Discussion in 'CW Dynasty Episode Threads' started by tommie, Nov 2, 2018.
I will put the first season of DYNASTY next to absolutely any drama and will dare anyone to try and convince me something is better. After that, it became a soap opera, and it definitely had its over-the-top moments, but it was fun, and for the first few years it was confident of what it wanted to do, and I liked what it was doing. This peach reboot is suffering from multiple personality disorder, the likes of which I only saw on DYNASTY's 7B season. But if somebody enjoys it, I guess good for them.
It's funny, because that is also a soap opera I watch. I sometimes will not watch many weeks' worth of episodes, and there were periods of years that I even did not keep up, but after 30 years of watching it, it has been part of my daily routine. But daytime soaps in the US are dying--we may not even have a single one in five years, because of many changes in demographics, the network landscape, etc.
If somebody asks me, "what is good TV," I will not answer with any soap (again, barring the amazing first season of DYNASTY) because I objectively know they are not. But same as with any other things we fall in love/believe in (crushes, religion, causes, etc.), the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of, in the words of Pascal.
Soapy is a state of mind. If you want to mine someone´s own-assurance, just tell them "But do you really watch THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT?" And they´ll blush up, unless they are usual suspects here, who are loud and proud.
"Good morning..." (You got it? If you do, you ARE one of US)
What is good TV?
And wasn't that written by a mentally highly disturbed person and murderer?
You asked for it.
For suspense, the first season of Damages, an FX series which was trail-blazing in so many aspects, including the non-linear narrative that so many shows now copycat.
For drama, Once and Again, an ABC show which had emotion without the excess which characterizes many shows that want to showcase it, and it was the first to have characters directly address the audience in interviews.
And combining drama and suspense, the first season of Murder One, which was a clever, sophisticated and multi-layered show that had no business being on network TV, much less against verisimilitude &attention-deficit-disorder ER.
For sitcoms, the British Coupling ,because Freud said that humour is always a basically aggressive act and Americans just can't pull it off without pulling punches (although Veep tries).
And for science fiction, which is my favorite genre though also the one that produces the most garbage, my favorite is Babylon 5 for the ground-breaking five year arc no other show had done before, as well for the amazing character development it had its characters go through (and despite Strazynski's often pompous dialogue and Boxleitner's always pompous acting).
You seem to focus on "new" and "ground-breaking" or is that my misinterpretation?
I like creativity in narrative and character depiction, so I think you are right. I could substitute some with others--for instance, instead of "Coupling" I could have had "Yes, Minister" which had even more acerbic humor. I just wanted to give a good sample in each genre I liked.
Most certainly. The not-obvious-to-newbies payback here being for O.Alexis kicking Blake & wife out of their mansion and dropping Krystle’s furs on the ground. Alas, Blake lacked the strength to well and truly strangle her!
Yeah, I sorta recall that now. Didn’t she say that during the argument they had after the first time they slept together? ….Since hell is never ever supposed to get cold, she meant never again. But they hooked up again, lol. Like Sable and Zack on The Colbys, only then it was raining their first time, and Sable showed her true colours about what she really wanted.
Could Tony the gardener – here to remind us of his original Tony Driscoll self & that nuJoseph Anders is walking in Roger Grimes’s shoes – be nu-affable Adam, unknown even to himself? Thoughts, anyone?
I'd like to add I didn't follow suit as I can make my own mind up if I liked a particular episode or not. There were parts of Episodes 1, 2 and 3 I enjoyed as I've noted on this site. But Snowflakes In Hell was just awful from go to whoa. A case in point is Fallon. I didn't appreciate her smart mouth last season but in the first 3 episodes of this season she grew on me. The character was better for being away from her family. Snowflakes In Hell placed her right back to where I don't like her.
NuCristal needs a hot brother to keep us watching. I found him. Behold our new special guest star! His name is Rafael Amaya. Now make it a reality, producers!
his younger days with longer hair:
Pulling out a Streisand, "I finally found someone" who thinks the same as me about "Damages"!
There has always been a pejorative ring to the term "soap" or "soap opera" largely because of decades of daytime soaps (and radio serials before that) which were seen as wildly melodramatic and repetitive and slowly paced shaggy dog stories -- an image enhanced by the fact they had to churn out one episode per day on cheap videotape, if they were even recorded at all.
Yes, there may have been a lot of talent on both sides of the camera, but the format was considered shabby and disposable -- rightly or wrongly.
That's probably why I (and other people who didn't get into the daytime shows) took to the big four '80s nighttime soaps when they happened --- they were shot on high quality 35mm film and aired only once a week so there was little room for filler or time-killers. And the big four were well-cast, like little ongoing movies and, for a while, knew what they were about. (Which is why it was so painful when the '80 nighttime soaps eventually decided they were daytime soaps after all post-1985).
Basically, a soap is anything that's got a continuing storyline --- which is why today all shows of all genre, including reality and performance competition shows, are basically "soap." But they only use the term now for scripted shows which focus on a family.
Anyway, because of the "melodrama" label associated with soap opera, there have always been accusations of their being "unrealistic" -- but they are really more realistic; back when nighttime dramas were all episodic with no serialization (or usually even basic continuity) as they were in the '50s, '60s and '70s, if a lead character was shot in the arm twice a year, the very next week they were just fine. But soaps would show the consequences -- at least some consequences --- of gunfire or anything else.
I think that greater realism of soaps is exactly why soaps are considered less so: it invitees you to compare it to reality in a way episodic dramas do not, so the stand-alone episodic drama is rewarded for it.
Absolutely true. But ironically the late 70s/early 80s, when night time soaps started appearing, is also when daytime soaps had their highest ratings.
DALLAS (and later DYNASTY and the rest) reshaped TV storytelling for decades to come. Before them, sitcoms certainly did not have continuing arcs, nor did doctor and cop shows etc. Now it is near impossible to find shows without them.
This was clearly a throw-away episode and hopefully just a gap between ending the Melissa storyline, Van Kirks and the start of Michaels storyline.
I don't get why they had to take it Paraguay - couldn't they have done a Habitat for Humanity instead of trying to fake an South American country (really badly)?
Also, I hate the Michael storyline - it reminds me too much of the GI Dex storylines of original Dynasty that I was not a fan of.
I really like NuCristal to be honest. I guess not being completely stale helps.
Might this have been the going away episode for James McKay the actor, and not for the character Steven?
The risk though Tommie is how this impacts their viewers. Many (not all) may have found that episode the final nail in the coffin and will not return. Is that risk worth it? Judging by the ratings (U.S.) it looks like Dynasty is failing each week.
Perhaps Netflix is their saving grace because it's not a Netflix production.
such as cwDynasty...
gets put on a pedestal ….because it's sheer escapism, so wildly embraced?
Edited to add: "I think that greater realism of soaps is exactly why soaps are considered less so" -- do you mean soaps are considered inferior?
@Snarky's Ghost I don't understand the last para/sentence of your post.
Yet Dynasty gets a 'Netflix Original' label and I don't know how.
I've noted this myself and it's just not Dynasty which receives this treatment. I've always been curious why?
Separate names with a comma.