On Ebay, the script of the first episode of "The Colbys" is on sale. Interestingly, the name of the actors are mentioned in one of the page (see the attached file) and instead of Ken Howard, the name of Ron Howard is mentioned. It must be a mistake but it is quite amusing I think. Also, the actor playing Henderson (the butler) is not Ivan Bonar but Ben Hartigan. A last-minute change probably.
There are (a lot of) misspelled names too ! I think Ken Howard would have been a better Brady and Billy Dee Williams a better Garett (and maybe a black actor was missing on the Colbys).
Undoubtedly. A friend gave me a copy of a document called "The Colby Diagnostic", dated from december 1986, which came from the materials donated by Paul Huson and William Bast to UCLA. The diagnostic was made by ABC among 300 regular viewers of "The Colbys" in order to see which characters (and storylines) were popular. Dominique was indeed very popular (despite the fact she was just in a few episodes), she was actually ranked 5th after Jason, Jeff, Sable (yes, Sable was ONLY third !!), Fallon and BEFORE Francesca (who was ranked in a respectable 6th place), Miles, Monica, Zach and Bliss (who unsurprisingly was not very popular). Amazingly, despite the popularity of Dominique, she never came in "the Colbys". Yet, according to the story projection (or bible) of the second season, Dominique was supposed to make other apperances later in the season (in order to make Sable jealous, Zach was to make a play for Dominique).
You could filter out all her scenes and still not miss any of the Dynasty story. Her confrontations with Alexis were never really that funny, so I wonder, what was it about Dominique that made her so popular in the first place? And more popular than Miles???
According to the Diagnostic, Miles was not that popular, at least not until the writers wrote him "more favorably" towards the end of the 1st season. Also, a quarter of the audience did not like Miles' involvement into Jeff and Fallon's storylines. Most of the viewers hoped that Fallon's baby was Jeff's and not Miles'. Also, almost half of the audience wanted to see Jason getting rid of Sable for good.
Oh yeah, it's so much more fun when they don't get involved (roll eyes) I liked Jeff/Fallon/Miles/Channing as the quartet of very beautiful, very rich and very miserable people.
I agree, that's why this kind of diagnostic is not really relevant. I assume ABC did the same with "Dynasty" (and I even heard the netword did some enquiry during season 7, leading to have some characters like Ben and Clay being written out) but these document are not avalaible unfortunately. And of course The CW must do it as well, hence the firing of both Cristals...
They could try to write her as a more likeable character instead of blaming the actresses. I guess the Blake & Cristal scheme was necessary to outsmart Michael, but I would have preferred a spectacular and messy divorce (and how would Alexis influence that storyline?)
That sort of audience testing can be sooooooooooo corrosive to the creative process. Some of the best shows in TV history have initially tested very badly. And any kind of complex "conflict" story which could be potentially wonderful will often test badly. I wonder how many of DYNASTY's we-don't-want-to-flesh-out-this-idea plotlines were deep-sixed, or dropped prematurely, for this reason.
Because many people want instant gratification instead of anticipation. They want to see it, and then forget all about it.
Exactly. And yet, a little bit of frustration is actually much more addictive. That's why Gary and Val's relationship in "Knots Landing" was so good. Because the writers did not give the audience wanted to see (at least not until the end of season 11).
Because what they wanted (or thought they wanted) isn't what they really wanted. Even more reason to ignore these kind of test-viewers.
But when does a show run these kinds of tests? I think when its show-runners do not have confidence in what they do, or face network pressure, or are not that involved. Esther Shapiro had written the whole first season (up to Krystle leaving Blake--the Ted Dinard last two episodes were written after the series started filming) so no audience testing could matter--and that season was Dynasty's best in terms of plot cohesion and character consistency and development. Then as soon as the network demanded retooling at the end of season one, out were Matthew and Lindsay and Lankershim. But did the audience not like them because they were middle class (Esther's explanation on the DVD) or because their stories were not as captivating? After all, audiences liked the "Mile High" title best, and "Dynasty" was number 6, but in the end Esther went with her gut and chose that one.
I don't think Lindsay is that hard to believe the audience disliking and Walt was just kind of... there. Matthew though? I assume viewers were rooting for Blake and Krystle and just wanted him off the show since he was too complex and it wasn't a black and white situation where Blake was the end goal for Krystle. In comes the disgruntled ex wife who's clearly evil.
Dynasty had a sizeable African-American audience, which is part of the reason they brought Diahann on in the first place. I guess the same applied to The Colby's.
Yes. And the good thing, there was no social media at the time. Imagining fans ranting about "Valry" like they do about "Falliam" on twitter now...
Dominque should have been brought over to the Colbys immediately or at the very least at the beginning of Season 02 (07 of Dynasty). She was completely wasted on Dynasty in her final year.
