Talk:Dynasty (TV series)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

	This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents 1 Congrats to the writers 2 Catfight 3 Chewed? 4 "You bitch!" 5 Major characters? 6 Cast Longevity - Adding Error 7 Dallas 8 Article trims, move characters to separate article? 9 Peer review 10 Removal of unsourced paragraph 11 Soap opera format? 12 Removal of apocryphal character names

[edit] Congrats to the writers

I've got absolutely no interest in Dynasty, and I won't bore you with the story of how I ended up here. But I really enjoyed reading that, and felt much more informed at the end of it. Good work. --bodnotbod 13:59, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Catfight

Didn't Krystle and Alexis also have a catfight in a burning cabin? Mike H 17:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yes.--JamesB3 01:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know when it happened. Can you add it in the right order to the Krystle and Alexis section? Mike H 02:36, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have added some info on this incident... There was no cat fight in the cabin. The scene was an end-of-year cliffhanger. Typed anonymous notes invited both Krystle and Alexis to Steven's cabin one night. When Krystle and Alexis saw one another each assumed the other had typed the invitations. Due to their history a verbal confrontation erupted. Meanwhile someone locked the doors and poured petrol around the cabin. They set the cabin alight and the episode ended with Krystle and Alexis trapped in the flames. No catfight. Following year Mark Jennings appeared to pull the women from the flames. Soon afterwards butler Joseph, fearing that Alexis would blackmail him, admitted he had set the fire and committed suicide. MinorEdit July 2, 2005 04:50 (UTC)

It's a small correction, but just in case someone decides to edit the article at some point to reflect these notes, Alexis and Krystle were not summoned to the cabin with anonymous typewritten notes. Alexis telephoned Krystle and invited her there to meet with Steven (Alexis's son) to discuss custody of his child. (The mother was Krystle's niece.) The invite was a ruse, and Alexis intended to use the meeting to bribe Krystle into leaving Denver. There was, as has been said, no catfight. Just a heated exchange of words. (Whoby 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

The were anonymous invitations. They were written by the person who set the blaze in an attenpt to kill Alexis. Some weeks later it was revealed to have been Joseph, Kirby's father. It seems like two different cabin meetings are being discussed here. Format 19:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chewed?

chewed her way through the scripts

What does that actually mean? -- Tarquin 07:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing it means absorbing what was given to her and making the character more bitchy than anyone knew possible? Mike H 15:04, May 23, 2005 (UTC)--

Yes, that's what it means. Being over the top, campy, and spirited. --JamesB3 23:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually wrote that line <hehe> ... chewing the scenery or chewing through scripts is actor slang for a performance which is so over-the-top that it dominates the screen. (Whoby 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] "You bitch!"

I remember this line being thrown around a lot, especially between Krystle and Alexis. Wasn't this one of the first shows on network television that allowed the use of "bitch" in this context, and could it possibly find its way into the article? Mike H 22:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also remember Alexis frequently tossing the line "You trashy little tramp!" to Sammy Jo, which became more and more hilarious and enjoyable with each repetition. I also remember Joan Collins being interviewed on a British TV chatshow in the 80s and saying that she had often put the line in even when it wasn't in the script, as she and Heather Locklear found it highly amusing!

[edit] Major characters?

I'm not sure if I would classify Prince (Michael Praed was barely on the show a full season and was forgotten soon after his departure) or Ben Carrington's daughter (Terri Garber) as major characters. I don't want to remove someone else's work without asking, so I will ask here to see if anyone agrees with me. --JamesB3 10:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Rather than delete them I would either (A) make it clear in their description how long they were in the series, and mention they were written out and forgotten in later storylines (and by being down at the bottom of the list it seems to imply they weren't that important), or (B) make a new section for less-important characters and put them there. One other thing, I would really like to see mention of which seasons characters were in for. Though I watched the show in the 1980s I've forgotten precisely which seasons some things happened in. As it is the characters are all lumped into the same list but it gives little idea of when in the series they roughly appeared, and that many characters never even met other characters that appeared in different seasons. MinorEdit 10:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I was concerned about adding a lot more because of the space limitations, but I can make some changes. I may change the wording from "major" to "memorable", since some of them (Carress) were memorable but not very important. --JamesB3 11:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cast Longevity - Adding Error

I've tidied the wording of the following: "Linda Evans is the runner-up in terms of the number of episodes an actor appeared in. She appeared in almost every episode from 1981-1989, having missed just two episodes prior to the ninth season. She left the series during the ninth season, and so was absent for sixteen episodes that season. Evans appeared in a total of 204 of the 220 episodes."

However the numbers don't add up. Shouldn't she have appeared in 202 of 220 episodes if there was a 16 episode absence and prior to that 2 missed episodes. Or are the other numbers wrong? Asa01 06:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dallas

I am surprised that Dallas (TV series) is not mentioned at all in the article. Both were very prominent primetime soap operas in the 1980s, and I thought there was a fierce competition between the two, for viewers and advertiser money. Somebody must have some figures comparing the two... --Austrian 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reason why we avoid the comparison to Dallas, in terms of "fighting for viewers," was because technically, they didn't. The two shows were on different nights (Dynasty was on Wednesdays, I believe, and Dallas was always a Friday fixture). Sure, they were soaps, and some liked one and some liked the other, but they never really battled in the sense you describe. Mike H. That's hot 16:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article trims, move characters to separate article?

Hi ... this seems long and unwieldy. Also, I would challenge the list of "pivotal" characters? Pivotal? The names listed there are supporting characters. Perhipheral, perhaps. Certainly not pivotal.

