new is sucessful, there will always be imitation. That is a fact in the tv industry gain sucess by capitalising on a popular show. Also you have to give dynasty credit for staying a popular show for 9 years, by the early 80s dozens of dallas rip-off were on air and were quickly cancelled, but dynasty wasn't and just the fact that it survived shows that it is much more than a show riding on dallas's sucess. Imitation is an artform and sometimes they travel away from their predecessors and become sucessfull in their own right.

Colbyco

05-22-2004, 05:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Wendell2002:
Dallas had 8 seasons that were definitely better than 8 seasons of Dynasty. Die, nasty HAD EIGHT SEASONS!
Please reply to my “Guinnes” post, I need help with this question.
Sexy who? Crystle who looked like 80 years old with this hair? Strangely and ugly lookiing Joan? Or poor Claudia? All we have is two fellons and Heather Locklear... but look at her legs. Yikes! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-Dynasty had 9 seasons and all of them were better than all the Dallas-episodes! Of course Dynasty copied storylines from Dallas and Dallas copied storylines from Dynasty. In every soap you´ll see storys you know from another soap. I think most of the Dallas-fans hate Dynasty, because this was the only show who ever beatet Dallas. They don´t hate KL -because this is a real rip-off and they don´t hate Lorimars Falcon Crest. And Dynasty was the only show who was a real rival -because it was shown on "ABC" and not on "CBS" like the other Prime-Time-Soaps of the 80´s... and Dallas also copied Dynasty´s style and glamour (L. Hagman called this Dallas´ Dynasty-year).

-Krystle was a real beauty. Her hair was copied endlessly.
Alexis the sexiest bitch on TV. Which other woman could be photographed with 50 for the "Playboy"?
the other beauty actresses: Heather Locklear (Sammy Jo), Catherine Oxenberg (Amanda), Diahann Caroll (Dominique), Emma Samms (Fallon II), Tracy Scoggins (Monica), Leann Hunley (Dana)...
the only pretty person on Dallas was Mandy Winger (Deborah Shelton) and April.

## Also Dynasty brought a gay-character and a black bitch in Prime-Time. It had style, glamour, humor & action. ##

James from London

05-22-2004, 08:13 AM

This "My show's bigger than your show" attitude is so silly. How on earth does Joan Collins getting her bosoms out for Playboy make DYNASTY a better series than DALLAS?! I preferred to DALLAS to DYNASTY. I don't hate DYNASTY. I don't care that DYNASTY was more popular at one time than DALLAS - I preferred KNOTS LANDING to both of them, which wasn't remotely popular in my country and that doesn't detract from my enjoyment in the slightest! There were "beauty women" on both DALLAS and DYNASTY. Who cares whether Catherine Oxenberg was prettier than Many Winger? Ultimately, they were all pretty plastic looking. (Not that that's necessarily a bad thing ...)

Denvertrash, isn't saying that DYNASTY imitated DALLAS simply a polite way of saying it ripped DALLAS off? I'm not criticising DYNASTY for that. I think it's a really fun show. There was room enough for both soaps, and if you like one more than the other, that's cool.

I'm not sure how KNOTS LANDING was "the real rip off" of DALLAS, Colbyco?

abbylexis

05-22-2004, 01:00 PM

When I wrote this thread a year ago, it was really because i was tired of the Dallas fans bashing Dynasty.

In fact, I hate all that soap catfights. Dallas call Dynasty a rip-off, Falcon Crest sees Dynasty as more over the top and knots Landing acts as the saint.

I enjoyed all primetime soaps.

Watched Dallas twice, now in my third run
Knots Landing 6 times, now in my seventh
Dynasty twice, now in my third
Falcon Crest four times
Melrose Place, five times

I really enjoyed each one and I don't get why some respective soap fan (Dallas, Dynasty, KL, FC) get mad when their soap gets labelled as an over the top trash.

Like James, said they were all trash, over the top, campy and entertaining. The question was which producers/writers were able to make the storylines more enjoyable. and yes, Knots Landing did escapism better

I actually think that those who try to be "close-minded" about this are missing a lot from watching other soaps.

Each primetime soap while playing the rules of the games brought something unique to the table and that's what makes it interesting. and that's why I don't think Dynasty was a carbon copy of Dallas. They were both soaps and had to play with the themes of Greed, Lust, Infidelity, dysfunctionality (if that's a word) and over the top camp. But each show is different.