The All-New DALLAS!

[IndyJones]

I don't remember much of the show as it ended when I was still pretty young, but I wanted to add that the remix of the theme song sounded great when I saw a promo in a theater.

[Agent Richard07]

Larry Hagman is fighting cancer...

The actor has spoken for the first time about his struggle to survive cancer, revealing that he has overhauled his life to fight the disease – becoming vegan in the process – and that his doctors are delighted with the response so far.

'The first thing I did when I was diagnosed was to turn vegan. Now I live on fresh vegetable drinks which taste like crap but which I firmly believe have helped me get through this thing.'

Hagman, 80, is back in Dallas to film a new series of the hit Eighties TV show.

Read the whole thing.

And remember, the two-hour premiere is tonight.









From what I understand, the focus will be mainly on the younger characters, but I hope the originals also get a good amount of screentime. I'm also hoping that George Kennedy makes an appearance.

[Knight Templar]

I don't see it as being all that successful once the nostalgia wears off.

People forget that the original Dallas arguably lasted three or four seasons too long and ended more with a wimper (at best) than a bang.

I think a big part of the success of the original was the novelty of the series. It was a prime time soap opera (which was rare in those days) and the setting was completely unique.

Basically sin and sex in the southwest.

I wonder if they will revive Dynasty now to counter program...

[lennier1]

It's not so much "I want five more seasons of that" as it's "I wonder what happened to them?" that drives the show.
I don't know about the others, but as long as they get one season that's worth watching and ties up a few knots, the effort seems justified to me.

[Owain Taggart]

It sounds to me like they're taking a cue from the successful Canadian Degrassi The Next Generation series, in that while it has been a long-running franchise, some of the actors that were in the original series back in the 80's came back and were as much a part of the new show as the new kids were, and even had some storylines focused on them, extending their development and adding depth to the overall series. I've never seen another series go this route until now, and it does make me hope that this becomes a trend instead of rebooting all the time.

[startrekwatcher]

YOu simply can never go back--what made originals appealing were due to a combination of factors unique to a certain point in time and in the viewers' lives. That is why so many resurrections/reboots fail. Viewers think they would love an old show to come back or have a reunion but it never is the same and they are left feeling like it would have been better just to leave the series dead and have that pining but it never being fulfilled.

It also doesn't help that they usually just have the old cast as props and not the focus.

[Knight Templar]

startrekwatcher wrote:

---

YOu simply can never go back--what made originals appealing were due to a combination of factors unique to a certain point in time and in the viewers' lives. That is why so many resurrections/reboots fail. Viewers think they would love an old show to come back or have a reunion but it never is the same and they are left feeling like it would have been better just to leave the series dead and have that pining but it never being fulfilled.

It also doesn't help that they usually just have the old cast as props and not the focus.

True.

Everything is better in retrospect. I remember watching the A-Team in the mid 1980s and being absolutely glued to the screen.

Now I see reruns and I spend half my time cringing. After 20 years have passed, you remember a tv shows great moments that might've occurred every two or three episodes. You forget that there were about 90 minutes of crap that you quickly forgot in between.

In regards to Dallas, for every "Who shot J.R." there was also a "Bobby in the shower".

[cardinal biggles]

I was deemed too young to watch Dallas when it was originally on, so this is all pretty new to me (though I'm certainly not ignorant of cultural touchstones like "Who Shot J.R.?" and "Bobby in the shower"). The previews look pretty good, so I'm going to give this a shot.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I didn't watch Dallas much when I was a kid, though I distinctly remember "Who Shot J.R."-mania overtaking my school when I was in sixth grade.

[cardinal biggles]

Wow... I was about two months old when J.R. was shot, so I guess I wouldn't remember.

[BennyRussel]

cardinal biggles wrote:

---

Wow... I was about two months old when J.R. was shot, so I guess I wouldn't remember.

It was Maggie Simpson

[Ar-Pharazon]

I watched most of the original, except the last couple seasons.

Figured I'd give this one a shot, pretty much based on nostalgia.

So far, pretty good. Not original series great, but good.

Just enough mix of the old cast and the new ones don't do too bad.

I'll keep watching.

Also, Linda Grey has aged pretty well, Charlene Tilton, not so much.

[Admiral2]

I just got home. Have to catch the repeat...


Edit: Caught the final scene when JR meets Marta. Tells me all I need to know.

[Peacemaker]

I'll keep watching. The end of the first half was what sucked me in.

Now, time to start the theorizing.

Since they are letting the originals take a front seat along with the youngun's, I'm going to wager:

500 quatloos each on these:

1. Cliff Barnes is involved somewhere. My bet is he's one of John Ross' mysterious investors and is hiding his identity.

2. The person who sent the mysterious email that broke up Elaina and Christopher is Pam. I read the producers want her back, and her story was left open-ended.

[Admiral2]

Naah, even the presence of the iconic characters isn't enough. The kids just remind me of all the reasons I don't watch the WB.