Can I suggest moving the list of characters, tidied, into a new article called List of Dynasty characters? The main article could then just retain a truncated summary of the main characters, leaving the List of ... article to run through them in more detail.

Any thoughts? (203.26.177.2 05:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree with your suggestions; I'm not sure if anyone else may chime in. --JamesB3 06:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

This article is a great candidate for peer review. It is definitely not up to Wikipedia standards of NPOV and so forth. Moncrief 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced paragraph

Could we please not re-insert this frankly idiotic paragraph?

>>Many believe that the show was a creation perfect for the Ronald Reagan era and could never have outlived his Presidency.<<

First of all, the show did "outlive" his presidency. It went off the air in May 1989. Reagan left office in January 1989. Second of all, who are these "many" who believe this? How do television ratings and schedules get coordinated with presidential terms? This is bad history and just thoroughly beneath Wikipedia's standards. It's not as if materialism and wealth and vapidity -- and interest in such things -- suddenly disappeared from the American landscape the moment Reagan left office. Moncrief 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soap opera format?

This section is SO STUPID, and so cliche, it feels very POV but maybe someone else thinks it's valuable? I really reel like this should be deleted, like, yesterday, but what does the "group" think? I actually work on a daytime soap, and as dumb as it is, I don't think any of this crud applies to Dynasty. TAnthony 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you. Dynasty hardly derived its style from any daytime soap opera. For a start it was a filmed, single-camera production, so it didn't even look like a daytime serial. Style of Dynasty was closer to melodrama feature films, maybe like those of Douglas Sirk (especially when Rock Hudson showed-up on Dynasty.) I most recently saw the opening episodes in a rerun: those huge, wide-angle, shots of hills and fields and rivers do not recall a daytime soap for me! The entire section seems like creative conjecture (original research) on the part of that editor.) Format 09:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section from the article, until someone can justify why it should stay in. This is totally contributor analysis, and not even good (TAnthony 04:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)):

Though many primetime dramas are often referred to as "soap operas", Dynasty embodied some elements that characterizes a daytime soap. Many of the visual devices of the daytime soap opera were incorporated into the primetime context of Dynasty. Both daytime soaps and Dynasty are quintessential melodramas, with acting often verging on hammy and exaggerated emotions. They also both share the same devices used to end a scene or an episode. After the last line has been delivered, the music swells as the camera focuses on the face of the character for a few seconds before it goes to dark. Dynastys famous cliffhangers are also characteristic of daytime soap operas, though on a much more powerful scale. Being a primetime drama, Dynasty had the summer break between seasons and the customary week break between episodes to contend with. The shelf life of a daytime soap cliffhanger is, at most, the two day weekend (since in general all soaps air every weekday for the entire year). Thus, the conclusion of a daytime soap usually includes a mini-cliffhanger, though usually not to the scale of something like Dynasty's Moldavian Massacre.

[edit] Removal of apocryphal character names

I have removed the false "middle" names of Alexis Carrington ("Marissa"), Fallon Carrington (also "Marissa") and Amanda Carrington ("Kimberly"). The names have no basis of truth in the context of the show (that is, they were never used on screen, or in any official documentation published by the producers, or mentioned by the creators of the show in an interview or in public) and there is no evidence on the internet which supports them.

They originate with a posting into a discussion forum on the show [[1]], in which someone who claimed a staffmember in the production office had revealed them to the author of the posting while researching a project. With no coroborrating evidence to support them, they hardly warrant inclusion.

At best, they are non-canon (or even fanon), at worst, they are simply apocryphal. They could be included as a trivia note perhaps, but even then with no proper sourcing on the web I would think they fail to meet Wikipedia's rules on original research. (203.26.177.2 05:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

I got into a mini revert battle with User:Jboy2525 over this today, and after hearing him out (see my my talk archive) have added information regarding the names to the commercial tie-ins section with as much citation as possible.

Also, in looking through my copy of The Authorized Biography from 1984 (none of the questionable middle names are there, by the way), it did mention Jeff's middle name as Broderick and Claudia's maiden name as Barrows; I'm assuming these were used on the show but my memory escapes me (I know Adam Alexander and Steven Daniel were). My point is, if Broderick and Barrows are just from the book, they should be mentioned in that section of this article, not in the Character section. TAnthony 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

No worries. It's good to include it, it's just not appropriate to include it in the actual character information. The problem is that the author of the book and Jboy2525 both presuppose that simply because a production office (or writing staff) employee had them pencilled on the wall, they are writ in stone. The fact is most television productions explore dozens of permutations of characters, names and stories and the "canon/non-canon/fanon" vs "expanded universe" standard (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars) is that unless it actually takes place on air during the episode, it is not considered canon information. Fallon, for example, might have had a middle name on a bit of paper in the writer's room, but in an episode she made specific reference to the fact that she didn't have a middle name, because it had always bothered her. Alexis, also, was originally to be called Madelaine - that doesn't make Madelaine anything more than an abandoned thread. Anyway, good to see it's sorted. (203.26.177.2 06:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Oh, and one PS. Regarding, The Authorized Biography of the Carringtons. Because it was published by the studio, and has the imprimatur of the show's creator Esther Shapiro, I think anything in it can, and should be assumed to be canon. Much in the same way The Star Trek Encyclopaedia, published by Paramount and written by the show's technical consultants, while just a tie-in book, is considered a definitive resource on information about that show. (203.26.177.2 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC))