Party of One: Unpopular TV Opinions

[Hiyo]

“Oooh, we're talking in media res--the uncreative crutch of story telling when TPTB don't trust an audience to stick around until the most exciting thing happens so they start with the most exciting thing and then flash back to show how they got there.”

Alias went to that well a few times throughout its run, and it worked more often than not. Heck, the show started that way...

[Wiendish Fitch]

My rule of thumb: if the fractured timeline adds absolutely nothing to the story, in a narrative or emotional sense... don't do it. Just don't. You'll never regret it.

Oooh, here's another absolutely UO, for all you 80s cartoon fans...

Jem and the Holograms: I hate Stormer. Fuck Stormer.

Yeah, I said it, fuck that sniveling moral weakling.

I know she's one of the most beloved characters on the show, if not the most beloved, but I never bought that Stormer was the "nice" Misfit, or the "good" one. She was still complicit in their horrible schemes and, rarely, if ever, did anything to stop Pizazz and company, and never left them (she did for a while, but returned). I'm sure I'm going to get the "but that's because she's loyal!" defense, but loyalty is in an incredibly tricky virtue that I think we give just a wee bit too much credit for.

Feebly mewling ineffectual objections to horrible actions is not admirable. Stopping said actions is, or leaving entirely. No one deserves a gold star for occasionally saying "Gee, you guys, I dunno about this!" or some such thing. 

Also, can we stop ragging on Jem and the Holograms for not liking or trusting the Misfits? For God's sake, the Misfits trapped them in a volcano one time! 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Wiendish Fitch

[Hiyo]

Jem and the Holograms were just jealous The Misfits’ songs were better.

[Spartan Girl]

I hated the final season of Tangled the Series it almost ruins the whole show for me. Having Cassandra go evil because finding out Gothel was her mother and bring out all her sudden micro aggressions about being jealous of Cassandra was bad enough. But having Rapunzel stupidly keep giving Cassandra chances and trying to justify Cassandra’s inexcusable betrayal was so frustrating. The eleventh hour redemption was unearned and I wish Rapunzel had the backbone NOT to forgive Cassandra for everything she did. 

[Shannon L.]

Speaking of tv shows and time lines:  I hate it when something huge happens to a character or characters at the end of a show and the next show jumps forward in time without more than just a few comments on what happened and how the character(s) handled it.  I like seeing the fall out. 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Shannon L.

[DrSpaceman73]

1 hour ago, Shannon L. said:

Speaking of tv shows and time lines:  I hate it when something huge happens to a character or characters and the end of a show and the next show jumps forward in time without more than just a few comments on what happened and how the character(s) handled it.  I like seeing the fall out. 

The office .....jim's confession of love to pam on casino night.  

 

Start of next season.....WTF happened?????

[Zella]

The new All Creatures Great and Small did this at the end. Overall, I enjoyed the show, but I didn't want to see the aftermath of the wedding not happening. I wanted to see that shitshow go down in the church. 

[Mabinogia]

12 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

I was really invested in Castle and Beckett, for a long time. I thought the actors had amazing chemistry, and the writing of them in the first couple of seasons was really good. Both actors sold the here out of these burgeoning, unexpected and increasingly deep feelings. But the writers just couldn't sustain it.

Once they started looking for reasons to keep them apart instead of just writing the natural evolution of the relationship, it all started to go wrong. Misunderstandings, road block love interests, actively lying to each other, sudden bouts of 'I forgot I ever felt anything for you and can't read you at all' when it was convenient.

The most frustrating thing about that is that Castle was a perfect show for allowing the main couple to get together but still having enough drama without "will they/won't they". You've got Castle's daughter, how will Beckett deal with being step-mom, will Alexis be as welcoming of her once Beckett is trying to parent her rather than being kind of an adult friend. You could have Beckett being upset at Castle for using his connection to her for story ideas, like his getting inside info from his cop wife to put in his mystery stories. The typical work together + live together = too much time together. Castle maybe getting more worried about her dangerous job and him having this natural desire to suddenly protect her while she's like "I can take care of myself", all while still being happy together. 

I also think the actors could have handled this. Castle/Beckett was at it's best in the very beginning when they had a light, flirty banter. The angst destroyed what I liked about them. 

I would say a show like Moonlighting (climbs out of my way back machine) I don't think works with them getting together since so much of their "chemistry" was in their battles. 

[Mabinogia]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Speaking of tv shows and time lines:  I hate it when something huge happens to a character or characters and the end of a show and the next show jumps forward in time without more than just a few comments on what happened and how the character(s) handled it.  I like seeing the fall out. 

That's the sign of terrible writing. The writers wrote themselves into a corner, didn't know how to get out of it, so just time jumped to something else. Boooo

[Katy M]

6 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I have discovered that I prefer movies--whether they are biopics or not, to be shown in a linear fashion. I find I get confused and taken out of the scenes because I'm trying to figure what just happened, and doing a lot of "huh?" especially when the movie doesn't provide a tag.

Both biopics of Billie Holiday, and now of Aretha Franklin have used this style. Opens up with 1967, then it's flashback to 1954 (which was okay), but it then jumped to 1963, then back to 1967 (I think), then back to 1954, and on and on.

Maybe I just don't have the intelligence to keep up with this style of movie-telling.

I agree. I don't mind if there's like a teaser at the beginning that is current time or end of life, but please don't jump back and forth the entire movie.  My pea brain can't handle it.

[Wiendish Fitch]

1 hour ago, Shannon L. said:

Speaking of tv shows and time lines:  I hate it when something huge happens to a character or characters and the end of a show and the next show jumps forward in time without more than just a few comments on what happened and how the character(s) handled it.  I like seeing the fall out. 

 

23 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

The office .....jim's confession of love to pam on casino night.  

 

Start of next season.....WTF happened?????

Or Buffy revealing to Xander that she knows he lied to her back in S2 during the great Angel Re-Souling. Wow, way to set up something incredibly dramatic, then have a wheezy little fart of a payoff 4 years later, writers. Brilliant.

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, kieyra said:

I like fractured-timeline narratives when it's done really cleanly. The Firefly episode "Out of Gas" was an episode where (in my opinion) it was done well. Haunting of Hill House was a little messier but overall used it to great effect. 

The Fosse/Verdon miniseries, on the other hand, left me absolutely baffled. That one seemed like it should have been linear. 

I dislike serial shows where the whole schtick is flashback/current/flashforward. (This is Us comes to mind.) I think I blame Lost for this. 

That can be annoying. Flashbacks have become the thing that is way over used. Their great when it makes sense to the story. In the early seasons of LOST when we were learning about each of the characters or the first season of Once Upon a Time when we were learning about the characters but there were stories in the flashbacks like Snow's and Charming's relationship and Regina's and Snow's. So many times there just thrown it with no reason. It does nothing to impact the story or characters. At least with LOST they gave us the great switchroo with what looked like a flashback actually being a flashforward. That was a great twist. 

3 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

The most frustrating thing about that is that Castle was a perfect show for allowing the main couple to get together but still having enough drama without "will they/won't they". You've got Castle's daughter, how will Beckett deal with being step-mom, will Alexis be as welcoming of her once Beckett is trying to parent her rather than being kind of an adult friend. You could have Beckett being upset at Castle for using his connection to her for story ideas, like his getting inside info from his cop wife to put in his mystery stories. The typical work together + live together = too much time together. Castle maybe getting more worried about her dangerous job and him having this natural desire to suddenly protect her while she's like "I can take care of myself", all while still being happy together. 

I also think the actors could have handled this. Castle/Beckett was at it's best in the very beginning when they had a light, flirty banter. The angst destroyed what I liked about them. 

I would say a show like Moonlighting (climbs out of my way back machine) I don't think works with them getting together since so much of their "chemistry" was in their battles. 

It really was. There was still a lot left for Castle and Beckett to explore. Being married, being a stepparent, how does Alexis feel about that? What about Castle? Ex-wife Gina and Alexis's 1st stepmother said that he kept her away from Alexis when they were married. How does he feel not being the only "parent" for Alexis? He has been hurt in the past when Alexis went to Beckett for advice and not to him.  But they didn't. It stinks. They were a great couple. Except for the stall in season four I liked the way they put them together. They meet and get to know each other in season one definitely sparks. Season two has them taking turns realizing their feelings. When Castle thinks its not going to happen he moves on not knowing that Beckett has decided to tell him how she feels. Season three has him dating his ex-wife I like that they didn't break up over something stupid or one being the bad person. They were together but they weren't in love. The stall in season four was annoying because nothing really was happening. They always do a stall but so often the stalls don't make any sense. There's no reason why they won't tell each other how they feel. Season two it made sense when Beckett decided not to tell Castle when she learned he was going to the Hamptons with Gina. Season four made no sense that Beckett knew Castle loved her but didn't do anything with it and left him thinking she didn't remember. 

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, Shannon L. said:

Speaking of tv shows and time lines:  I hate it when something huge happens to a character or characters and the end of a show and the next show jumps forward in time without more than just a few comments on what happened and how the character(s) handled it.  I like seeing the fall out. 

Procedural series tend to often be very guilty of this. I think part of it's due to the very format of procedurals-there's not a lot of room for them to explore the big dramatic moments in depth the way other types of series can. Which, of course, then begs the question why writers for those kinds of shows even bother with the big dramatic stories knowing there won't be much follow-through, if any, but yeah. 

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I also think the actors could have handled this. Castle/Beckett was at it's best in the very beginning when they had a light, flirty banter. The angst destroyed what I liked about them. 

Which is what almost always happens with these 'will they, won't they' couples. The writers layer on angst and heartache to keep fans invested and waiting on tenterhooks, but by the time it's all been exhausted and the writers shove them together because they've run out of ways to keep them apart, that original connection has long been lost.

Castle and Beckett were great in the beginning, and well into season two, as people who were increasingly aware that their attraction to one another might be more serious than they thought. But as soon as other love interests were introduced it all went sour. And it always does, because the trope relies on one person suddenly being unable to read the other and suddenly be unaware that they're doing potentially hurtful things that they wouldn't have done  just a couple of episodes previously.

And then the fanbase takes sides and might never forgive one half of the couple for things they did to the other. This happened with Castle, as people who were around on the TWoP boards will attest - a good number of posters never forgave Castle for swanning off with Gina at the end of season 2, and yet more never forgave Beckett for lying to Castle for a year about hearing his declaration of love.

The actors gave it their level best to put the spark back into the show when they did get together, but the writing couldn't support it, and then the writers just kept piling more angst and misunderstandings onto them until it was just miserable to watch.

1 hour ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

 

Or Buffy revealing to Xander that she knows he lied to her back in S2 during the great Angel Re-Souling. Wow, way to set up something incredibly dramatic, then have a wheezy little fart of a payoff 4 years later, writers. Brilliant.

Xander be held accountable and forced to apologise for shitty things he's done? I don't think so!

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

It really was. There was still a lot left for Castle and Beckett to explore. Being married, being a stepparent, how does Alexis feel about that? What about Castle? Ex-wife Gina and Alexis's 1st stepmother said that he kept her away from Alexis when they were married. How does he feel not being the only "parent" for Alexis? He has been hurt in the past when Alexis went to Beckett for advice and not to him.  But they didn't. It stinks. They were a great couple. Except for the stall in season four I liked the way they put them together. They meet and get to know each other in season one definitely sparks. Season two has them taking turns realizing their feelings. When Castle thinks its not going to happen he moves on not knowing that Beckett has decided to tell him how she feels. Season three has him dating his ex-wife I like that they didn't break up over something stupid or one being the bad person. They were together but they weren't in love. The stall in season four was annoying because nothing really was happening. They always do a stall but so often the stalls don't make any sense. There's no reason why they won't tell each other how they feel. Season two it made sense when Beckett decided not to tell Castle when she learned he was going to the Hamptons with Gina. Season four made no sense that Beckett knew Castle loved her but didn't do anything with it and left him thinking she didn't remember. 

"Stall" is hitting the nail on the head. Too much of the writing of Castle was about stalling what the writers had already said was inevitable. During the first season they talked openly about how this show was a riff on Nick & Nora Charles* - a fun, sexy couple who could spar with one another. And they were, to begin with. There was a frisson that was undeniable, but it was diluted as both characters changed and became less interesting. By season three the PR around the show had reverted to standard 'will they, won't they' stuff, which was insulting because everyone knew they would.

It seemed clear to me at the time that grand ambitions of writing a show that was different to the standard TV procedurals fell victim to fear of losing viewers, so they all regressed into what they felt was safe ground.  Particularly Nathan Fillion, who was vocal about believing people stop watching a show when the couple gets together.

All the normal stuff you get - love interests, misunderstandings, pretend kisses, overheard remarks, being oblivious to the other's feelings all of a sudden - a lot of it felt lazy to me, and it was compounded when the writers were so overtly patting themselves on the back on social media for each tired old trope they wrote in.

*nowhere near as successfully as Frank and Sadie Doyle, the intrepid (and mostly drunk) ghost botherers of The Thrilling Adventure Hour.

[BlackberryJam]

I’m starting to despise split timelines in shows. I thought it was well done in S1 of Westworld, but boy does that suck now. There is nothing wrong with a linear narrative, but it seems that writers/directors need to prove themselves with nonlinear. 

[DoctorAtomic]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Flashbacks have become the thing that is way over used. Their great when it makes sense to the story. In the early seasons of LOST when we were learning about each of the characters or the first season of Once Upon a Time when we were learning about the characters but there were stories in the flashbacks like Snow's and Charming's relationship and Regina's and Snow's. So many times there just thrown it with no reason. It does nothing to impact the story or characters. At least with LOST they gave us the great switchroo with what looked like a flashback actually being a flashforward.

They worked really well with Locke moving his toe in the pilot and then the reveal a few episodes later on. 

If they had just some kind of plan beyond the first season. 

[juno]

42 minutes ago, BlackberryJam said:

I’m starting to despise split timelines in shows. I thought it was well done in S1 of Westworld, but boy does that suck now. There is nothing wrong with a linear narrative, but it seems that writers/directors need to prove themselves with nonlinear. 

Can't stand it. You get constantly pulled out the story you are enjoying for a lesser story. I had to hack off 2/3 of the story in Firefly Lane to enjoy the one timeline I enjoyed.

[andromeda331]

14 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

If they had just some kind of plan beyond the first season. 

I think that's the problem with most shows whether they use flashbacks, will they or won't they, or have an series long murder to solve. They don't really have a plan beyond the first season. It would help out so much if they did. For the will or won't they could plot out the entire relationship meet, get to know each other, faux relationships, get together, the break up, the get back together. Even when they know the show's going to be renewed for awhile they don't. They end up just stretching things out.   

[Hiyo]

Quote

I would say a show like Moonlighting (climbs out of my way back machine) I don't think works with them getting together since so much of their "chemistry" was in their battles.

Ah, the Moonlighting myth...something people apply to relationships on other shows, while forgetting in the cited example that 2 episodes after the two protagonists hook up, the characters were separated due to BTS issues and didn't appear onscreen together for like 10 episodes...then when they are reunited, she comes back pregnant with another man's child and married to a third man...that's what killed the relationship, not a lack of chemistry after doing The Sex.

[Blergh]

3 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Ah, the Moonlighting myth...something people apply to relationships on other shows, while forgetting in the cited example that 2 episodes after the two protagonists hook up, the characters were separated due to BTS issues and didn't appear onscreen together for like 10 episodes...then when they are reunited, she comes back pregnant with another man's child and married to a third man...that's what killed the relationship, not a lack of chemistry after doing The Sex.

I don't disagree overall, but Maddie was pregnant with David's child (not 'another man's')  - and this was confirmed by having the in utero child's 'spirit' played by Bruce Willis himself in that awful episode in which Maddie's pregnancy ended too early for the baby to have been safely born and it was actually played for attempted laughs! That episode somewhat got seared into my brain cells. 

[Hiyo]

Whoops, my bad, for some reason, I thought the baby's father was Sam, not David.

Yeah, Maddie losing the baby was not well done, and supposedly, was another example of more BTS drama.

[Katy M]

2 hours ago, Blergh said:

I don't disagree overall, but Maddie was pregnant with David's child (not 'another man's')  - and this was confirmed by having the in utero child's 'spirit' played by Bruce Willis himself in that awful episode in which Maddie's pregnancy ended too early for the baby to have been safely born and it was actually played for attempted laughs! That episode somewhat got seared into my brain cells. 

I am so glad that I do not at all remember this.

[ifionlyknew]

9 hours ago, juno said:

Can't stand it. You get constantly pulled out the story you are enjoying for a lesser story. I had to hack off 2/3 of the story in Firefly Lane to enjoy the one timeline I enjoyed.

I swear the only way I could distinguish the timelines was the  hairstyles.

6 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Ah, the Moonlighting myth...something people apply to relationships on other shows, while forgetting in the cited example that 2 episodes after the two protagonists hook up, the characters were separated due to BTS issues and didn't appear onscreen together for like 10 episodes...then when they are reunited, she comes back pregnant with another man's child and married to a third man...that's what killed the relationship, not a lack of chemistry after doing The Sex.

Yes Moonlighting's backstage problems created the onscreen problems.  Bruce Willis and Cybil Shepherd had crazy chemistry and that didn't end after their characters had sex.  It's not like when an athlete has sex before a game and loses his competitive edge.  

Cheers Sam and Diane were the original couple we were made to wait before they slept together.  And it worked. Well up until Shelley Long's final season when she kept turning down his proposal just so the show could drag things out to the end.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

Cheers Sam and Diane were the original couple we were made to wait before they slept together.  And it worked.

Laura and Remington did a good job of showing a relationship*  on Remington Steele. And don't get me started on the further insult of "season five" and how they decimated that relationship until the "finale".

*And I don't care what the show runner says, Laura and Remington did have sex at the end of the first season; pretending they never did from season 2-4 was an insult.

Amanda and Lee on Scarecrow & Mrs. King is another favorite. No angst; no triangle; no will they? or won't they? Those two getting together was so very natural and organic. Kate Jackson and Bruce Boxleitner had crazy chemistry.

So sad, that only couples from the 80s quickly comes to mind when discussing this subject.

Edited March 24, 2021 by GHScorpiosRule

[Wiendish Fitch]

I liked that Overton and Synclaire got together in a timely fashion on Living Single, and we got to see the progression of their relationship. They were mushy as heck, but still one of my favorite TV couples.

[ifionlyknew]

5 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

So sad, that only couples from the 80s quickly comes to mind when discussing this subject.

By the 90s it was almost expected that any show that had single people there would be at least one will they or won't they couple. Frasier, the Nanny, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman and of course the X-Files.  

5 minutes ago, Wiendish Fitch said:

I liked that Overton and Synclaire got together in a timely fashion on Living Single, and we got to see the progression of their relationship. They were mushy as heck, but still one of my favorite TV couples.

They were a nice contrast to Max and Kyle.  Who would be that show's on/off again couple.

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 minutes ago, ifionlyknew said:

By the 90s it was almost expected that any show that had single people there would be at least one will they or won't they couple. Frasier, the Nanny, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman

Oh, I don't think there was any question of Michaela and Sully getting together. Even when they broke up over that one White woman who had been kidnapped by the Lakota, I think it was, you could see they still loved each other. There was the ridiculousness of her wanting to marry the preacher so she could adopt those kids from the orphan train, and whatnot, but they still acted like they were sort of still together. That season two finale when she was kidnapped by the Cheyenne Dog Soldiers was the most intense two episodes ever and that scene after he'd rescued her?

Is it hot in here?💘

Again, the chemistry between Jane Seymour and Joe Lando wasn't a flash in the pan. They reunited in that series of movies that she did on Lifetime? Hallmark? Prudence something or other? IT was still there.

Jane had said in an interview, I think it was on Arsenio, that yes, a romance was brewing between Michaela and Sully. I think it was always planned that those two would get together.

[DoctorAtomic]

So who is the original culprit of this will they/won't they business? Is it Cheers? 

[Annber03]

8 hours ago, Blergh said:

I don't disagree overall, but Maddie was pregnant with David's child (not 'another man's')  - and this was confirmed by having the in utero child's 'spirit' played by Bruce Willis himself in that awful episode in which Maddie's pregnancy ended too early for the baby to have been safely born and it was actually played for attempted laughs! That episode somewhat got seared into my brain cells. 

...wow. 

I've never seen "Moonlighting" outside of the occasional clip when it gets talked about on TV somewhere. It sounds like it was quite the wild show. On lots of levels. 

[DoctorAtomic]

When it was firing on all cylinders, it was a really great show. One episode was just the cast performing Taming of the Shrew. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

41 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

When it was firing on all cylinders, it was a really great show. One episode was just the cast performing Taming of the Shrew. 

I LOVED that! I can remember the episode, but the only line I can recall is "Iambic Pentameter"!

[Hiyo]

My advice to anyone who wants to watch Moonlighting is just to watch the first 3 seasons and stop there. 

[DoctorAtomic]

14 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I LOVED that! I can remember the episode, but the only line I can recall is "Iambic Pentameter"!

All I know is there was a lot of slamming of doors. 

[Bastet]

2 hours ago, Hiyo said:

My advice to anyone who wants to watch Moonlighting is just to watch the first 3 seasons and stop there. 

Yes.  The first two seasons and most of season three are some of the best television ever made.  And the ending of season three leaves Maddie and David's relationship in a good place without forcing them into something they're not; I love to imagine them continuing to make and break pacts.  Season four is a hateful, petty, punitive mess spawned by Glenn Gordon Caron's resentments, and season five is what happens when everyone - including the audience - is fucking over it all; the writer's strike meant an extended wait between seasons four and five, GGC got shown the door but other backstage problems remained and they still couldn't get episodes out on time, and season four had done so much damage there just wasn't any saving it - 13 episodes later, the show limped off the air.

But, oh, those glorious first few years.  That was some fantastically sharp, witty, and sexy television.

[DoctorAtomic]

And doors slamming. 

[Mabinogia]

16 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Ah, the Moonlighting myth...something people apply to relationships on other shows, while forgetting in the cited example that 2 episodes after the two protagonists hook up, the characters were separated due to BTS issues and didn't appear onscreen together for like 10 episodes...then when they are reunited, she comes back pregnant with another man's child and married to a third man...that's what killed the relationship, not a lack of chemistry after doing The Sex.

I had stopped watching long before that all happened. WOW! I had no clue. The wind had gotten knocked out of the shows sails for me by the time they got together because I'd stopped caring whether they did or not long before it happened. Which is the real "Moonlighting Curse" to me. Not that hooking them up will ruin the couple but that prolonging it for season after season just takes away the thrill once they do. 

I didn't think they worked well as a couple, probably because of the BTS stuff, so once they hooked up I was outta there. lol

[SmithW6079]

4 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

When it was firing on all cylinders, it was a really great show. One episode was just the cast performing Taming of the Shrew. 

 

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I LOVED that! I can remember the episode, but the only line I can recall is "Iambic Pentameter"!

 

Quote

We endeth here this chapter of Petruchio and Kate
From here they lived life, long and full
The world their only parameter
And as they went
‘Twas with a single complaint
"We hate iambic pentameter!"

Apparently, the episode is on YouTube.  Atomic Shakespeare
 

[Leeds]

5 hours ago, Hiyo said:

My advice to anyone who wants to watch Moonlighting is just to watch the first 3 seasons and stop there. 

That's true about pretty much every TV show.

[Irlandesa]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I didn't think they worked well as a couple, probably because of the BTS stuff, so once they hooked up I was outta there. lol

People think the BTS stuff is referring to the fact that they didn't like one another.  That wasn't the case.  I mean, it was the case that they didn't like one another but that wasn't the reason for the show's decline. They had chem in spite of (or because of) the tension-filled interpersonal issues. The BTS stuff referred to is the fact that the show runner was terrible at getting the show made in time.  It took almost two weeks to produce an episode.  It was Sorkin-esque in that respect. 

The fourth season coincided with Cybil's pregnancy which led to her filming scenes in advance.  Bruce Willis was filming Die Hard.  And he got injured.  They weren't together for most of that season.  And then there was the writers' strike.

The original creator, Caron, wasn't around for the last season and a half.  The show peaked at #9 in the ratings but only slipped to #12 in the fourth season but all those BTS stuff caught up with the show and it tanked in the fifth. 

The consummation didn't really take that long to get to looking back on it.  It was at the end of the third season but the first season was only 7 episodes, the second was 18 and the third was 15.  Consummation happened in Ep. 39 which is just under 2 22 episode seasons.  Back then?  It was maybe a season and a half on other dramas.

ETA: I was wrong about how many episodes they did.  I saw ep. 25 listed in a list of season 2 episodes but that was the total number of episodes produced instead of total number of episodes period. I've updated the numbers.

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Irlandesa

[Zella]

8 hours ago, Annber03 said:

...wow. 

I've never seen "Moonlighting" outside of the occasional clip when it gets talked about on TV somewhere. It sounds like it was quite the wild show. On lots of levels. 

