tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post115275731028650028..comments2024-03-26T19:08:32.544-04:00Comments on That's alls I know: Knots Landing season 7Tommy Kraskerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-67692370953506797932022-02-12T22:42:16.018-05:002022-02-12T22:42:16.018-05:00I thought season Seven was Knots last truly great ...I thought season Seven was Knots last truly great year, although there was still good stuff to come. The Lechowick - Latham years weren't as good as years 3 through 7. The first half of season 13 was horrible but the last 7 episodes were great. Season 14 was respectable with a great series finale.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13240165233313617805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-22143404516923399302021-05-30T14:26:18.444-04:002021-05-30T14:26:18.444-04:00And I will freely confess that many folks love Sea...And I will freely confess that many folks love Season 7 more than I do. (In my comments under Season 14, I confess that I was perhaps a little hard on it here.) When it first aired, I remembered largely liking it -- although I didn't have nearly the same ardor for it that I had had for Seasons 3-6. I think it was in the summer of 1988 that I did a rewatch of Seasons 3 through 7, and it was the first time I was viscerally aware of how much chillier the show got in Season 7, when Paulsen took over. And "warmth" is one of the things I love most about Knots (that sense of a real "community"). I think it in part boosts my affection for Seasons 3, 9 and 14: seasons I find very warm and inviting.Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-49542834973059775602021-05-29T18:49:41.988-04:002021-05-29T18:49:41.988-04:00Knots 7th season won 5 soap opera digest awardsKnots 7th season won 5 soap opera digest awardsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13240165233313617805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-90069138339355143762020-10-01T17:53:19.837-04:002020-10-01T17:53:19.837-04:00I agree in principle that someone should interview...I agree in principle that someone should interview L&L. It can’t be me, obviously. I might have thought about it briefly as I was penning these essays, and reaching out more and more to writers, but I knew I wouldn’t be able to keep from insulting them. It was easy to speak with Richard Gollance and Lisa Seidman, because I so admire their work, and it was fascinating to speak with James Magnuson, because he was very candid (as I suspected he would be) about where things went wrong in Season 13, and I *so* enjoy his scripts in Season 14. But I don’t think I could get through an interview with L&L without asking “why did you hate the character of Val so much” or even “why did you seemingly hate Joan Van Ark so much” or “would you agree that you stayed on a season longer than you should have” or “what the hell with those heavy-handed social issues?” Or just “twin ghosts — really???” You’re far fonder of them than I am, I suspect. I appreciate their keeping the show going, and really redefining it in Seasons 9 and 10, but I find their success rate — in terms of pure story-lines — monstrously uneven, and their treatment of a couple core characters just deplorable. And honestly, given what Joan Van Ark said about how much she hated being reduced to the village idiot, but that L&L weren’t showrunners who had an open door policy — that she, a founding cast member, wasn’t even allowed to talk about the direction of her character — well, I wonder how forthcoming they’d be about their shortcomings. They don’t seem to me like a couple of writers who admit to mistakes. Just my suspicion, but a strong one.<br /><br />How have I ended up writing about L&L on my post about Season 7, I hear you ask? I have no idea...Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-86486990133224898602020-09-19T08:51:36.062-04:002020-09-19T08:51:36.062-04:00Hmmm... I'm sure I responded to this in the pa...Hmmm... I'm sure I responded to this in the past but it may have been that time where it wouldn't let me post!<br /><br />Firstly, I would love if someone interviewed Lechowick / Latham now, I've read many Knots interviews following Knots' run (and I mean the ones on knotslanding.net as example), but I never have seen anyone interview them and I'm not sure why. Perhaps they just don't want to be, but considering they were the driving force of the show for longer than any other team through some of the show's most crucial years (essentially taking a show and evolving it beyond the glamorous 80s and into the 90s - a task that most competitors failed at - it's sad that we do not get their perspective and a layer of honesty they probably wouldn't have had during the time itself.<br /><br />Secondly, I actually do agree with you about Greg's character and I would go even further to state that, I think it's an example of what goes to the core of the show. Knots isn't really a show about plot, its a show about moments - moments rooted in character and interpersonal relationships. Your observation about Greg is a classic example of why that statement is true, the strength of Greg is never about plot. Hell, even the character tries to avoid being caught up in plots as much as possible. Greg is a combination of many, many, many small moments, small shadings which let you into his soul. Those moments combined over many seasons create the iconic character that we know and love.