The Myth Of The Moonlighting Curse And Other Issues With Romance On Television

[DkNNy79]

Most I like have been mentioned here, I think it's key that TPTB show why the cream in the cookie triangle (I'm hungry, sue me) can't choose. Sonny/Brenda/Jax (GH) is perfect. While I was totally Team Jax, I got how Sonny appealed to a certain side of Brenda's (even if I wanted a bus to hit him, a train to hit the bus, a building to fall on the train, and then all of it drop into a sinkhole and spontaneously combust). I also thought the Richard/Monica/Chandler was pretty good. Everyone was a pretty decent person, no assholes, no monsters.

ITA with everything you said about the Sony/Brenda/Jax triangle.  This was must see tv for me in high school.  I really hated what they did with the triangle the second time around (Jax leaving Brenda at the alter - I don't think Jax would've done that to Brenda).

 

Dawson/Joey/Pacey - I never got the chemistry between Dawson and Joey, so I'm glad how things ended.

[Luckylyn]

I've so far loved how Arrow is handily the Oliver/Felicity relationship.  They are solid but not taking over the show.  Unfortunately, the writers have decided to introduce a lame totally unnecessary lie to use implode things.  It's annoying because there was room for conflict without that.  The whole episode where Felicity is freaking out over Ray and reveals her fears of being overly consumed by her romance with Oliver was a good example of conflict organically stemming from who the characters are.   Couples can get together and still be interesting (ex: Dr. Mike/Sully [Dr. Quinn], Monica/Chandler [Friends], April/Andy, Ben/Leslie [Parks and Rec])

[editorgrrl]

Has there ever been a Will They or Won't They storyline where they didn't?

I think something like that happened on a show about witness protection a few years back... I didn't watch it, just read about it.

US Marshals Mary Shannon (Mary McCormack) and Marshall Mann (Frederick Weller) on In Plain Sight, which was on USA from 2008 to 2012.

They were partners working witness protection in Albuquerque, New Mexico (and snarky BFFs), but after five seasons

Mary was a single mother with a budding romance, and Marshall was about to marry someone else.

Edited December 29, 2015 by editorgrrl

[jhlipton]

I am a huge fan of the relationships on Brooklyn 99.  Jake liked Amy, and Amy liked Jake, but not quite "that way".  They both dated other people, and those relationships developed in realistic and sympathetic ways.  When they ended, no one was hurt because they realized the feelings just weren't there.  It was beautifully written and acted, just like the rest of the Jake and Amy arc.

[zxy556575]

Another examples of the writers specifically failing their characters was the romantic pairing of Nathan and Audrey on Haven. Most viewers were fine with them being together, or maybe even shipped them, but then the show slowly devolved into a treacly mess of the one twu wuv above everyone and everything else. The mistake wasn't bringing them together, it was making their relationship the focus of the show to the detriment of all other characters, plots, and ultimately, believability.

[jhlipton]

Another examples of the writers specifically failing their characters was the romantic pairing of Nathan and Audrey on Haven. Most viewers were fine with them being together, or maybe even shipped them, but then the show slowly devolved into a treacly mess of the one twu wuv above everyone and everything else. The mistake wasn't bringing them together, it was making their relationship the focus of the show to the detriment of all other characters, plots, and ultimately, believability.

 

 

Oh, yeah, Mr "I won't be happy with just another construct" until he is.

[ratgirlagogo]

 

Has there ever been a Will They or Won't They storyline where they didn't?

Ugly Betty.  I think the American version of this show is the only one in which Betty and Daniel don't end up together.

[Irlandesa]

Ugly Betty.  I think the American version of this show is the only one in which Betty and Daniel don't end up together.

Ugly Betty was interesting because they didn't really play up the will they/won't they until the end.  And the ending was vague.  They didn't definitively get together but they also didn't definitively not get together.  The writers sort of set the stage and pointed them towards one another but definitely left it up to interpretation what the dinner meant.

[Trini]

I loved that Ugly Betty kept the two leads platonic 'til the end. I think early in the show's run the producer said he didn't plan on them getting together, and I think the only reason they even hinted at that in the last season was to satisfy 'shippers.

[Luckylyn]

I liked that the ending of Ugly Betty left the possibility of a romance between Daniel and Betty an open question.  It's clear Daniel has feelings (he quit his job and followed her to England which is clearly not a platonic action) but what Betty's response will be is left up to the imagination of the fans.  I rooted for them to get together.

[topanga]

On 7/19/2014 at 10:15 PM, GreekGeek said:

Has there ever been a Will They or Won't They storyline where they didn't?

Despite Sleepy Hollow becoming up a trainwreck of a show, there was always great chemistry between the two lead actors, Tom Mison and Nicole Beharie. But for the first two seasons, Ichabod was married, so the Will-They-Won't-They debate among 'shippers was a moot point (at the very least, somewhat immoral). During the third season, when Wifey was no longer around, the hook-up possibility returned. Especially when Ichabod and Abbie became roommates and when Abbie's boss and ex-boyfriend kept wondering why dude was always around her. But the discussion died, literally, when Abbie Mills was killed off the show (Nicole Beharie's choice? TBTB's choice--but that's a heated debate for the show's thread). 

[Trini]

11 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

I liked that the ending of Ugly Betty left the possibility of a romance between Daniel and Betty an open question.  It's clear Daniel has feelings (he quit his job and followed her to England which is clearly not a platonic action) but what Betty's response will be is left up to the imagination of the fans.  I rooted for them to get together.

I liked that the ending was open too, but I was rooting for them NOT to get together. Not that I hated the idea of them as a couple, but one of the things I liked about Ugly Betty was the strong platonic relationship between Betty and Daniel. It's rare that a show with a female and a male lead doesn't have them become lovers, and I appreciated that.

[catlover79]

Yes, triangles or "will they/won't they" scenarios often have more drawbacks than not. That's why I mostly prefer the couples who were together from Day One - Samantha and Darrin Stephens, Jonathan and Jennifer Hart, Bob and Emily Hartley, to name a few. Sure, there were outsiders who tried to get between some of those couples that led to misunderstandings - but when all was said and done, they were solid (as a rock, to quote Ashford & Simpson). These couples were married, devoted to each other and there was never any question that they loved each other. That said, we could sit back and enjoy whatever adventures came their way that particular episode.

[Mabinogia]

I have always preferred shows with established couples over shows where it was obvious the leads were going to hook up eventually but the writers didn't have the skill to pull it off so they kept teasing the relationship and putting obstacles in the couples way. 

For me the single hottest, sexiest couple on television was and always will be Gomez and Morticia Addams. Married, with children and they couldn't keep their hands off each other. My favorite ever movie couple was Nick and Nora Charles, which Hart to Hart was based on so I loved them too. All the couples you listed were solid...solid as a rock! (LOVED that song as a kid!!!!!!) I would add Rob and Laura Petrie (Dick Van Dyke Show) and the all time greatest, George Burns and Gracie Allen. These are relationship goals (as the kids say lol)

[Luckylyn]

I adored Hart to Hart  They were glamorous and clever.  Such a modern take on Nick and Nora Charles.

[catlover79]

17 minutes ago, Luckylyn said:

I adored Hart to Hart  They were glamorous and clever.  Such a modern take on Nick and Nora Charles.

Plus, who wouldn't want to have sidekicks like Max and Freeway the dog?

[ABay]

Gomez Addams was un mari fantastique.

[Anela]

I stand out like a sore thumb in Gilmore Girls groups, because most people are Team Dean, Jess, or Logan (and for Lorelai, it's usually a showdown between Luke and Christopher). I'm Team Single, for the most part. I'm glad that Rory didn't marry Logan at the end of the series. I hated it when the plot consistently revolved around a romance, or a break-up, when the story was supposed to be about a single, independent mum, who liked men, but also seemed to be fine with being single. But we're right out the door with Rory going goo-goo over Dean, and almost skipping the school she'd wanted to attend, because of the new boy. And Lorelai seeming to be desperate to be married, in season six and seven. I understand ups and downs, and people changing, but the push for someone to be married at 21/22, or to be married at all, just to be married - it bugs. 

[Anela]

And then there was the break-up in Mad About You. That also bugged. I loved that show, and they had to mess with a happy couple, who just so happened to be tempted at the same time, in the same episode. 

[aradia22]

Quote

For me the single hottest, sexiest couple on television was and always will be Gomez and Morticia Addams. Married, with children and they couldn't keep their hands off each other. 

Proof that if you know how to write your characters, being in a longterm relationship does not have to be boring. 

[catlover79]

By the way, I love the name of this thread. It sounds like the title of a mystery novel. 😊

[DearEvette]

I always liked how the romance between Allison and Carter on Eureka played out.  He was all gut instinct and went with his heart while she was all cool intellect and thought with her head.  So it made sense how the viewer always knew from jump that he liked her but she was more cagey.  But they gave broad hints in S1 that it wasn't one sided.  And even thought they brought in other love interests for each one over the course of the series, when they finally put them together in S4 it was worth the wait.

[ratgirlagogo]

9 hours ago, aradia22 said:

Quote

For me the single hottest, sexiest couple on television was and always will be Gomez and Morticia Addams. Married, with children and they couldn't keep their hands off each other. 

Proof that if you know how to write your characters, being in a longterm relationship does not have to be boring. 

Sometimes I think people who write for TV and movies don't believe in real friendship of any kind, let alone in romantic sexual friendship.

