The Rise and Fall of Dynasty --- Why TV's Most Glamorous Show Couldn't Last

[Snarky Oracle!]

It's not super-brilliant, but this recent video says some things we don't usually hear (unless it's here).

It's a bit truncated, though. We could use a few extra minutes.

BTW: the Moldavian massacre episode pulled a 26 rating in America (multiply times ~1.5).

 

[Willie Oleson]

This video could only be made by a (former) tellytalk member. That's why it makes a lot of sense.

Moldavia, not even its awful aftermath, is what destroyed Dynasty. It was the disappearance of the story's self-critique (Pamela Sue Martin even described it as "satire").
A great example is Krystle's unintentional and awkward sales-pitch to Matthew Blaisdel (of all characters) in season 1. She didn't even understand what she was saying and it perfectly highlights a sense of corruption.
Five years later, DC and the Carringtons have become the Wholesome Ones and Krystle could say the same lines and mean it.
But Dynasty and the eighties became an osmosis that could not have been foreseen, and even with better writers I'm not entirely convinced that the Dynasty narrative dictated by its merchandise could have been avoided.

So, I prefer to make the distinction between boring Moldavia nonsense and exciting Rita nonsense, and that's why I'll always keep defending that part of Dynasty.
But, whatever.

It could be argued that Blake not really paying the price for Ted Dinard's death was the first "Moldavia", but the soap brilliance here is: it was Krystle who paid the price.
Krystle's suffering is the real engine of Dynasty, and of course I don't mean the eventful episodic suffering like accidents and hostage stories. The suffering needed to be about Dynasty itself.
I had never really thought of it before - and I still think season 3 looks great - but the third chapter in the Dynasty Trilogy aka "Adam" didn't have much impact on Krystle.
So, in a way, yes, that's where it all started to go wrong. And that's how Krystle ended up in a burning cabin instead of suffering the consequences of Adam's return.
And of course it really didn't help to end the in-house feud with her opposing stepdaughter.

It's not necessarily about Krystle versus Alexis, it's about Krystle being trapped in the world of the Carringtons, desperately trying to convince herself that she did the right thing. That she listened to Matthew Blaisdel's lie.
And then there's Sammy Jo who tries to make the best of the Carrington lifestyle, and in the most amoral way possible. She's a bit underrated when it comes to analysing Dynasty.

 

[Rove]

It's not necessarily about Krystle versus Alexis, it's about Krystle being trapped in the world of the Carringtons, desperately trying to convince herself that she did the right thing.

And that's how I viewed those early years of Dynasty. I'd say the rise and fall of Dynasty began and ended with Alexis Carrington because just like that other 80's supersoap it became a one man woman show. Sure the introduction of Alexis was a masterstroke but the longer she stayed the more she over-stayed her welcome.

 

[Willie Oleson]

the longer she stayed the more she over-stayed her welcome.

Her war against her ex-husband seemed justified, but the character became stagnated. And because of her immense popularity - because Joan Collins played it so entertainingly - the makers of Dynasty misinterpreted that success as the very result of that stagnation.
Repetition in soap is not a problem as long as you can find new and entertaining angles to show more of the same, but Alexis was not seriously challenged.
I don't mean making her look more sympathetic but they should have fed her with more reason to be that kind of person - which is why it worked so wonderfully for Sable in The Colbys. She plotted and schemed, it backfired and then she had to scheme harder.

A much more extreme, and also more entertaining version of the resident bitch was Patricia Hamilton in Sons & Daughters.
Her storylines went in many different directions and she actually made attempts to better herself, but it always ended in tears and hatred and lust for revenge.
You knew how bad she was and yet somehow she managed to surprise us, over and over again.
It was a soap masterpiece.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Season 3 benefitted from the fact that the writers still seemed interested in their characters, but not really too much in Season 4. And as I've said before, S.A.D. subtly sabotages anything that had potential -- it may be the most corrosive creative choice DYNASTY ever made because, among other things, it stops the actors from selling the flawed script material.

And, despite Alexis' flamboyant scene-stealing, so goes Krystle so goes DYNASTY. But Eileen Pollock seemed downright contemptuous of the actor and the character, and the showrunners soon lost -- or never had -- any interest in writing for a "nice" character. (When Linda asked the Pollocks to allow Krystle to do more interesting things, she was told no ... so it's back to pouring coffee over all those bouquets). How could the producers not understand that the yin-yang between the two ladies was the key? And that Krystle's poetic tragedienne made Alexis' dazzling sociopathy more interesting.