<br /><br />When I look back at Knots the first things that come to mind are some of the core characters and then maybe one of two key plots. Firstly, the Val / Abby / Gary triangle, which is rooted in character moments over many years, and secondly Val's babies. With the babies, I don't think of the cover-ups, or the twists and turns in the plotting, I think of Val and her journey. That's what Knots was all about.<br /><br />It's why I think there's such a heart and head moment between season 5 and 6 for me. Technically season 5 is masterful and by far the most brilliant season, but season 6 gets straight to the heart with Val's journey, despite it being technically weaker.<br /><br />How have I ended up writing about seasons 5 and 6 on your post about season 7 I hear you ask? That is a good question! :P But if we end looking back at Season 7, you mention in your essay that a chilliness does set into this season but also that Paulsen can write those great character 'over the picket fence' moments when he can. I do agree, it sounds like he can, but I also wouldn't underestimate the collaboration of the actors, director per episode and Jacobs in broader strokes to work in the moments (such as Lilimae's dying hair scene in Season 6, one famously worked on by the actors to insert character). I have to assume that practice continued on Season 7 somewhat, so it never truly gets lots in the plot.TV Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14888621849312053080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-37910555679239491132018-03-05T00:22:05.546-05:002018-03-05T00:22:05.546-05:00Finally, it's very interesting to hear you spe...Finally, it's very interesting to hear you speak of Season 7 stripping the characters back to their bare bones so that Lechowick and Latham could build them again. I've never thought of it that way -- it is a marvelous notion -- and I need to give it some thought. So heaven help you, when I've done just that, I will definitely offer up a response. I'm sorry that my plans for finishing up these essays doesn't call for a interview with Lechowick or Latham; because I find their work so erratic, I thought it would be too tough an interview to do without insulting them. But I am curious what it was like for them to write under Paulsen in Season 7. Most of their later Knots writing, like his, jumps from plot point to plot point, rather than character beat to character beat -- but, of course, they have such a better command of the characters (well, most of them, for a while) that they can not only get away with it, but establish it as the new "house style." Were they comfortable taking their marching orders from Paulsen, who obviously ran a tight ship and valued uniformity of style and tone? Did they learn much of what they knew from him, then adapted it once they took over headwriter chores? Or was Season 7 them doing dutiful but difficult work, and they ultimately felt liberated once he returned to Dallas? <br /><br />Forgive me: late-night ramblings.Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-55876054866580048922018-03-05T00:21:28.707-05:002018-03-05T00:21:28.707-05:00I think there are just a couple places our feeling...I think there are just a couple places our feelings really differ. I don't find Karen and Mack ever come off well in Season 7: their gaiety seems forced, and their big fight seems forced -- and again, when I finally got around to rewatching Season 6, I was almost alarmed by their warmth and charm and subtlety when scripted by writers who so understood their particular chemistry. And unlike you, I don't find Season 7 a particularly strong showcase for Greg Sumner. I actually find him more affecting when he comes clean to Laura about his relationship with Paul Galveston in Season 6 (followed by their night of rough sex) than just about anything he does in Season 7. Yes, I agree we see more colors in Season 7 (although that lighter side you admire is there in Season 6 as well -- I love when Galveston asks what he and Mack are doing together, and Greg deadpans, "We're having an affair"), but he seems aimless to me. I don't think Paulsen ever figures out what he wants to do with Sumner -- the much-promised Sumner-Ewing feud fizzles out once it's barely gotten underway. And as wonderful as Laura's "Get passionate" speech is, I think it speaks to a flaw in the treatment of Sumner that season: that he too often seems distracted and floundering -- or at least not nearly as effective as he could be.