User:TAnthony/Soaps Workspace

Dynasty 1980sEdit

Claudia BlaisdelEdit

Claudia material (hidden)

Poor Claudia Blaisdel Carrington had another terrible end.

On her title card of Dynasty, Pamela Bellwood, who portrayed the character from 1981 to 1986, emerged blinking into a room to switch on a light, and that pretty much summed up the character: confused, depressed, crazy, and constantly being made crazy.

And so, at the end of her time on the show when the producers wanted to make Claudia crazy again (after a brief and discombobulating period where she had become another corporate power player), she protested.

“It made no sense to me, I asked then not to,” Bellwood recalls today. “They said, ‘Say the lines.’ I said, ‘Well, it’s my last show. Maybe not.’”

Karma of a kind was on Bellwood’s side. Claudia lit a candle for each of the Carrington family she felt had betrayed her. One of the candles fell into a drape, the room was suddenly on fire, and the last we see of Claudia was her face wreathed in flames.

‘The whole set was really on fire,” she recalls. “It was awful, crazy, I had to have a paramedic carry me out. The sound stage was destroyed. Beams were falling. I thought it was all very apocalyptic, and it seemed like karmic retribution. Maybe they’ll think of bringing her back.”

They didn’t, but now, over thirty years later the character is returning to the CW’s Dynasty, this time played by Brianna Brown. One of Bellwood’s sons showed her an interview with Brown paying tribute to “the iconic Claudia Blaisdel.”

“I said to my children, you didn’t know your mother was iconic. So she’s coming back. Good luck to them. I’m glad to have been in the original. One has to see what happens in the new one.”

Does she want to return too? “What could they do? Bring me back as my own mother? I’m not sure I want to live with that. It doesn’t matter. Actors are like circus performers. They never get it out of their blood. If they call me, I’ll say yes. It’s always better to say yes to life than no.”

‘You became like public property’

The attention that came with the show in the 1980s was overwhelming, Bellwood says. Claudia was “challenging” and Bellwood wanted to make her sympathetic and a role model for others with mental illness.

Her famous scenes and storylines include dropping what looked like a baby bit was in fact a doll off a tall building; being driven mad by calls from her dead husband Matthew, who wasn’t dead (of course he wasn’t), but who wasn’t making the calls either; and then having relationships with unsuitable Carrington men like Adam and Steven.

“I got a ton of mail,” Bellwood recalls. “People responded viscerally to Claudia. I had a sense of responsibility about how to portray her so people wound up with a bit of hope.”

Bellwood recalls going to gay bars in L.A. where people dressed up as their favorite Dynasty characters, and being recognized all over the world. “The reaction to the show was so overwhelming it made you realize the power Donald Trumpprobably feels. People respond to everything he does all the time unfortunately.

“You became like public property. People felt like they knew you because you were in their homes. It was difficult because I’m a private person. For me it was odd because I’m not that frivolous a person who needs that acclaim. It’s not something I need to validate or define myself.”

The nice airline seats and fast service were lovely, Bellwood says, but now, she laughs, people look at her and say, “You look familiar. Did you ever work at Nordstrom?” She wanted to sink back into anonymity. “I was happy to have the work, to go to work, but then leave work.”

As for Steven Carrington being gay—Claudia one of his longtime female relationships—Bellwood, like Gordon Thomson (Adam), thinks the producers were trying to “do something that they weren’t that comfortable with because of the atmosphere and misinformation of the time around AIDS.”

She liked Claudia being a counterweight to the “wealth and silliness of the Carringtons, and that her character’s mental health issues meant she had “more to do than wear shoulderpads.”

The Moldavian massacre was “the moment Dynasty began to take a turn, from that moment it floundered a bit. Dynasty had a simple concept, and it wasn’t going to go much beyond that,” Bellwood says. Bellwood would have liked Claudia to have surmounted her problems and helped others.

Though she didn’t like all the glamor and isn’t a glamazon in real life, Bellwood says, “You can’t say it wasn’t fun. It was fun. I’ll always have a tenderness for her. It was an emotional marriage of sorts to play her. I’m fond of the memory of her and always will because she was a part of my life.”

  • Teeman, Tim (October 1, 2017). "I Burnt the Dynasty Set Down: Pamela Bellwood and John James on the '80s Show and Controversial Reboot". The Daily Beast. Retrieved October 27, 2017.

Bellwood is pregnant, no word how the show will deal with it (1985)

Pamela Bellwood was granted her wish to leave; she "died" in the La Mirage fire.

One big decision we had to make when rebooting Dynasty was what to do with Matthew Blaisdel (played by the marvelous Nick Wechsler, whom I loved working with on Revenge). Matthew was Cristal’s on-again-off-again lover, and while we loved that part of Cristal’s backstory and loved Matthew’s crazy wife, Claudia, he didn’t bring that much to the original series other than business stories, and the Shapiros (the original creators) encouraged us to focus more on family than business. So, when I was watching the original Dynasty pilot, there’s this oil rigging accident Blake sets up in order to tank the price so he can swoop in and buy it out from under his competitor. The realization of this causes Walter Lankershim (Willy in our version) to crash the Carrington wedding with a gun. In our version, it made dramatic (and soapy) sense to have Matthew injured in the accident, sending his wife, Claudia, to the Carringtons’ doorstep to give Cristal the news that her new husband may have killed her ex-lover. And that accusation — and the mystery surrounding it — is what launches us into series.

Perhaps because their roles are smaller, Bo Hopkins, as a field boss for the corporation who has had an affair with the Evans character; Pamela Bellwood as his emotionally disturbed wife, and Dale Robertson as the wildcatter looking for his last chance to make his pile, are more successful in their portrayals.