It was Biblical. For about 10 minutes.

But after that 3x3 scene in the kitchen as Alexis is preparing to leave the property and marry Cecil, you never really saw great verbal spat between the two women for eons. Yes, they'd talk about each other constantly, but it's not like JR and Cliff Barnes who only had a face-to-face meeting once or twice a year... These two archetypal women have to be at the near edge of emotional violence on a bi-episodic basis.

S.A.D. doomed even the rare tongue-fights they did.

Krystle's Season 9 scene in the bistro with Sable, when the latter 'accidentally' reveals the identity of the body in the lake, haunts me a little bit: how the scene could have worked so much better -- with no change in script or direction -- had the Linda of Seasons 1 or 2 been delivering Krystle's lines. Instead, we get that airy falsetto, and it hurts the scene; S.A.D. had been dropped by Season 8 but, for some reason, nobody remembered to tell Linda.

But A-V malformations tend to do that. After Krystle stops throwing those plates down the hall, outrageous though the moment is, I find that -- only seconds later -- when Blake is trying to soothe her, and Krystle gets a confused close-up set to minimalist piano tinkling in the score, is a little eerie. In my head, and perhaps Krystle's, it has something profound to do with what happened to the show.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Yes, there is bitter irony in the fact that Krystle continued to suffer from the dynasty, but only in a meta sort of way.

I do like her return to the mansion in The Reunion. There's something truly haunting about it, including the way the cliffhanger disaster is being misremembered and how it explains away the new look of the entrance hall. Or why 1989 became "three years ago" in 1991, adding another unseen year to the super soap.
It's almost as if Krystle herself has been misremembering Dynasty, and what does that say about what we saw on screen?

 

[Ked]

It could be argued that Blake not really paying the price for Ted Dinard's death was the first "Moldavia", but the soap brilliance here is: it was Krystle who paid the price.
Krystle's suffering is the real engine of Dynasty, and of course I don't mean the eventful episodic suffering like accidents and hostage stories. The suffering needed to be about Dynasty itself.
I had never really thought of it before - and I still think season 3 looks great - but the third chapter in the Dynasty Trilogy aka "Adam" didn't have much impact on Krystle.
So, in a way, yes, that's where it all started to go wrong. And that's how Krystle ended up in a burning cabin instead of suffering the consequences of Adam's return.
And of course it really didn't help to end the in-house feud with her opposing stepdaughter.

That's got me wondering... how could Krystle have been affected by Adam's arrival? She could have gotten involved in trying to prove Adam poisoned Jeff, which could have served as a building block for Krystle and Fallon's upcoming friendship (which should have had a slower burn). It would also provide more opportunity for Krystle to lock horns with Alexis, too.

Or what if Krystle ended up becoming extremely fond of Kirby? I mean, Steven was Krystle's only friend in the mansion at first, but with him gone, it would have been nice for her to have a fellow "outsider" to bond with, and Kirby would have been the perfect candidate. This of course would lead into Krystle finding out much sooner that Adam has not only been stalking Kirby, but also raped her, which causes Krystle to get involved in trying to prove Adam's guilt and have Blake disown him (which would drive Alexis WILD with rage, to the point where she'd accuse Kirby of lying).

Oh, and if we keep in Kirby secretly being a social-climbing viper who throws in Fallon's face that she's not only going to marry Jeff, but also get full custody of LB, then this would prolong the Fallon/Krystle feud, with the former accusing the latter of "being in league with the enemy" or something.

And then there's Sammy Jo who tries to make the best of the Carrington lifestyle, and in the most amoral way possible. She's a bit underrated when it comes to analysing Dynasty.

Agreed. Everyone talks about Alexis' entrance in Season 2, but honestly, Sammy Jo was also an extremely welcome addition that same year, what with her worming her way into Steven's heart, blackmailing Alexis (TWICE, no less) and managing to out-bitch Fallon by silencing her with the revelation that she might not be Blake's daughter.

