And I simply disagree and I (and many others) still think it was an important part of American popular culture.

Chris,

I don't think I took it out of context at all, but whatever. I'm over 35 and think it's "just some 80's TV show", and with the exception of Larry Hagman's portrayal of J.R. it was less-than-noteworthy. I simply disagree that it was anything more than mediocre television.

First of all erroneous_nick you not liking the show is (like you said) a matter of opinion in it self. That breaks both ways.

Second I know the show started in 1978 but I still consider it an 80's show because most of it's run was in the 80's. DALLAS was on the air on 1-1-1980 and it was still on the air on 12-31-1989. So I consider it an 80's show since it wasn't on for most of the 70's and wasn't on for most of the 90's.

When I said "Anybody under the age of 35 just doesn't understand that "DALLAS" was more then just some 80's TV show" you took it way out of context.

First people under the age of 35 have lived in a world with cable TV for most of their lives. Shows like "DALLAS," "M*A*S*H*," "The Cosby Show," and "Cheers" were in a way the end of an era. Shows that even if you didn't watch them you knew how big they were. And "DALLAS" unlike the other shows I mentioned has an even bigger fallowing over seas. I bet you if you went over to Great Britan or Germany they would know all if not most the characters from "DALLAS" before they would know a character from "Friends" or "Lost."

Some people like soap operas and some don't but I don't think they should be treated like a red headed step-child when it comes to television genres. A lot of the other genres steal from the soap opera format come May.

Who ever heard of a season ending "cliffhanger" before DALLAS?

What made Dallas so popular was J.R. Ewing and its serial/soap opera format that made you want to come back for more week after week.

Trying to recreate such an icon as J.R. (or any other "Dallas" favorite) will never be satisfactory to the Dallas faithful.

And trying to make an interesting story work in a 2 hour format will never work either, just look at the 3 or 4 other attempts the real cast of Dallas has had. Did any of them really rock?

Chris,

I surpass your arbitrary "Dallas-appreciation age limit" by over 10 years and I found Dallas to be nothing more than a glorified soap opera. I found it boring and contrived. The only thing separating it from its daytime cousins was the big-name talent it had and the plots moved at a snail's pace as opposed to daytime soaps' glacial pace. It was "just okay" in my book.

We all have a right to our opinions, but when you state that, "Anybody under the age of 35 just doesn't understand...", you've lumped me into your opinions and I couldn't disagree more. The same goes for my wife, who hated the series.

BTW, technically, Dallas was a 70's, 80's and barely 90's tv show. It premiered in 1978.

This isn't "Bewitched" or "Miami Vice," this is/was "DALLAS."

Anybody under the age of 35 just doesn't understand that "DALLAS" was more then just some 80's TV show.

Exactly what "erroneous_nick" said...

I know this sounds crazy, but how about a movie that's not based on an old tv series, old movie, comic book or characters in a venerial disease pamphlet from the local free clinic? I was thinking that an original idea made into a movie might just be novel enough to be interesting. The idea of paying to see a soap opera at a theater is not at all appealing. What's a ticket cost nowadays, 3 brazillion bucks or so? I'm just not going to shell out that kind of dough to see a rehash of old ideas.

I think maybe they should give up while they're still behind. What is the point of making a two hour version of a soap opera that ran for, what, 10 years? Come on!

--
dwacon
http://dwacon.blogspot.com

but everyone loves to watch a train wreck