Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Would you prefer to see a prequel "DYNASTY" movie set in the 1960s focusing on the romance between Blake and Alexis or a new series set in present time focusing on now-adult Carrington kids and our aging favorites? Here are the final poll results that I owe you from a couple of months ago along with my thoughts on the announced "DYNASTY" movie.
The preference of this DYNASTY blog's visitors is clear: 81% of you who responded to the question would prefer to see the new series, whereas only 19% would rather see a prequel movie flashing back to DYNASTY's original romance. That (I hope) doesn't mean that those who'd prefer to see a new series, wouldn't care for a well-made prequel movie.
I asked the question, of course, because "DYNASTY" creators Richard and Esther Shapiro announced in January (on the day the show celebrated its 30th anniversary) that they are indeed working on a script for a prequel movie and are hoping to sell it to a movie studio for a release in 2012 or later.
Meanwhile, basic cable's TNT network is about to begin production on the much-touted revival of CBS' "grand-daddy of soaps" 'DALLAS' later this week, with many of the original cast members reuniting at the legendary Southfork Ranch.
Although the idea of a "DYNASTY" revival seemed rather far-fetched only a year ago, if the "DYNASTY" prequel is indeed a go and the new "DALLAS" series is a success for TNT, that new "DYNASTY" series might not be that impossible after all. Besides, the Shapiros seemed to be hoping a new series (or at least a movie franchise) would follow the prequel movie.
Personally, I would love to see both. I've always loved references to Blake and Alexis' past love. And so did many other "DYNASTY" fans (if ratings spike for season 7 episodes "A Love Remembered" is any indication).
And I would also love to see adult L.B., Krystina, Danny and Lauren as they take over the reigns of the Carrington empire today.
But, I am a little fearful given how hideous the 1991 "Reunion" mini-series was (also penned by The Shapiros) and taking into account some statements the Shapiros made about the prequel project in the media earlier this year.
Some of the concerns I have (in terms of continuity with the original weekly series):
* Blake and Alexis met in the 50s and not in 1961 (when the prequel is supposed to be set). By the early 60s their marriage was already deteriorating. According to Esther Shapiro's own book "The Authorized Biography of the Carringtons" (released in 1984), Blake and Alexis were married in 1954 and they divorced in 1965.
* Blake was not blond and he was much older than 25 in 1961; he was at least in his late 50s (or early 60s as John Forsythe himself) when 'Dynasty' saga begins in May 1980, not mid 40s
* Alexis was not 17-22 in 1961 - she was 17 when she married Blake in 1954 (she is supposed to be 44 when she returns to Denver to give testimony at Blake's trial in late 1981).
* The movie would follow Blake Carrington as he steps into the elite world of privilege inhabited by Alexis. The original series, on the other hand, made it seem it was Alexis who stepped into Blake's world as he worked his way to the top as a self-made millionaire (latter seasons had already re-written that piece of Carrington history giving Blake a rich father).
* It appears the movie would also contain elements of a James Bond-style international intrigue. The last time such attempt was made we got the Consortium in "The Reunion" mini-series and a fake Adam, Miles and Kirby on a mission to rescue Jeff who was kidnapped in Switzerland. And let's just say, I don't think that ridiculous plot was one of "Dynasty's" greatest moments.
Of course, it's too early too judge - the Shapiros were still working on the script (with their daughter) as they made statements about the project in the media, and we have yet to hear of a movie studio picking the movie up for production.
But, if "DYNASTY: The Prequel" does go into production, I do, as a longtime "Dynasty" fan, hope we get an exciting period drama tapping into the saga's rich backstory (along the lines of salacious references in the brilliant 2nd season) and not a vapid attempt to capitalize on the success of "Mad Men" with complete disregard for the original backstory.