And, of course, there was also this scene:

 

[Monzo]

The video and the Moldavian Massacre as the focal point of Dynasty's decline makes me wonder: what would have happened if the Moldavian Massacre had never occurred? What would TV experts and fans point to as the "jump the shark" moment instead? Perhaps the Rita plot? The wedding in Moldavia could have gone off without a hitch, with Galen advising his son to live in Denver for a while due to political unrest back home (so that Amanda and Michael wouldn't have to leave the show). The actual season finale could have centered on Krystle’s kidnapping and Rita’s first appearance at the Carringtons.

Season 5 of Dynasty was essentially like a game of Jenga—more and more (bad) elements were piled on: a Fallon replacement (Amanda), a sick Rock Hudson, a miscast Ali MacGraw, the fantasy world of Moldavia, Krystle's doppelgänger, an unsuitable Fallon recast. Eventually, the tower was bound to collapse, and that moment arrived in season 6 with the Rita storyline and the next best guest star George Hamilton. I don't think The Colbys hurt Dynasty that much. In my home country of Germany, the network decided not to air The Colbys (though a small cable channel did broadcast it later), yet Dynasty's ratings dropped regardless in season 6.

As for the anchor mentioned in the video—for me, there never really was one, and for years, that was exactly the right approach. The show made us enjoy the ride, only to realize later that having an anchor might not have been such a bad idea after all.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Season 5 of Dynasty was essentially like a game of Jenga—more and more (bad) elements were piled on: a Fallon replacement (Amanda), a sick Rock Hudson, a miscast Ali MacGraw, the fantasy world of Moldavia, an unsuitable Fallon recast. Eventually, the tower was bound to collapse, and that moment arrived in season 6 with the Rita storyline

The question here is: was R.I.T.A. disliked so much because it was jarringly and unforgivably bad regardless of Dynasty's status quo, or because it was an extremely far-fetched storyline on top of the growing disenchantment that was season 5?
Perhaps jump-the-sharks-moments are overrated as isolated cases. Of course it's possible that an incredibly stupid and damaging decision happens out of the blue, but it can also be a more noticeable manifestation of a decline that has been going on for quite a while.

For me, season 4 is the first part of Dynasty when I can no longer ignore it, but just because I can ignore it in season 3 doesn't mean it wasn't already happening right there and then.
Heck, some people might point at the bizarre Logan Rhinewood plot and Cecil's inconsistent motives, or even the transformation from cinematic seventies drama to "mansion soap". It's just that the good writing and investment in their characters was still very much at the forefront, and Logan Rhinewood seemed mercifully brief.
More importantly, blind & fake-blind Blake Carrington was terrific soap, and in a way it foreshadows the psychological and illogical blindness when he didn't realise that his wife had been replaced with an actress. Where's that poison-pen letter when you need it. Ha.

There's that intentional dramedy moment in season 3 when Krystle and Alexis are unknowingly fitting for exactly the same La Mirage opening dress.
From Biblical good vs. evil to "charmingly funny" signals that it shouldn't be taken too seriously. BUT....it was a moment, and again that makes it easy to ignore (unless you don't want to ignore it because you think it's entertaining. I'm not dictating how other fans should feel).
But then we also get the Blake/Alexis/Neal McVane double-crossing blackmail scheme that looks beyond lame and nonsensical.

R.I.T.A. may have been a lot of things, but it certainly wasn't lame (except for the brusque and unsatisfying conclusion).

Losing Pamela Sue Martin as Fallon was a bummer, but I think that the victim-y Fallon suited the story in The Colbys. She was not one of their movers and shakers and I'm kinda glad that PSM didn't have to play those stories. She'd already done too much of that in season 4.
Therefore I consider the recast a blessing in disguise, and shaping up "Fallon" for her return to Dynasty was good timing.
The UFO is possibly the worst thing that happened in these soaps but it didn't get the chance to destroy anything since The Colbys was cancelled anyway.
I think it looks great, not mention mind-blowing, so if you're going to destroy your soap at least do it with flair. I've watched it many, many times and it always looks new and shocking to me. I guess it's the quintessential guilty pleasure.

In my home country of Germany, the network decided not to air The Colbys (though a small cable channel did broadcast it later), yet Dynasty's ratings dropped regardless in season 6.

In the Netherlands, Dynasty moved from prime time to daytime, but that had nothing to do with a decline in popularity. The Veronica broadcaster wanted to focus on the more hip and youthful stuff like Miami Vice, and Dynasty was supposed to be considered "cancelled" after season 5. Eventually they succumbed to a nationwide protest, and I still get a bit misty-eyed and proud when I think about "myyyy people" (to quote the miscast Charlton Heston in Ben Hur) bringing Dynasty back to our TV screens.
Perhaps this contributes to the idea that Dutch viewers kept loving Dynasty till the very end. Why walk away from it after all the efforts to bring it back?
American viewers have that luxury because they never really lose anything as long as the episodes are being produced. The spoilt brats!

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I'd still bring in Emma Samms as a Fallmont. The need for her to be Blake's daughter on THE COLBYS was minimal by this point. She could have been anybody.

Season 5 was the splashiest DYNASTY ever got -- including its "look" (Richard Rawlings photographed faces, in Season 1 thru 4, so much better than Michel Hugo did after that --- but Season 5 was Hugo's best-looking work; and then they get into that late-'80s Telecine mess which made Hugo's work look even worse, complicated further in Season 8 where Linda's and Joan's closeups were ridiculously blurry, no doubt dictated by the producers -- even though Linda & Joan still looked great everywhere else).

Season 5 versus Season 8, same cameraman:

Season 5 was the only year where the old "so-crazy-that-it's-fun" might apply. Maybe.

s for the anchor mentioned in the video—for me, there never really was one, and for years, that was exactly the right approach. The show made us enjoy the ride, only to realize later that having an anchor might not have been such a bad idea after all.

I'm not sure it was exactly the right approach. We were bitching about these issues from the outset of Season 3, making it quite hard to enjoy that ride. And yet I masochistically stayed until the end long after everybody else had stopped watching -- just so I could reach wonderful Season 9.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

The person who was allowed to destroy DYNASTY.



I'm convinced she set up Ed Ledding to be fired at the end of Season 1 not because he was a bad line producer but because he was a good one, and she didn't want him around. (Ledding was the only key staffer there for Season 2 who was not there for Season 3, and the tonal shift downward was instantaneous). I'm also convinced that the static acting directive was implemented by her. She also had nothing but contempt for Krystle and for the actress who played her.

Rita Lakin, a good writer who worked unhappily on Season 7, said the Pollocks "weren't really proper writers" and yet Eileen Pollock was made the showrunner because the Pollocks were the Shapiros' camping buddies. (The Pollocks left for ten seconds at the beginning of Season 5 but were called back by Esther). On the '70s daytime soap THE DOCTORS, the Pollocks were known for good casting and promising story concepts, but also for a terrible sense of pacing and detail (leading Esther to refer to them as "brilliant constructionists" while nasty queen Doug Cramer credited DYNASTY's success to Joan, Nolan, and the Pollocks, Cramer sneering that "nobody probably remembers Pamela Sue Martin and Al Corley" which is ridiculous).

Like Richard Shapiro, apparently Bob Pollock was a passive husband who wrote in the corners. And she probably demanded those uber-blurry close-ups in Season 8.

How could DYNASTY, and its original uniqueness, possibly survive?

Everyone on earth -- the fans, the press, etc.-- seemed to know what DYNASTY should and could be. Except for the woman running it.

Aaron Spelling just had his manservant serve him lunch in his office.

 

[lbf522]

Making Alexis a business mogul overnight did not help and I never got the reason for Adam's nastiness toward just about everyone including Jeff. I did not like Fallon betraying Blake the way she did when that police detective was making a pest of himself going after him.

I agree with most of what has been said. Linda Evans hated that doppleganger storyline. Diahann Caroll was wasted after her initial introduction as Blake's sister which is a shame. There were possibilities with her character.

 

[Laurie Marr]

That ‘We are Carringtons’ speech by Blake in the opening episode of Season 5 was so absurd and yet it wasn’t pitched as satire. Previously there was a Fallon or Steven or Matthew to prick the pomposity and the hypocrisy. Not now. The show became unmoored from that point onwards and the subsequent massacres and doppelgängers could easily splash across the screens because the show had no idea what story it wanted to tell.

 

[Willie Oleson]

That ‘We are Carringtons’ speech by Blake in the opening episode of Season 5 was so absurd and yet it wasn’t pitched as satire

Sue Ellen said "we are aaaaall Ewings" at the end of an episode of season 2 (I think it was season 2).

And it's two different kinds of cringe.