Another Dynasty character, Claudia Blaisdel, played by Pamela Bellwood, was also dismissed for plot purposes, though not so irrevocably. "Claudia was an incredible neurotic and has a very good story arc for about a season and a half," Mr. Pollock adds. "But after a while, neurotics become very repetitious and the audience becomes bored, as in real life. So, at the beginning of the season, we wrote her out by sending her to a very expensive private sanitarium." In terms of soap-opera tradition, however, this will not be the last to be heard from Claudia, as viewers will discover this Wednesday night on Dynasty's final show of the season. "Fortunately, Claudia will make a total recovery," Mrs. Pollock says. "On the last show of the season, she will return—somewhat tempered, a little bruised, but a lot more interesting."

Initially, the series followed two families from different socioeconomic strata: that of oil baron Blake Carrington and that of middle-class striver Matthew Blaisdel. Through Blaisdel and his wildcatting partner we learn about the scrappier side of the oil business, and with surprisingly gritty realism. (The Blaisdel plots tended to unfold at glamour-free locations, from the rig to the crew's dive bar to the boxing gym.) The Blaisdels' story line was meant to give the series the epic scope and struggle of Giant, but primetime viewers didn't respond. "The audience told us almost immediately: All they wanted to do was be in the mansion," Esther Shapiro explains on the DVD of the first season. "[They] couldn't care less about the oil fields. They didn't want to see grubby rooms." By Season 2, a caricature of upstairs-downstairs life complete with butler and housemaids (but absent any real class resentment) replaced the middle-class world of the Blaisdels.

The anguished Season 1 story line of Matthew Blaisdel's wife Claudia suffered a similar fate. Claudia is first introduced in an artful, extended sequence: Matthew drives their teenage daughter to pick up her mother, who is checking out after 18 months in a sanitarium. In a delicate talk in the parking lot, he prepares his daughter for a fraught reunion, only to discover that Claudia has checkedherself out unannounced weeks earlier. Ultimately, the family comes together at the diner where she has quietly been waitressing. All of this is handled with a naturalistic touch, free of the expected histrionics and melodramatic musical cues. (In their own prime-time way, Claudia's family scenes evoke A Woman Under the Influence.) Claudia struggles through her transition back into suburban home life with convincing pathos and impressive spirit. (At one point, she recites Dorothy Parker poems as a pick-me-up.) But by Season 2, with the writers pandering to viewers who wanted to be "in the mansion," the Blaisdel family could not survive. By the middle of the second season, Matthew and Lindsay had been written out of the series with a handy car crash and by Season 3, Claudia had gone from struggling painfully with an illness to being full-on, soap-operatically crazy.

The foil to vulnerable Claudia was Blake Carrington's razor-sharp daughter Fallon.

Thomson said in 1986 a potential sixth season storyline for Adam and Claudia was sidelined by Bellwood's pregnancy: "They had all sorts of wonderful plots involving Adam and Claudia—takeovers, antagonism, the works. Then Pamela, of course, had her baby, a terrific kid. But that took up the first part of the season. That's why you saw so few full-length shots of her, or she was holding towels in front of her."

The actress says she's been itching to escape from Dynasty for more than a year, and it's no secret that after six seasons of mayhem and madness, poor Claudia has finally gone out in a blaze of glory. And now, Bellwood finds herself with a problem that is the reverse of the dilemma which hampered her career when Dynasty was first created.

"I'd played a succession of tough, self-sufficient women until then, and the producers wondered if I could be convincing as someone who was meant to be a victim. Now, everyone associates me with Claudia. Although things were getting better for her on Dynasty—before the fire, that is—she's never had much to be happy about."

Bellwood says she wanted out when when she discovered that she was pregnant, but the producers persuaded her to stay an extra year. It came as no surprise to the actress that ratings dropped when viewers finally became exasperated with the incredible goings-on in and around the Carrington mansion.

"Instead of making a splash with all of that, they very nearly drowned the lot of us. I'd heard before that successful shows develop a death wish after a while, and now I've actually seen it with my own eyes."

... and a blaze that kills Claudia (Pamela Bellwood) and leaves other characters' fates in the balance.

One character who definitely dies in the episode is Claudia. Pamela Bellwood, who has played her since the series began in 1980, wants to quit to spend more timer with her eight-month-old son, Kerry.

She had a row with Dynasty bosses last year when she became pregnant. Her husband, British journalist Nik Wheeler, says they complained because the baby wasn't in the script.

The fire scene in which she dies went terribly wrong and nearly killed Pamela, too—despite fire experts being on hand to supervise. When furniture around her was set alight, flames leapt 50 ft, knocking out all the studio lights. Two studio firemen with extinguishers and fire blankets ran to her rescue but collided with each other in the darkness, sending a heavy lighting pole flying. It hit Pamela, who was knocked screaming to the floor as the fire raged around her. The two bungling firemen picked her up and whisked her to safety in the nick of time.

"I thought I'd really die," she says.

The scene is set in La Mirage Hotel. As Dominique's party in full swing, Claudia is alone in an upstairs suite and begins lighting candles. She opens a window and a breeze blows the curtain on to a candle, sparking off a fire that sweeps through the suite...


Paulsen said, "I am sorry that we didn't last for another year or two because, well, I'm rather proud of what we did that year."

Paulsen (hidden):

I had been offered a job on DYNASTY about four years earlier. I didn't take it because they only wanted me as a writing producer, which really means a writer who's got a producer's title without the power. I really had no interest in doing DYNASTY. The very little I'd seen of the show didn't jibe with anything I knew how to do. But I wanted to leave DALLAS, I wanted to move on so I put the word out and my business manager, who happened to be the business manager for Esther and Richard Shapiro as well, called me and told me they’d like to meet with me again. They're lovely, lovely people. In fact I had lunch with Richard yesterday.

David: We've become friends. But I told my business manager at the time I didn't see any point in meeting again because theirs wasn't a show I felt I could do. He suggested I read the script that Richard and Esther had written, the three hour pilot. I read it; it was terrific.

David: It really was. So on the basis of that I said, "Sure I'll meet them." We met the next morning and they asked if I'd be interested in producing the show. I told them first of all, that I would only be interested if I could take it over completely, guide it any way I chose. I wouldn't take only a writing producer’s job. Turns out that's what they were looking for, someone to come in and take over. The four executive producers wanted to pull back and they were getting rid of the writing producers. And so I said, "OK, well, that's interesting.

David: I told them how impressed I was with the pilot the two of them wrote. But I told them I wouldn't be interested in doing the DYNASTY that was on the air at the time, but if we could return it to the Dynasty they wrote I'd be very interested. That was a strong show. You have action, you have desires straining to be fulfilled. I don't know what happened but that's not how the show devolved." And they said, "Well we don't know what it's turned into either the past couple of years!" (James chuckles)

James: Did they give explanation as to why the programme did go in the direction that it did, having started so strongly?

David: Richard was no longer involved.

David: Richard's a fine writer. Esther is a superb editor. I've seen a couple of things they've written together. She is remarkable. She has an extraordinary eye and extraordinary ear. I don't know exactly how much writing she does, but with Richard they are an incredible team; I have enormous respect for them. But he wasn't involved. Esther continued to be, but mostly I believe she was involved in the business end. She did very well but another couple was writing the show.

David: And they did things, well . . . I couldn't understand, things we would never do in DALLAS. Of course in a show that long-running, things happen. And then there’s the dream, but that's a different story.

David: I mean, the whole Moldavia situation for example.

David: All of the cast in the building and then a huge shoot out, out of which nobody should have lived, and then, the next year, everybody walks out!

David: You can't do that. It’s not respectful of the audience.

David: The Shapiros knew that and they wanted a change and they gave me carte blanche to do the show any way I chose. “All you have to do is stick to the budget" (chuckles) which I didn't know had already been spent at that time.

David: They introduced me to Mr Spelling and Mr Kramer and we came to an agreement and I took the show over. It was a wonderful year and, you know it's funny, I'm very pleased to hear what the gentleman said who wrote to you. I do think we made some important changes.

David: Well, it's an interesting thing. (Chuckles) Mr Forsythe did not like it.

David: I never quite understood why. I'll give you a little background. When I first got the show, I watched about forty episodes one after another from the beginning.

David: Yeah. I skipped through. I wanted to know not only the story-lines they had done, but also I wanted to see which of the characters, popped off the screen. And which didn't so I could lose some. I had also read the budget and found that everything was spent. There wasn't enough in it on a per episode basis to even take the show out one day a week.

David: Take it off the lot.

David: We were gonna be shooting a seven day show completely on the lot. We needed to get out, let the show breathe, see horses, get some cars running, open it up a little bit. But when you take a show off the lot, the trucks start to roll, you incur extra expense. And it wasn't in the budget. We needed to get back some budget monies which meant cutting down the cast. In conjunction with that I also saw that the relationship between Linda Evans, Krystle, and Blake was stale.

David: They were a loving couple. They held hands. They walked around holding hands.

David: No drama, no threat to the relationship. Then I learned that they didn't wanna do anything to disparage their relationship. I could respect that from a personal standpoint, but where do you go with it dramatically?

David: I had to do something to jeopardise that relationship. Given that fans of a television show all know that if an actor signs a contract for twenty-two episodes, he/she’s gonna be on it for twenty-two episodes. So what I decided to do was, for two reasons, cut Linda Evans down from twenty-two episodes to six, which saved us a tremendous amount of money to use to open up the show, but equal to that, let the audience know that something is gonna happen to this character in a very real way. Otherwise she wouldn't be cut to six episodes.

David: At the same time, I wanted to cut Joan Collins from her twenty-two episodes to eleven, for the same reasons. I wanted to bring in some fresh faces who would, on the one hand, be much less expensive – cast budget on a long running show goes up a lot each year. It gets overwhelming. Worse, shows like Dallas and Dynasty weren't making any numbers on their second runs, so the networks cut them to one, even after they’d paid for two. That was one of the major reasons ABC wanted the show off the air. It was costing them double. You follow what I'm saying?

David: So . . . you can't re-negotiate an actor's salary downward.

David: No actor or agent would go for that, but you could diminish the number of episodes. And my feeling was that, among the top three, Blake, the family patriarch, was the one around whom we could run the best stories. I also wanted to make the stories a little more male oriented.

David: I knew we weren't gonna lose the female audience, but making it more male oriented would, on the one hand, bring in another audience, and give us a strength of story that I could count on. So we re-negotiated. Linda was very good about that. And we ... There was a reason for telling you all this.

David: Right. OK well I'm not sure why. He approached me after reading some of the early scripts and, well, he was reticent about it. But I thought he got some terrific stuff. From the very, very first episode. We had him - do you remember what happened that year?

David: My predecessors allowed me to introduce elements into the final episodes of their final year, you know, to help set up the coming year. What we did . . . we had Blake come home and find his and Krystle’s bedroom room completely destroyed. The maid then tells him it was Krystle who did it. And he walks out (chuckles) and puts his hand on his heart and says, "My God, Krystle, I thought we had more time."

David: That set up the entire year. The first episode of our year we had him out looking all over the city for her.

David: What we wanted to do was give Krystle some new character stuff that would run counter to her lovely, pure self, but that couldn't really be blamed on her, you know what I'm saying?

David: We couldn't have her turn into a Sue Ellen Ewing. So we gave her this brain disease which we researched very carefully. I have a psychiatrist friend, Dr. Lew Baxter, who was wonderful. He suggested actions she might take that could have been instigated by pressure on certain areas of the brain.

David: In conjunction with that, I had remembered a story that I had read in Upstate New York years earlier. Very simple story, just a couple of lines in a newspaper. It was one of those things I just sort of packed into the back of my mind, never could figure out what to do with it, and I realized: "Wait a minute. Those are the first eight episodes of the show. It was just a story I'd read about a frozen lake that unfroze in spring; a body floated to the surface. It turned out to be the body of a logger who had been missing for twelve years. The next day, the sheriff went to somebody’s house and arrested him for the murder of the logger - which took place twelve years earlier. When he floated to surface he was perfectly intact.

David: That's how the whole Roger Grimes thing started. We had Krystle for six episodes - but I didn't wanna use them up too fast. So we held her back for the first two episodes. She was the focus of attention; John Forsythe was out looking for her, but she never appeared. At the end of the first episode, we heard she was dead. Story came back that she was found dead by the lake.

David: She was dead. Just like a year later they did in -

David: In the next episode we find out, "Wait a minute. The blonde woman is not Krystle even though her car is there. That blonde woman is not even a woman. It's a man. But Krystle's car was there. Then hold on, Krystle must have killed him."

David: "All the evidence points to the fact that she killed him." And then by the end of the episode, Blake's sent to - I don't know - Iowa, Idaho, something like that, to meet Krystle's cousin whom we've never seen before, who called up saying, "Krystle's here. And wait a minute, she said she killed somebody making it definite. She killed somebody. Then, in the next episode – which we really thought about because, if she’s mentally ill, how is she gonna look - all dishevelled and terrible?" We'd been hearing Blake talking to a doctor about a certain mental problem. But then we meet Krystle and she's as gorgeous as ever. She just doesn't know where she is or why she's there, has little recollection of anything. Well, he brings her back to Denver and then we find out, "Whoa. She didn't kill anybody. In fact, the victim's been dead for twenty-five years."

The biggest challenge that year was, "How do we get rid of Linda in a way that (1) exalts her, so to speak, and gives her a proper, queen-like departure, and (2) also leaves us the possibility of bringing her back?" So we did it with a night, candle-lit wedding – quite different than any of the other weddings the show had done .. and then she goes off, presumably to her death.

Well you avoid [death] onscreen. As with Linda Evans. I would never have had Krystle die on screen. We last saw her going off to have a mortally dangerous operation after which she’d be in a coma for as long as we chose.


To put Karen Cellini's rise and fall in perspective, it helps to maybe start with Catherine Oxenberg's fall from grace the summer of 1986. The short announcements that Catherine had been let go from Dynasty came mid July, 1986. Speculation was that she parted ways with Dynasty over a salary dispute. Not much more info was given other than Karen Cellini had been hired to take over the role.

  • Gainsville Sun, July 16, 1986, Page 2A - [1]
  • Sarasota Herald-Tribune, July 16, 1986, Page 2A - [2]
  • Gadsden Times, July 16, 1986, Page C3 - [3]
  • The Montreal Gazette, July 17, 1986, Page E1 - [4]
  • Schednectady Gazette, July 17, 1986, Page 42 - [5]

It soon became apparent that it wasn't a mutual parting of the ways for Dynasty's producers and Catherine Oxenberg, as Aaron Spelling soon declared "She was FIRED!!!"

  • Lakeland Ledger, July 19, 1986, Page 2A - [6]
  • Herald-Journal, July 24, 1986, Page 4A - [7]

In October 1986 an article appeared that gave Catherine's side of the story, for the most part:

  • New Straits Times, October 19, 1986, Page 7 - [8]

Once August 1986 hit, the Dynasty publicity machine ramped up and articles started to appear showcasing Dynasty's new Amanda:

  • Rome News-Tribune, August 3, 1986, Page 12 - [9]
  • Ocala Star-Banner, August 23, 1986, TV Week Page 11 - [10]
  • The Evening News, July 26, 1986, Page 5B - [11]
  • Sumter Daily-Item, July 30, 1986, Page 7C - [12]
  • Times Daily, August 2, 1986, Page 8B - [13]
  • The Dispatch, August 6, 1986, Page 20 - [14]
  • The Lewiston Journal, August 7, 1986, Page 4B - [15]
  • Park City Daily News, August 8, 1986, Page 14 - [16]
  • The Free Lance-Star, August 9, 1986, Page TV-3 - [17]

Throughout September 1986, Karen Cellini is mentioned in various articles highlighting the changes to various TV shows for the upcoming television season:

  • Toledo Blade, September 17, 1986, Page P-4 - [18]
  • The Spokesman-Review, September 23, 1986, Page B5 - [19]

Of course, we now know that by the time here first episode aired, Karen Cellini's time on Dynasty was to prove short-lived.

  • The Deseret News, October 9, 1986 - [20]
  • The Victoria Advocate, Sunday October 12, 1986 - [21]
  • Star-News, October 14, 1986, Page 2D - [22]

From January, 1987, the episode description for the last Dynasty episode Amanda Carrington would appear in.

  • Gadsden Times, January 7, 1987, Page D8 - [23]

DVD season reviews [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]


  1. ^ "Gainesville Sun - Google News Archive Search".
  2. ^ "Sarasota Herald-Tribune - Google News Archive Search".
  3. ^ "Gadsden Times - Google News Archive Search".
  4. ^ "The Montreal Gazette - Google News Archive Search".
  5. ^ "Schenectady Gazette - Google News Archive Search".
  6. ^ "Lakeland Ledger - Google News Archive Search".
  7. ^ "Herald-Journal - Google News Archive Search".
  8. ^ "New Straits Times - Google News Archive Search".
  9. ^ Buck, Jerry (August 5, 1986). "Landing role on Dynasty took sales job". Rome News-Tribune. Retrieved December 4, 2017 – via
  10. ^ Buck, Jerry (August 23, 1986). "Cellini: From T-shirts to Dynasty". Ocala Star-Banner. Retrieved December 4, 2017 – via
  11. ^ "The Evening News - Google News Archive Search".
  12. ^ "The Sumter Daily Item - Google News Archive Search".
  13. ^ "Times Daily - Google News Archive Search".
  14. ^ "The Dispatch - Google News Archive Search".
  15. ^ "The Lewiston Journal - Google News Archive Search".
  16. ^ "Park City Daily News - Google News Archive Search".
  17. ^ "The Free Lance-Star - Google News Archive Search".
  18. ^ Sonsky, Steve (September 17, 1986). "New Season Also Brings Changes To Old Standbys". Toledo Blade. p. P-4. Retrieved December 4, 2017 – via
  19. ^ "Loren gives bravura performance in Courage". The Spokesman-Review. September 23, 1986. p. B5. Retrieved November 15, 2018 – via
  20. ^ "The Deseret News - Google News Archive Search".
  21. ^ "The Victoria Advocate - Google News Archive Search".
  22. ^ "Star-News - Google News Archive Search".
  23. ^ Zuckerman, Faye (January 7, 1987). "Ranching focus of show". The Gadsden Times. Retrieved December 4, 2017 – via
  24. ^ Ordway, Holly E. (April 23, 2005). "Dynasty: Season 1". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  25. ^ Mavis, Paul (August 8, 2007). "Dynasty: The Second Season". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  26. ^ McGaughy, Cameron (July 19, 2008). "Dynasty: Season Three, Vol. 1". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  27. ^ McGaughy, Cameron (June 24, 2009). "Dynasty: Season Three, Vol. 2". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  28. ^ McGaughy, Cameron (June 25, 2009). "Dynasty: Season Four, Vol. 1". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  29. ^ McGaughy, Cameron (April 19, 2010). "Dynasty: Season Four, Vol. 2". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  30. ^ McGaughy, Cameron (October 22, 2011). "Dynasty: Season Five (Volumes 1 and 2)". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.
  31. ^ Nutt, Shannon (March 21, 2018). "Dynasty: The Complete Series". DVD Talk. Retrieved November 15, 2019.



  • The Colbys: Miles Colby[1]
  • Stanwyck and Maxwell Caulfield joined the cast in July 1985 as Jason's sister Constance and son Miles,[2]
  • In December 1986, it was reported that Heston had sent co-star Caulfield a letter admonishing him for unprofessional behavior on set, while calling the rest of The Colbys team "the best I've worked with in 30 years."[3]




  1. ^ "The Colbys". Soap Opera Digest. October 19, 2019. Retrieved November 19, 2019 – via
  2. ^ "Stanwyck to star in Dynasty II". Lakeland Ledger. July 17, 1985. Retrieved December 10, 2019 – via
  3. ^ "Max suffers public scolding from co-star". The Spokesman-Review. December 29, 1986. Retrieved December 12, 2019 – via
  5. ^ "Miles Colby". Dynasty Wiki.
  6. ^ "Maxwell Caulfield Is Back in Bloom | TheaterMania".
  7. ^ "John James And Maxwell Caulfield Reunite in "Axcellerator"".
  8. ^ Blank, Matthew (March 8, 2011). "PLAYBILL.COM'S CUE & A: Cactus Flower Star Maxwell Caulfield". Playbill.
  9. ^ Brooks, Tim; Marsh, Earle F. (June 24, 2009). "The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present". Random House Publishing Group – via Google Books.
  10. ^ Brooks, Marla (March 12, 2015). "The American Family on Television: A Chronology of 121 Shows, 1948-2004". McFarland – via Google Books.
  11. ^ Newcomb, Roger. "Maxwell Caulfield Joins DEVANITY Cast For Season 3".
  12. ^ "Chicago: Maxwell Caulfield to play Billy Flynn". New York Theater Guide.
  13. ^ Terrace, Vincent (January 10, 2014). "Encyclopedia of Television Shows, 1925 through 2010, 2d ed". McFarland – via Google Books.
  14. ^ "Maxwell Caulfield Will Be Singin' In The Rain All Over the U.K. & Ireland".
  15. ^ Desk, BWW News. "Meet the Cast of CACTUS FLOWER Day 3: Maxwell Caulfield".
  16. ^ "Maxwell Caulfield: back to his roots".
  17. ^ "Interview: Singing in the Rain's Maxwell Caulfield".
  18. ^ McGuire, Carolyn. "FALLON AND JEFF RETIE THE KNOT".
  19. ^ News, Deseret (October 18, 1991). "`DYNASTY' MAKES A COMEBACK". Deseret News.
  20. ^ Press, Theatre Weekly. "Juliet Mills and Maxwell Caulfield to Star in UK Tour of The Lady Vanishes".

Falcon CrestEdit

The Edge of NightEdit

Disc 1
January 7-9, 12-16 1981

Jody survived the transplant operation. In chief Mallory’s office Kelly begs him to let him go home, and he does and he tells Nancy and Mike that he visited Raven. Molly tells Raven how she did in Nadine and Elliot. While visiting Cliff, Draper tells him that he does not know where April is. Molly confesses on why and how she attacked Cliff and then tells her how she faked getting attacked and blaming Kelly. Raven then pulls a gun on Molly and they fight and Molly gets the gun and shoots Raven twice. Geraldine shows up at the Karr’s to tell Kelly that he has been let go. Miles visits with Jody in the hospital as she fantasizes about dancing. Sky calls Raven after a bad discussion with Martine only to find there is no answer, and we see Raven lying on the floor. Molly shows up at April’s home in Oakdale. Draper tells Cliff that he thinks that April left town with Logan. Nancy calls April to see how she is and when Julia starts crying April hands Molly the phone. Molly tells Nancy that April is awfully depressed. Molly makes some tea for April and puts the powder in the sugar. April turns down the tea from Molly and sends Molly back to Monticello. Deborah shows up at Cliff’s and bets her badge that Raven is guilty of Elliot’s murder. Miles talks with April on the phone and learns that Logan left town. Molly returns and goes in the basement and finds some rope and decides to kill April and make it look like she hanged herself. Mrs. Goodman tells Miles that April should not be alone. Draper calls April and tells her that he told Emily he is staying with April, as Molly listens in on the extension. (Continues on next disc)

Disc 2
January 16, 19-21 1981

Deborah visits Derek and tells him that she is convinced Raven is guilty. Molly begins to terrorize and chase April around the house. April is knocked unconscious, which pleases Molly. Miles calls Draper upset about a visit from Molly and warns Draper that she is unstable. Emily remembers seducing Sharkey at the mental hospital, who is the real father of her unborn baby. At Deborah’s insistence Calvin calls Raven and there is still no answer. Molly gets ready to hang April. Molly heads upstairs to get a stool, thinking Raven is a ghost, a terrified Molly stumbles and falls down the basement stairs to her death. Calvin, Derek and Draper head out to Oakdale to see April. Raven tells Monticello the whole Molly story. Emily shows up in Oakdale and is hysterical that Molly is dead. Emily lashed out at April, accusing of her of deliberately pushing Molly down the stairs. Deborah hands in her badge and says good-bye to Calvin. Geraldine visits Raven and tells her that she is a heroine.


{{Infobox soap character}}

I've been considering my own suggestion about coming up with some more specific usage guidelines for this template as a means to improve consistency across our character articles. I don't think our current practices are necessarily flawed or bad, but I do think we should be refining and defining our preferences for new and future editors. I'm presenting "recommendations" and questions below as topics of discussion, not necessarily my ideas for new guidelines. Obviously there are many articles and many variables, few explicitly "right" and "wrong" methods, and varying editor preferences. My goal in bringing up this topic for discussion is to clarify how and why we use certain parameters and see if we can come up with a methodology. I am NOT advocating that we eliminate any parameters or make any other big changes that will affect a thousand articles, so no panicking! And any examples I choose are just to illustrate varying usages, I am not trying to suggest changes to those specific articles.

Basic idea
We may want to discourage the use of too many derivative parameters in certain cases where we agree it may negatively impact readability. Or be stupid. LOL.

A. We currently agree on the optional use of gender-divided parameters (son, sister, father, grandmother, husband)
B. The divisional parameters "step-" and "adoptive" are always used when applicable
C. We currently agree on the optional use of "half-"

General questions

D. Were the divided parameters introduced, and are they being primarily used, because we think defining gender or halfness is an important distinction?
E. How helpful are they as a means to separate longer lists of names for improved readability?

# Recommendations and Questions Example(s) for the discussion
1. The default usage should be collective parameters: |parents=, |siblings=, |spouse=, |children=, |grandparents=, |grandchildren=. Victoria Lord has a LOT of relatives, and breaking them up by gender etc. seems to help readability.
Katherine Chancellor has one grandson and one granddaughter listed, so I'm not sure that two parameters (grandson/granddaughter) instead of just one (grandchildren) doesn't actually make it more busy/cluttered-looking.
Tucker McCall has one person listed in each of several gender-separated parameters (father, mother, half-brothers, wife, sons, etc.), do we like how this looks or not? Would changing it to parents-siblings-spouse-children be worse, better, or the same?
2. In articles where there are more than two characters listed in a given parameter, the use of gender-divided parameters like |brothers=, |daughters=, and |grandsons= may help improve readability.
3. If gender division is used for one parameter, should it be used for all others in that infobox for consistency, or should editors consider each parameter on its own merits? Again in Victoria Lord, the character's five siblings are not separated into brothers/sisters (or half-), but her five biological children and four grandchildren are divided by gender.
4. How useful is it to use |husband= or |wife= instead of |spouse= when most characters will have only married men or women, rarely both. Same discussion could be had regarding |father= and |mother=, since most characters will have just one of each (assuming steps and adopted are already designated separately) Victoria Lord uses |spouse=, Katherine Chancellor uses |husband=. I have no objection to either, I'm just wondering about the group's preferences. Dorian Lord has married six men and one woman, that seems like a better instance to use husband/wife.

Misc useful external linksEdit



Goodbye Llanview, I'm gonna miss you ... but, you have not seen the last of Tina Lord Roberts. That, I promise you. and (etc etc)

The series has received multiple Daytime Emmy Award nominations and wins, including a 2002 award for "Outstanding Drama Series," as well as Erika Slezak's six Emmys and Judith Light's two.

Oliver Fish, etc.Edit

Allison PerkinsEdit

Alison Perkins saved text

Mitch managed to get paroled upon having convinced the officials that he had reformed. Returning to Llanview in 1986, Mitch presented himself to be a “changed man.” Claiming to have had a spiritual awakening, Mitch created a public image that presented him to be a religious evangelist. Everyone was skeptical, and as well they should have been, because it was all an act. As nefarious as ever, he secretly plotted to make Tina and Viki’s lives miserable…while setting up a phony religious commune, bilking people out of their money. Using his charm, and powers of persuasion, Mitch lured many of Llanview’s citizens into joining his cult—particularly young women, who he would the manipulate into doing his dirty work for him, while he kept up his “clean” image.

Shortly before Mitch’s death, he had programmed another of his followers, the young and naïve Allison Perkins, to kidnap the baby that Viki was now pregnant with upon its birth. In September, after Viki gave birth to a baby girl, Jessica, Allison snuck into Llanfair (Viki’s mansion) and kidnapped the infant from the house. The child, however, was returned four weeks later…

In 1987, Mitch was seen again—this time as a voyager on the “Star Ascension,” during Viki’s out-of-body experience as she suffered from a brain aneurysm. During the high stakes dream, which dictated whether she would live or die, Viki was able to ultimately destroy his power over her.

In 2002, an alive and well Mitch Laurence quietly returned to Llanview and befriended Natalie Balsom (who at the time was in angst over her stalled relationship with Cristian Vega.) Under the assumed name, Michael Lazarus, Mitch continued to build a rapport with Natalie, as he kept his presence shielded from the rest of the town. After having fully succeeded in charming Natalie, the two eloped. Natalie was eager to introduce her new husband to her mother, who was other than Mitch’s old nemesis, Viki.

It had been recently revealed that Viki had given birth to two daughters all those years earlier, and that Natalie was Jessica’s twin sister. Viki was mortified when she caught a gander of her new son-in-law. Like everyone else, she had assumed Mitch to be long dead. She also knew that any relationship he was having with her daughter was a sinister and manipulative one. During their confrontation, Mitch cockily revealed that he was fully aware that Natalie and Jessica were born twins and that he had instructed that Allison to switch them as babies. The biggest bombshell, however, was when he revealed that (before he had been assumed dead) he had drugged, raped, and impregnated Viki with Jessica in the same window of time that she and Clint had conceived Natalie.

Viki’s obstetrician, Dr. Walter Balsom had been one of Mitch’s cult followers—who he had instructed to not tell her that she was pregnant with twins. Upon Viki’s giving birth to the first child (Natalie), Mitch apparently reappeared in the delivery room (while Clint had stepped out to alert the family of the one baby) as Viki—unbeknownst to everyone else—progressed to give birth to the second (Jessica.) During the delivery…Viki was so startled by the presence of Mitch (who had “died” months earlier), the shock of having twins and being told by Mitch while in labor that he had raped and impregnated her, that she allowed him to take off with the one baby. Viki then proceeded to altogether suppress the memory, believing that she had only given birth to the one (Clint’s.)

Mitch took Jessica, while Clint and Viki brought home Natalie. He later instructed Allison to kidnap Natalie (whom was being called Jessica) and return the real Jessica in her place. Natalie was then placed with Dr. Walter Balsom and his hard-drinking wife, Roxanne. Mitch’s reasoning for all this: he wanted his daughter to grow up in the lap of luxury, while Clint’s daughter would subsequently have nothing. Mitch’s retelling of these events jogged Viki’s memory of the ordeal, and she was mortified to recall every detail.

Jessica - Soapcentral

She was so distracted with living her own life that she didn't realize Viki had once again been taken over by alternate personality Niki Smith. When Viki/Niki pushed her husband Ben out a window and put him in a coma, she blamed Natalie, and Jessica fully backed her, believing Natalie not only wanted to take everything of hers, she wanted to destroy everything of Viki's. By the time realized the truth, Ben was in a more permanent coma after being accidentally shot by the cops during a standoff with Viki/Niki and Allison Perkins. Remorseful about her horrible, judgmental behavior, Jessica tried to extend an olive branch to Natalie.

Jessica's life began to spiral wildly out of control within weeks of this crisis. Long-thought-dead Mitch Laurence had slowly wormed his way back into the Buchanan's lives, marrying Natalie under an assumed identity. By the time she realized who he was, she was trapped and Mitch said the only way he'd free her was if Viki allowed him to get close to Jessica. Mitch revealed the revolting details to Viki, details so horrific she had blocked them out for decades: Mitch had broken into Llanfair, drugged the maid, and then drugged Viki's tea. While she was out of it, he raped her. Nine months passed, and she gave birth to twins. Mitch gave Natalie to trashy Roxy because she was Clint's daughter and deserved only the worst in his eyes. Jessica was his real daughter, and as an immobile Viki looked on, Mitch kidnapped Jessica. Although he had Allison return Jessica within a few weeks due to him having to disappear and wanting the best in life for his daughter, Viki was still guilt-ridden about not trying to stop him and then blocking everything out.

Mitch wanted Jessica to know she was his, and wanted to tell her. Viki sent Jessica and Seth out of town, only telling Jessica that she was in danger. After a while Jessica couldn't stand being kept in the dark any longer and locked Seth in the bathroom to return to Llanview. When she made it back, Mitch found her and told her every ugly tidbit. In disbelief, Jessica asked Viki, and Viki admitted Mitch was correct. Jessica was sickened by the image of Viki letting her go, and no amount of rational arguments from Viki or anyone else could help ease Jessica's rage. Her entire life now felt like a huge lie. She wanted nothing to do with the Buchanan name or the family she grew up with. She hid out with old friend Al Holden. Seth found her, and when she learned he'd known everything and didn't tell her, she dumped him, claiming she had lost her identity while involved with him.

Jessica was in grave danger with Mitch staying around, constantly looking for her. She went to his mansion to tell him she would never love him, and only the timely intervention of Todd saved her from assault. Jessica decided to flee town and stay with Clint for a while. Viki managed to track her down at the airport, and the two made a guarded peace before Jessica boarded her plane.

Jessica returned to town several weeks later, and was almost immediately kidnapped by Mitch to participate in a bizarre heart transplant scenario with Natalie. The police rescued the sisters just in time. Jessica warmed towards her mother again as well as bonding with Natalie, and although she detested Mitch, he persisted in his attempts to win her over. At one point they argued and he was accidentally blinded by chemicals. She was guilt-stricken, and attempted to form a relationship with him. He was then presumed dead (again) after falling into the river while trying to get Jessica away from Blair, Lindsay and Dorian, who had kidnapped her. Jessica had willingly participated in the kidnapping because she wanted Mitch to pay for his crimes, but had never wanted him to die.