Yeah Moonlighting was off the air before I was born, but I am aware of the show and have heard people talk about and know it's famous for the chemistry between the two stars, despite them not liking each other. But I had no clue it got that crazy. 

My face while reading the plot descriptions. . . .

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Zella

[SmithW6079]

What does "BTS" stand for?

I don't always understand why they say married couples are boring and there always has to be a "will they/ won't they" element to all TV couples. "Hart to Hart" featured a married couple solving crimes. While I never watched it, it lasted several years, didn't it? Someone also mentioned Nick and Nora Charles of the "Thin Man" movies who were a married couple solving crimes. 

[Annber03]

7 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah Moonlighting was off the air before I was born, but I am aware of the show and have heard people talk about and know its famous for the chemistry between the two stars, despite them not liking each other. But I had no clue it got that crazy. 

My face while reading the plot descriptions. . . .

 

LOL, same :D.

I was just a very young kid when it was on, and I don't think it was a show my parents really followed. It's fun learning about these shows I'm not as familiar with, though-I kinda like hearing how bonkers and out there some of them could be. I can see where that kind of thing would be very frustrating, as has been discussed here, but I can also see where it'd be weirdly entertaining, depending on the story :p. 

[Zella]

1 minute ago, Annber03 said:

LOL, same :D.

I was just a very young kid when it was on, and I don't think it was a show my parents really followed. It's fun learning about these shows I'm not as familiar with, though-I kinda like hearing how bonkers and out there some of them could be. I can see where that kind of thing would be very frustrating, as has been discussed here, but I can also see where it'd be weirdly entertaining, depending on the story :p. 

I actually debated whether I needed to hunt down a clip of Baby Bruce Willis before talking myself out of it. So, yeah, I totally know what you mean! I could definitely see it being very frustrating if you're a viewer in real time who is used to a very different show. 

[Irlandesa]

8 minutes ago, SmithW6079 said:

What does "BTS" stand for?

Behind The Scenes

[kiddo82]

10 hours ago, Annber03 said:

...wow. 

I've never seen "Moonlighting" outside of the occasional clip when it gets talked about on TV somewhere. It sounds like it was quite the wild show. On lots of levels. 

My only real exposure to Moonlighting was the episode of the Chipmunks that parodied it.  Of course, I didn't know that's what it was at the time.  (And to be honest, I don't even know how I know that now.)  Otherwise it's just really, really vague memories of my parents watching it.  

Edited March 25, 2021 by kiddo82

[Hiyo]

Quote

That's true about pretty much every TV show.

There are quite a few shows that had good quality beyond their third season, actually.

Quote

that wasn't the reason for the show's decline

Yeah, and that's why I always roll my eyes when people use Moonlighting as an example of couples losing their magic once they finally consummate their relationship. Maddie and Sam were never given a real chance to be a couple after their hook-up, so we will never know. But it always irks me whenever people bring up the "Moonlighting curse".

[ABay]

6 hours ago, Hiyo said:

There are quite a few shows that had good quality beyond their third season, actually.

In my opinion, Lost was at its best from the end of season 3 through season 4. But I also agree with the OP that many shows decline rapidly after 3 seasons. Buffy, for example, could've ended with a perfect story arc if it ended with season 3.

[WinnieWinkle]

There's definitely something about the third season - for many shows that's when they peak and it's all downhill from there, but I can think of any number of shows where it's the third season where they really hit their stride and the show becomes the show I truly enjoy watching.  Two older shows come to mind in this regard Everybody Loves Raymond and Star Trek Next Generation.

[Hiyo]

Depending on one's preference, I would also add ER, the original 90210, The Good Wife, Roseanne, the original Dallas, the original Dynasty, Friends, The Golden Girls, L.A. Law, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, NYPD Blue, The Sopranos, The Wire, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, 30 Rock, A Different World, The Simpsons, Cheers, The X-Files,  Law & Order, Knots Landing, The Jeffersons, Designing Women, Hill Street Blues...just to name a few.

Granted, not all those shows ended as well as they started, but if anything, I would say quite a few of them probably peaked in their 5th seasons, not their 3rd. But they all had at least one or two strong seasons after the 3rd one.

[vibeology]

Season 5 of The Good Wife was it's peak season. It ended a mess mostly because of behind the scenes drama but that season was so exciting creatively.