<br /><br />And now for probably the most controversial thing I'll ever say about this show. I was thinking of Bill Devane for some reason the other day, and I wondered: after his first few seasons, did he ever have a great plotline? Or is he, more than just about anyone on Knots Landing, an actor who made his character memorable by the sheer breadth of his talent, but not because of any particularly great longterm showcase? I'm thinking of, say, starting with Season 8, in which his story-line is basically bossing around Peter and playing footsie with Jean Hackney. In Season 9, of course, he gets the brilliant scenes surrounding Laura's death, but then he's back-burned for much of the rest of the season. In Season 10, the pairing with Paige is wonderful, but is anything else he's handed a particularly great use of his talents? Or his pairing with Paula and the Okmin Industries mess in Season 11? (I mean, I'm obviously a huge Ann Marcus fan, but I'm the first to admit that his "rebuilding L.A." plotline in Season 14 is that season's weakest link.) Anyway, just a thought that's apropos of nothing, but figured I'd express it here. David Jacobs, when he announced the reboot of Season 13, two-thirds of the way through the season, said that, looking back, all their best story-lines had revolved around Sumner -- but had they? Or had Devane just been so freaking brilliant and created such a unique and complex character that he made his story-lines seem better than they were? Did he have a lot of great extended story-lines, or did he just so elevate the quality of his scenes that he gave the *impression* he did?Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-1309330060464261232018-03-05T00:17:28.773-05:002018-03-05T00:17:28.773-05:00I don't *ever* want you to "be quiet"...I don't *ever* want you to "be quiet"! And I never want you to apologize for writing a long response. I'm the guy who writes 8000 words about each season -- I love when folks like yourself, who care just as much about the show as I do, take the time to assess their feelings and describe them in such detail.<br /><br />It's particularly interesting for me to hear you deem Season 7 as "ultimately a successful one," and to learn the reasons why. Particularly interesting because we're actually admiring of many of the same things, but whereas I tend to admire specific scenes within certain story-lines (e.g., Karen's lunchtime confessional, as she vies for the State Planning Commission; the linking of Peter and Jill; Abby's "Phoenix Rising"), you're far more admiring of the story-lines as a whole. I think it's very hard for me to get past the change from a character-driven series to a plot-driven one, and to see core characters behaving so unrecognizably merely to generate plot. As I mention in a comment elsewhere on this page, I didn't have as much of a problem with it originally as I do now. I think in 1985-86, I had much the same reaction as you -- aware that the characters felt "off," but finding enough that was compelling and at times well-paced in the plotting (particularly in the areas you point out) to see me through; now, I'm too distracted by the mischaracterizations and the end-game plotting. It was actually rather startling, when I finally got around to my Season 6 rewatch this past year, a good 15 months or so after my Season 7 rewatch, to instantly be reminded how warm and spontaneous and "natural" these same characters felt in Season 6. Seeing them used as chess pieces in Season 7, I had almost forgotten how sublime they were when they were accurately characterized, and when their plotlines -- as a result -- almost felt self-generating. <br /><br />I obviously didn't devote a lot of room to Ben and Cathy here (as I've mentioned to you elsewhere, under my essay on Season 6, I do tend to run out of steam after a while), but it's the plot-driven aspect of it that makes me most resistant. I never feel they are being naturally drawn to each other; I feel the story-line *designed* to draw them together. Lilimae's cruelty to Ben, Val's inability to steer clear of Gary at that crucial point late in the season, despite her knowing better -- it's all so calculated to give Ben a "reason" to stray that I never, as a viewer, feel like I'm getting to invest in a potential new pairing. The investment has been made for me. Plus, I think there's often a misassumption in soaps that just because two actors have good chemistry (and Doug Sheehan and Lisa Hartman did, as he did with pretty much everyone), we'll instantly buy them as a couple. I think the show falls into that trap here -- they convince as confidantes, so of course they'll convince as lovers.Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-65756275225665056002018-03-01T05:52:54.998-05:002018-03-01T05:52:54.998-05:00Oh, and one more thing they start to get right? Th...Oh, and one more thing they start to get right? They start to re-humanize the character of Greg. After years of being saddled with Wolfbridge and Galveston (although season six did give him some good depth with that one), they begin to showcase other sides to him. They nail his relationship with Laura, understanding their dynamic and how to use it to both character's advantages. They also show Greg's lighter side, featuring him in the cul-de-sac setting, bonding with Laura's children, and having him lightly mock the outrageous situation his found himself in, with Peter claiming he is his half-brother, and Devane laps it up. Again, by broadening out his character outside of the corporate and political arena, and with the help of his portrayer, they are able to sustain and complicate his character for the remainder of the show.<br /><br />OK, I will be quiet now!TV Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14888621849312053080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-2708519884354112772018-03-01T04:37:53.172-05:002018-03-01T04:37:53.172-05:00Then, in my opinion, the show starts to get things...Then, in my opinion, the show starts to get things very, very right. Karen and Abby mine history when conflicting over the State Planning Commission; Olivia finds out that Abby was involved in the babies’ kidnapping and rebels – the show focuses on this mother-daughter dynamic, and lets it play out; Peter reveals he is Greg’s half-brother, then the show reveals he is linked with Jill, and the new character dynamics feel fresh and exciting; Karen finds Mack’s room key, and the show just sits back and lets them play it out, both sides to the story are compelling and even as they go through the rocky patch, you feel their bond strengthen; Abby one-ups everybody by controlling the narrative around the babies’ saga; and the arsenic poisoning storyline gets underway, mining the history and weight of Empire Valley and Galveston, and throwing the characters into unexpected situations that feel real and consequential, the story feels more about them then it does about the poisoning itself. <br /><br />As the season winds to a close; the Ben and Cathy pairing does feel plot driven, yes. It’s one I can quite pinpoint why though, but I think it all comes down to the strength of Ben’s character (it’s one of the ways the show constantly shoots itself in the foot – it creates such strong, believable characters, that when it tries to lead with plot, it rings falser than on most other shows). On paper, it should work – Ben has been comforting Cathy the entire year, since Joshua’s reign of terror, and Cathy began to return the favor as Ben struggled with his family life. Ben, equally, was rightly feeling marginalized by Val. So yes, it should work, but it doesn’t quite land. Overall, I think the strength of his character, plus that they had run out of time to tell the story properly, stopped it from having the impact it could have.<br /><br />The final two episodes, in my opinion, are very strong. Paige arrives as Mack’s unknown daughter, and Karen’s kidnapping creates an unexpected, lighter (in terms of story weight rather than content), more typical way to end the show. Some scenes hit deep, Val and Gary’s beach conversation being one of the season’s highlight. It frees itself of really any shackles going into season 8, and one can’t help but feel that being deliberate, considering Empire Valley really screwed them over before. That’s a success in my book, especially considering all season one principal characters’ original contracts were up, so they had to contend with the risk that some would not be back and tell stories that conceivably gave them that out (Val, Gary, Karen comes to mind).<br /><br />So, all in all, I find season seven ultimately a successful one. And yes, you are right, the characters do feel more ‘off’ than in previous years. To me, it feels like they have been stripped back to their bare bones, the Dunne and Marcus era’s wash away, so that Paulsen and (more importantly) Latham and Lechowick can build them back up again, to their re-imagined versions. Ultimately, this is successful going forward, as by updating the characters and getting a real handle on them, they propel the show forward for years to come.<br /><br />(PS. Sorry, I didn't mean to write such a long essay to your essay!)TV Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14888621849312053080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-91533389142727510552018-03-01T04:37:10.155-05:002018-03-01T04:37:10.155-05:00Season 7 is much more of a transition year than I ...Season 7 is much more of a transition year than I first realized. You move naturally into the year with three major storylines (well, two major, one lukewarm) – and you expect them to be handled in a similar way, in that they burn slowly, and prioritize character beats over plot. But season seven has other ideas.<br /><br />Val’s babies, as you mention, is wrapped up quicker than expected – the first two episodes shift focus from character beats to jumping from plot point to plot point, erupting into a terrific speech by Karen to Harry Fisher around moral choice. The saga continues for the next two episodes following that, and then something unexpected happens. Val allows the Fisher’s to say goodbye to the twins – and it’s deeply moving, upsetting even. You sit back, you wonder why, and you realise. The writers cleverly used these four episodes not to deepen the principal character beats (that was already handled marvelously in season 6), but by slowly, and cleverly, letting us see the saga from the perspective of the Fishers. It’s a wonderful, more calculated choice, but it pays of beautifully when they say goodbye.<br /><br />Empire Valley is a storyline I particularly loathe. It does absolutely nothing for anyone, and unlike the various happenings at Lotus Point, including the arsenic poisoning storyline later in the year, it is not a backdrop to showcase our characters. Instead it’s Abby and Greg pulling the wool over Gary’s eyes, and dealing with forces beyond their (and our) grasp – and it’s ridiculous. The story is about Empire Valley, and nothing else. It stops the show dead in its tracks for ten episodes (and has done since the last third of season 6), and it’s awful, a misjudgment on all counts.