Slowly, she began to get over his demise and fall in love with Antonio Vega. They had clashed on cultural and class levels for months, but now saw the best in each other. Unfortunately, just as Jess opened up again, a still-alive Mitch kidnapped her. He drugged her and saw her as the Viki to his Victor Lord. She managed to send several cryptic messages to her family and Antonio, thanks to a kind young cult member named Brian. Viki was also taken prisoner, and when Brian tried to help them both escape, Mitch shot him in cold blood. Moments later the police rescued the two women, but Jessica was traumatized by being drugged and mentally tortured by her father, as well as the enormous guilt of Brian dying because of his part in her escape attempt. She pushed everyone, especially Antonio, away, and with Jess having to deal with being a suspect in Mitch's death (real this time) and not-so-dead-Keri returning to town with her and Antonio's daughter Jamie, the wall Jessica had built grew higher and higher. However, when Antonio found himself accused of Keri's murder, Jessica's defenses broke down and, as she worked to find evidence to clear him, she opened her heart to his love.

WikiProject Soap OperasEdit

WikiProject Soap Operas

WikiProject Soap Operas

WikiProject Soap Operas: WelcomeEdit

WikiProject Soap Operas recruitmentEdit

Newsletter templateEdit

Mission statementEdit

I can't disagree with a thing you've said, and I'll certainly leave the Days decisions to editors more dedicated to the show. But where you (and others) are still going amiss is that you're still thinking "storylines"; when I mentioned Joe and Thaao in the press, I was talking about their possible comments about the show itself, the impact of the DiMeras on the show and ratings over the years, comments about Jim Reilly's (and Hogan's) handling of them and their characters, etc. I believe both spoke in interviews during the Marlena serial killer storyline (and that when Thaao came back in 2002 he had talked about how he had personally added some business with Tony smoking before the character was killed in 1995 to make it possible that Andre was being killed). That's what most soap articles need right now, real-world context. Again, Pauline Fowler is the ultimate example, Bianca Montgomery is also great, even Alexis Colby is decent. Somewhere in WP guidelines it actually says plot summary info should be kept at a bare minimum; we ignore this because we see some notability and importance there, but we have to remember that the scope of an encyclopedia article is supposed to be real-world first and fiction later. This is not always possible and usually undesirable to us, but it is what it is. TAnthony 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The relevant guidelines here are WP:FICTION, WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF (Writing about Fiction). These topics aren't unique to soap articles... Wikipedia has had extensive, long, drawn out, bloody battles about fictional subjects. For example, Wikipedia is often criticized for having more info on individual Pokemon characters, than about bonafide historical subjects. There are many folks who have tried to use Wikipedia an an info repository for fictional subjects: Plot lines of books, "biographies" of every character in a sci-fi series, extensive "battle" articles about space opera warfare in computer games, even collections of recipes for fictional meals. But the result of all these debates among the members of the Wikipedia community, is that the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that we're here to provide an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a collection of plot summaries that are of interest primarily to fans. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and search on "plot summaries". See also Wikipedia:Fancruft.
Now, because of the millions of people around the world that are fans of soap operas, we do have a lot of people flooding in to Wikipedia and creating articles about soap characters, where the "articles" are little more than plot summaries. My own feeling on this (and I think that I'm speaking for most of the members of this WikiProject), is that we accept that these articles are being created in good faith, often because there's confusion about just what Wikipedia is for. So we're fairly tolerant of these articles, as long as it's made clear that they're just stubs in place for later expansion into "real" articles, a la Pauline Fowler. But this is a very generous and tolerant view on our part, and we're well aware that to other editors on Wikipedia who are working on more "serious" subjects, they'd probably be absolutely horrified at the amount of crap low-quality information that's accumulating in the soap topics. And the only reason that most of the soap articles haven't been nominated for deletion, frankly, is because other editors don't want to waste the time to do it. Now, having said that, I think we, here at this WikiProject, can definitely do our best to organize the existing soap articles, categorize them and rate them, and do what we can to try and find a middle-ground between what soap fans want, and what the standards of an encyclopedia are. But in terms of ratings, we should stick with the standards of Wikipedia, not the standards of fandom. And the standards of Wikipedia are that a short article, with little information except a plot summary, is really little more than a stub (see WP:ASSESS). To call it "Start" class is being generous. To call it "B" class is not acceptable, and if it causes enough controversy, is probably just going to increase the chance that the article is going to get nominated for deletion. --Elonka 18:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I do believe that diatribe completely misses the point of the discussion. We are talking in general about how to rate things, diatribes telling people to go other places don't help. As we are attempting to discuss ratings, I have removed the rating leaving the page in the unrated class for now.IrishLass0128 18:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an open mind!  :) --Elonka 19:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
My minds open, there's just not enough room for that much stuff at one time. :) Remember, I pull this editing stuff off at work. No home computer with internet connection.IrishLass0128 19:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I for one appreciate Elonka's well-crafted comment above and think it's spot-on for this discussion; I am actually going to archive it myself for reference. WP has established rules and conventions, and such "go to" references to back up arguments are an important and essential part of any debate on this or any issue. We can decide whatever we want on this page, but without taking actual WP standards into consideration it means nothing beyond this page. TAnthony 19:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks TAnthony. If you think it's that useful, maybe we should save part of it, and work it into a "Mission statement" on the main WikiProject page? --Elonka 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a great idea; as always, you're always one step ahead. — TAnthonyTalk 16:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Top right toolsEdit