The first seasons of Dynasty and Dallas - arty

[Pamela Barnes]

I don't think they would be artsy cult viewing, I don't think they would be seen at all- they'd be completely forgotten about. I remember being interested in Dynasty just from the commercials before it aired- and it was because of Evans, she had a certain X factor, she was stunning, yet she was older- after the jiggle of Charlies Angels, Threes Company, etc., which had been on and dominated the airwaves, it seemed sophisticated and different having this older crowd on TV

To go on about episode five of Dallas, I don't think it would be a mainstream show if it went down that route but I do feel there was a unique quality about it. Sue Ellen was interesting, her horseback diva with JR, her drinking with the old women, Digger's drunk routine, Jocks stubbornness, JR's vicious tongue. There was a quality about it, the characters were well drawn. It would not be everyone's thing but I loved it. Katzman perhaps made it somewhat mainstream, of course that made it a huge success.

[James from London]

Sort of in keeping with Snarky's 70s-ness description, is it possible that DALLAS and DYNASTY were both originally cut, at least from a TV grammar standpoint, from the same cloth as the US mini-series (or, as my mother nostalgically refers to them, "Best Sellers") that immediately preceded them; ROOTS and RICH MAN, POOR MAN? The first five eps of DALLAS and thirteen of DYNASTY could easily have been adaptations of novels -- there's something instantly saga-ish about them. And had they not been renewed, they could have (kinda, sorta) worked as one off dramas. With both shows, you don't feel like you're watching the beginning of a franchise, but a work that is complete in itself. And there's a confidence which goes along with that kind of story-telling. There's a strong sense of place and every character that's introduced is utilised to the full; there's not a wimp or a Bliss Colby amongst them.

I watched the first episode of REVENGE last week and that has a similar sort of vibe, albeit in a more 80s LACE kind of way. There's a large cast of characters, most of them young and pretty, but somehow they don't feel faceless and generic. You just know they're each there to serve a specific purpose.

[Pamela Barnes]

I totally agree about the saga element, but I feel that element went on to a degree, especially when Bobby died. That 'end' almost felt like how the story was to be told, everything was leading up to his demise so the mini series Pamela was now holding a major share of Ewing Oil. Maybe that was just me.

I'm not sure what it was about those shows in the 70's. There was something a bit more relaxed, even bad acting seemed to at times assist with the general feel of it. Fallon in Dynasty and Jeff just seemed to be enjoying it. Not sure if that was the style of acting or they were just told to have fun.

An another example is Bionic Woman. Lindsay Wagner just seemed natural, having fun, whereas its contemporary version was all serious and polished.

[SnarkyOracle!]

is it possible that DALLAS and DYNASTY were both originally cut, at least from a TV grammar standpoint, from the same cloth as the US mini-series (or, as my mother nostalgically refers to them, "Best Sellers") that immediately preceded them; ROOTS and RICH MAN, POOR MAN? The first five eps of DALLAS and thirteen of DYNASTY could easily have been adaptations of novels -- there's something instantly saga-ish about them. And had they not been renewed, they could have (kinda, sorta) worked as one off dramas. With both shows, you don't feel like you're watching the beginning of a franchise, but a work that is complete in itself. And there's a confidence which goes along with that kind of story-telling. There's a strong sense of place and every character that's introduced is utilised to the full;

That's pretty much it. And that post-70s-miniseries flavor even infects early Season 2 of DYNASTY.