<br /><br />Cathy and Joshua receive the same unexpected treatment as the babies’ saga, the story of their relationship pivots immediately to be dictated by plot. Joshua tells Cathy Lilimae is dying, threatens her, Cathy cries on Ben’s shoulder, Joshua hits her etc. In addition, Cathy and Joshua are not the best drawn characters: Cathy suffers from being brought back by fan demand, rather than the need for a specific character and is mishandled in season six by being reset for the purposes of being paired with Joshua. Joshua now suffers because of forces external to the show dictate he needs to leave within 10 episodes. Because of these, the climax and aftermath, although incredibly dramatic, is handled with less depth and emotion than the Knots’ we are used to.<br /><br />Season seven has a huge weakness in its middle section, for 6 or 7 episodes. As you rightly point out, characters start behaving irrationally to propel plot forward. Gary unexpectedly blows up Empire Valley, Abby becomes the willing victim, Lilimae and Cathy make illogical choices in attempting to cover up something that never even happened, and Gary starts obsessing over the babies’ and sleeping with Jill, while Abby just lets him. It’s incredibly superficial, and the show is on thin ice. But the plot moves with more pace, and with the huge shadow of Empire Valley immediately gone, the show is less stagnant, you feel start to sense some energy and pace building up.TV Reviewshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14888621849312053080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-27244354743039296702016-09-16T12:48:47.857-04:002016-09-16T12:48:47.857-04:00It's interesting that you note that once Lisa ...It's interesting that you note that once Lisa Hartman is brought back as Cathy, they never really knew what to do with her. I completely agree. I am in the middle of a binge watch of the series, and I am now halfway through season 6. I have never watched the entire series as a binge before so it definitely changes my perspective on things. Stories that seemed like they took so long to resolve in reality may have only spanned over a few episodes-- They were just more spread out. I always felt like with Cathy, they didn't want to make the same mistake as they did with Ciji and write her off too quickly and infuriate the fans again. Which, in my opinion, is why they hang on with her two more seasons than was really needed. I might be remembering this wrong, but I also think that Doug Sheehan was supposed to leave the show at the end of season 7 which is what led to the Ben/Cathy pairing and his decision to stay is what led to Spy Ben in season 8. I'm not a hue fan of season 8 as a whole so I will be interested to see if my feelings change with the next watch. ALSO, I read your season 9 blog. I adored it. Season 9 ranks up there as my favorite season, if not my very favorite. Pamela Gayle Hesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09308684361881774248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-24472542661268975062016-09-14T10:22:13.096-04:002016-09-14T10:22:13.096-04:00What fun to compare notes! For me, when I first wa...What fun to compare notes! For me, when I first watched Season 7, when it originally aired, I didn't actively dislike it; I just wasn't as engaged as I had been with previous seasons. It wasn't until the summer of 1988, when I decided to binge Seasons 4 through 8 (I had all the episodes on VHS) that I realized, upon rewatching Season 7, how out-of-character everyone seemed. (The moment Season 8 started, it felt like everyone behaved like themselves again.) And my opinion of Season 7 never really changed. I hadn't watched in a decade when I did this latest rewatch, and I wondered if my opinion might be different. It wasn't. :)<br /><br />That said, the only thing I really loathed when I first watched the season was -- as you note -- the affair between Ben and Cathy. Just awful and unconvincing and poorly handled. Just because actors have rapport doesn't mean their characters are "destined" to sleep together. Amusingly, as I noted to Anthony above, it's one of the things I forgot to write about in my essay, because by the time I got to it, working my way through the season, the season had already worn me down. I didn't have the energy to beat up on it anymore! But yes, Ben & Cathy might be the season's low point. It's funny about Lisa Hartman. She was so vibrant as Ciji, but when they brought her back as Cathy, they never really knew what to do with her. I don't find her "great passion" with Gary in Season 5 ("It was you. It was always you") any more convincing than her affair with Ben. And she's well paired with Joshua, but then of course, the writers have him become so abusive so quickly, she's mostly left to react to how awful he's become. I'm glad they brought her back; I just wish they'd found a reason to.Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-72871674858486031522016-09-13T18:27:30.140-04:002016-09-13T18:27:30.140-04:00Season 7 is an interesting one for me. When I wat...Season 7 is an interesting one for me. When I watched it through the first time, I didn't care for it. I found it to be a little dull and certainly a letdown after the swirl of seasons 5 and 6 (The final resolution to the Ciji murder, Wolfbridge, the babies). The only real low points for me were that I felt like the Chip storyline and strident Diana lasted just one beat too long, and Is Karen to die? just seemed too much for me. But after the amazing end to season 6 starting with Karen's "What if Val's babies didn't die?" and ending with Val's classic panoramic turn when she finally found the babies, season 7 felt poised for bigger things and then just fall flat. Empire Valley felt like Wolfbridge/Lotus Point 2.0. I couldn't understand why Gary was so angry with Abby because this should have been exactly what he expected her to do. When he took her back in the beginning of season 6, he told her he loved her. But he didn't trust her. So there you go. I found Joshua's downward spiral to be almost out of character (And a little sad because I felt like the writers just never really knew what to do with him so they turned him crazy), and I never bought the idea of Ben having an affair with Cathy for one second. It all seemed so out of place. I have to admit, though, as I watched it again years later, I was able to see the season in a night light and actually really enjoyed it. For any of its flaws, I never felt like anything that happened was out of character (Well, except maybe Ben and Cathy). I completely bought that Gary would blow up Empire Valley. I loved the exchange with Karen, Mack, and Gary when Mack asks Gary what he's going to do. Mack: "He doesn't know". He blew up a project with no plan and didn't even have a plan for getting home (Gary to Mack: "Can you give me a ride?"). Classic impulsive Gary. I also really enjoyed the Karen/Mack/Jill triangle. I felt like it was such a relatable story for an otherwise solidly married couple. I liked the angle because even though Mack didn't technically cheat on Karen, it almost hurt her more than if he had. I thought that Tonya Crowe was wonderful in showcasing the start of Olivia's drug addiction which will climax the following season with Abby and a hammer and a bathroom door at Gary's ranch. So, long story short, season 7 was one of those seasons I loved more the third time around. Certainly not as epic as seasons 5 and 6 but some real jewels of scenes tucked away. Enjoyed your take on it! Pamela Gayle Hesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09308684361881774248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-81614595266611108122016-08-15T21:51:00.125-04:002016-08-15T21:51:00.125-04:00I don't have anything trenchant or insightful ...I don't have anything trenchant or insightful to post, but I do want to say that even though I don't know a "Knots Landing" from a "Falcon Crest" ("Fresno" was more my speed), I've always had a great respect and admiration for soap opera writers, and I love your dissections and analyses of the seasons and epochs of "Knots". To me, anyway, it now feels like I've seen these shows and followed the arcs through every permutation, and had the benefit of a great commentary track, to boot. It's a wonderful way of looking at the evolution of long-form television, and the variety of approaches (whether ridiculous, sublime, or something between the two) that can be applied to a more 'earthbound' series. One thing I always loved in school was reading about the act of storytelling, or revisiting a work where a substantial portion is devoted to people telling each other stories (maybe why I'm so fond of detective fiction), so these posts are like a motherlode to me.Deniz Cordellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02580325077587591921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-28547804858123768032016-08-08T08:34:03.677-04:002016-08-08T08:34:03.677-04:00I would argue that season 10 was an example of the...I would argue that season 10 was an example of them setting up season 11 in almost a similar way to how they began setting up season 8...but I'll save that for when you get to it.Anthony Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709182547064176325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-90154904324601067072016-08-07T17:59:59.760-04:002016-08-07T17:59:59.760-04:00Oh, and by the way, I totally agree about Jill: of...Oh, and by the way, I totally agree about Jill: of all the women, she's the one who dominates the season. And I think it's because the way her story is told feels "fresh" -- it feels spontaneous. It feels like the way David Jacobs loved to work. As I understand it, Jacobs so loved her brief appearance in Season 6 that he instructed Paulsen to write her into Season 7, so Paulsen devised her short story arc near the top of the season. And then clearly, after she'd filmed those episodes, they thought, "Oh, she could be useful paired with Gary," and decided to bring her back in the second block. And THEN they decided, "Oh, and we could link her to Peter." The Peter-Jill pairing doesn't emerge until the third block, and tellingly, it first rears its head in the very first episode of that third block, so you can tell it's an idea they came up with while they were brainstorming the final third of the season -- and moved on it quickly. In a season that feels (to me, at least) very pre-packaged, like Paulsen had plans and stuck to them, Jill's story bursts with the kind of energy that Knots thrived on; you could tell the writers were getting great ideas about what to do with her and were perfectly willing to modify stories to accommodate them.Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-33634913252023006942016-08-07T17:34:14.063-04:002016-08-07T17:34:14.063-04:00I enjoyed your "novel" enormously. It...I enjoyed your "novel" enormously. It's so funny, Anthony: when we initially spoke about Season 7, I presumed our opinions would be polar opposites, but really, I think we come down to seeing the season in much the same way: as you put it, both "entertaining" and "annoying." I suspect for you, the former more than makes up for the latter; for me, it doesn't. And as I note, I think much of the first 10 episodes is right on the mark -- but once Joshua goes off the rooftop, the cover-up story not only dominates the season, but threatens to decimate it. As magnificent as Julie Harris is (and I was fortunate enough to see her on stage in "The Last of Mrs. Lincoln" and "The Belle of Amherst" -- there was no one like her), she's forced to hit the same notes over and over again. There are actually a couple moments of her insanely lashing out at people that feel so unmotivated, so unwarranted, that I think they defeat even Julie Harris -- and as far as I'm concerned, you have to work pretty hard to write something so bad even Julie Harris can't save it.<br /><br />There are a couple of excellent points you raised that I realize I simply didn't get to. One of my biggest objections to Season 7 has always been the affair between Ben and Cathy, which I never believe for a second. Years ago, I think I named that as the single thing that bothered me most about the season, how writer-driven it felt -- rather than being character-driven. It's as if Paulsen said, "Let's have Ben and Cathy have an affair near the end of the season. Now, what do we have to do, plot-wise, to get them to that point?" -- which was SO not how Knots worked. The other point I didn't make is how splendid Alec Baldwin is. I wish they hadn't laid it on so thick with Joshua's "descent into madness" -- I never thought Knots did "descent into madness" well -- but I don't think he hits a false note in Season 7, and in fact, he actually hits some notes that are higher than any Knots had dared reach for. I don't give him enough credit for how much his sheer acting ability makes Joshua's storyline compelling, despite the odiousness of the subject matter.<br /><br />I didn't go into Karen's kidnapping at all, nor Paige's arrival, because by the end of the season, it feels to me like the writers practically give up on Season 7 and start laying the groundwork for Season 8. I can't recall another instance of them doing that, and I suspect I'll take that up when I eventually write up Season 8. Like you, I think Season 8 is worse than Season 7, so man, that is gonna be one testy essay. I think I might have to get to that one last! (I think I am moving on to Season 11 next.)Tommy Kraskerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12564935526936828636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-92122887531709674282016-08-07T15:46:05.492-04:002016-08-07T15:46:05.492-04:00I don't recall you bringing up Olivia. She sta...I don't recall you bringing up Olivia. She stands out fairly well because of her response to discovering Abby's involvement in the stealing of the twins. Now THIS was a moment where seeing Abby crumble was understandable and good to see....she always loved her children deeply and then she gives that speech you mentioned and you start to see signs of the old Abby.<br /><br />Mack and Karen are probably best left unsaid. I do really like Mack but this is the beginning of where he became too much. First he gets tempted by Jill and then by Anne and then AGAIN by Paula. I can understand the Anne situation somewhat but I felt Paula was completely unnecessary.<br /><br />Val got her babies back and despite letting Gary get in the way, she doesn't really have much to do.<br /><br />Ben is certainly a character who remains steadfast but even he gets trapped in a forced affair with Cathy....and even though you can see the buildup to it, it just doesn't feel right. And then don't even get me started on how they kept Ben the next season only to give him Jean Hackney. Not to mention the absolute PERFECT timing of him coming home for good only to conveniently get the telegram from Jean right then and there...but that is for me to complain about once you write about season 8.<br /><br />I can't complain about Laura other than she was underused but Constance McCashin was a master at doing so much out of so little. <br /><br />And lastly, the kidnapping. I've seen arguments defending it and hating it. Obviously in real life, they just happen but something about this just felt too tacked on to me. It's almost like the show was coming to a halt and then season 8 is a clean but stale slate. I think the kidnapping had potential but fell flat (another season 8 discussion). And of course, Paige comes into the picture and you aren't sure what she wants or if she is who she is....<br /><br />Season 7 ends and it is almost like we were watching 2 or even 3 different seasons. The end result is that despite its flaws, I still enjoyed it and actually think it's better than season 8 and especially the later seasons. <br /><br />Not sure if I missed any points but there's the end of my novel!<br /><br /><br />Anthony Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709182547064176325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-488445244681694132016-08-07T15:43:58.177-04:002016-08-07T15:43:58.177-04:00Paulsen does add in some history linking Lilimae a...Paulsen does add in some history linking Lilimae and Cathy to precious violent crimes to give the motive of them killing Joshua more weight which I appreciate and I also find entirely unnecessary as this whole thing could've been over IN EPISODE ELEVEN AFTER HE DIED!!!!<br /><br />Why not let Julie Harris show off her acting skills more by having her mourn her son and accept truthfully that he lost himself to madness..Lilimae never really recovered after this storyline and you said it perfectly: she was on a time out next season and then it gave them the motivation to write her out in season 9. The moment when she FINALLY confesses what happened is beautifully acted but once again, extremely frustrating because she cries out to Joshua that she "tried" to keep his name in good standing. By that point, you just want to yell "YOUR SON WAS A PSYCHO. SCREW HIM!"<br /><br />Empire Valley: the epitome of Paulsen bringing in the world of Dallas. You hit the nail on the head yet again with this. The moment Joshua dies, a shift occurs and then the tone changes and you get treated to the underground spy network. Things are blinking and bleeping up a storm...and I was just kind of wondering what the hell was going on.<br /><br />I was left not hating Empire Valley but rather felt indifferent about it. It didn't bore me but it certainly felt out of place. And then it led to the arsenic poisoning which was probably the weakest section of the season for me.<br /><br />Val and Karen are wasted this season....truthfully ALL of the women were except Abby and as you said, she had been defanged. For me, the woman who dominated the season was Jill and not because she was strong (and I'm not saying she was, if anything she was a true Dallas pawn device), but because it seemed like they wanted to do whatever they could to her. She comes in and woos Mack and then suddenly ends up sleeping with Gary and then you realize she may have a sexual history with Peter and that she is only after Gary for Empire Valley...then comes the twist: she now loves Gary, who is now angry, and Peter is her...brother. Part of me admittedly likes it despite how convoluted it is. This is one of those stories I would've wanted to see how quickly it was developed in the writers room.Anthony Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709182547064176325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6768495027896028196.post-2738757327309428142016-08-07T15:42:58.494-04:002016-08-07T15:42:58.494-04:00So this is going to have to be split it into multi...So this is going to have to be split it into multiple comments haha.<br />It gives me great joy to respond to this post, so be prepared for the novel you are about to read (and hopefully I don't miss any of the points).<br /><br />Season 7 is fascinating to me. You made the comment about how the bookend episodes are called The Longest Day and The Longest Night. Obviously a show should grow as a season goes along and despite the misguided moments, you do feel the show has changed almost dramatically. It's hard to believe when watching The Longest Night that this is still the same season that even began with The Longest Day. Visually, you have the better cinematography which just seems to improve as the season goes on but that's a superficial point...but the show just morphed into somethings completely different.<br /><br />The season began on such a high note with the conclusion of the babies storyline. You still feel a since of the Dunne era since they are still running on the fumes of some great seasons (personally I think season 6 was the best).<br /><br />I will begin with Cathy/Joshua since that IS the storyline that dominates early on. I'll admit that I enjoyed it despite its obvious one-note nature. Alec Baldwin brought an energy to the show that I personally never thought other villains matched, even Jill on some level. But what also hurts the storyline and I knew you'd call it out is Lilimae. When they are on the roof and she says "The sad part is that I believed you!", you do have a brief moment of seeing this is indeed the woman who trusts so easily and that is why I am so happy you brought up Chip because that was such a perfect example...and even after she ran him over, she also suffered from extreme guilt once she made the connection he could've died by her own doing as opposed to say....a pitchfork.<br /><br />Once he falls off the roof, it is almost like her worst fear that didn't occur after hitting Chip came to be because she now screamed at Joshua about how horrible he was and now he's dead knowing his mother disowned him. Instead of owning up to it, we get the overprotective trite of her defending his good name. I HATE this actually and despite Julie Harris doing magnificent work as always, she is given tough material to work with as she becomes too unbearable. As I watched this storyline again recently, I was actually entertained despite Julie Harris doing magnificent work as always, she is given tough material to work with as she becomes too unbearable. As I watched this storyline again recently, I was actually entertained despite being overly annoyed...that's the weird phenomenon for me. Season 7 is the first season where I simultaneously find myself being immensely entertained and also stunned at the odd writing choices...a trademark of the upcoming L&L years. <br />Anthony Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709182547064176325noreply@blogger.com