Edited May 29, 2019 by ratgirlagogo

[jah1986]

8 hours ago, DearEvette said:

I always liked how the romance between Allison and Carter on Eureka played out.  He was all gut instinct and went with his heart while she was all cool intellect and thought with her head.  So it made sense how the viewer always knew from jump that he liked her but she was more cagey.  But they gave broad hints in S1 that it wasn't one sided.  And even thought they brought in other love interests for each one over the course of the series, when they finally put them together in S4 it was worth the wait.

I was just re-watching the Season 1 finale where Henry changed the timeline and Jack and Allison were married and Jack said there's no way we don't wind up together.  Always liked them as a couple and you're right, when they finally got together it was worth the wait. It helped that the actors had great on-screen chemistry.

[DearEvette]

4 hours ago, jah1986 said:

I was just re-watching the Season 1 finale where Henry changed the timeline and Jack and Allison were married and Jack said there's no way we don't wind up together.

Yeah, that is one of the reasons why I also think Eureka delivered one of the most satisfying series finales as well.  The series finale really delivered on the tease and promise of that season 1 finale.  They ended up exactly where that S1 finale said they would.  I always appreciated that.

Edited May 29, 2019 by DearEvette

[Bort]

Brooklyn Nine Nine seems to have done the most admirable job I've seen... well, maybe ever, in starting the series with the characters being single, teasing us with them a bit, then going ahead and putting them together, eventually getting engaged, then married. It's been a nice progression.

[magicdog]

23 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

For me the single hottest, sexiest couple on television was and always will be Gomez and Morticia Addams. Married, with children and they couldn't keep their hands off each other. My favorite ever movie couple was Nick and Nora Charles, which Hart to Hart was based on so I loved them too.

The problem with many writers today is they do not know how to write for happy stable couples/families.  Many of them never had it in their own lives and they only see things as a calm before a breakup storm.  The other problem is lazy writing in which you have a stable couple but think there are no ups and downs that don't necessarily end with divorce or regret.  If anything, seeing a couple working together shows how strong they really are. In Cobra Kai, Daniel is married to Amanda, who is both his wife and business partner (they own and run several luxury auto dealerships).  In Season 2, Daniel loses focus and business at the dealership is slipping.  In one episode, Amanda calls him out on his absence and that they have a 10 car quota for the month - and they'd have to do it in a day to beat it.  She adds there was no way he could sell that many in a day.  He replies, "I can't.  But WE can!".  What follows is an organic but entertaining series of events as they worked as a team to make that quota.  It just shows how well written the characters are and how good they are together.  The show itself is well written in general, but this part of the episode really made me smile!

[aradia22]

Quote

The problem with many writers today is they do not know how to write for happy stable couples/families.  Many of them never had it in their own lives and they only see things as a calm before a breakup storm.

I like "celebrity" memoirs. I know the cliche is that people who work in entertainment and comedy (and sometimes authors too) are children of divorce or have tumultuous personal lives. But having read a bunch, I know that's not always the case. As far as I recall from her 2 books, Mindy Kaling's parents were happily married (though she doesn't talk about it a lot and it's possible they divorced and I forgot). Tina Fey is happily married. I haven't started watching Shrill yet but it'll be interesting to see how that shapes up.

The rest of your comment brings up the point that the place where marriages stay strong is in family sitcoms. I know it was a cartoon first but Addams Family mainly started as a family sitcom. I'm thinking... Fresh Off the Boat, Modern Family, Yes Dear, etc. The reason those relationships are strong and the couples work through problems is that the show is all about presenting a stable narrative about home and family. The exceptions stand out... Married with Children, that one story arc in blackish... You could make an argument about Step By Step and Who's the Boss but I think an unconventional family structure doesn't mean a lack of stability in the present... especially since those other spouses are rarely discussed. 

Edited May 29, 2019 by aradia22

[Trini]

2 hours ago, magicdog said:

The other problem is lazy writing in which you have a stable couple but think there are no ups and downs that don't necessarily end with divorce or regret. 

Oy - I know one showrunner of a show I used to watch (which had a revolving door of love interests for nearly every character) straight up said that happy/stable couples are "boring". Which I thought really sucked in this instance, because they had managed to hit the jackpot with the lead character's love interest, in terms of chemistry with the actors and likeability of the character. However they kept throwing obstacles at the couple, and eventually broke them up for good.

[Mabinogia]

55 minutes ago, Trini said:

I know one showrunner of a show I used to watch (which had a revolving door of love interests for nearly every character) straight up said that happy/stable couples are "boring".

It's only boring in the hands of bad writers. Good writers can make a loving, stable, happy couple enjoyable. I find all the convoluted obstacles thrown at a "will they won't they couple" incredibly boring. Any show I have watched with that kind of dynamic, I've completely lost interest in the couple long before the show finally puts them together expecting me to swoon. 

[Spartan Girl]

Disney's Tangled the Series and Aladdin: The Series from way back in the 90s (anyone remember that show?) did a pretty good job of portraying couples as well, showing that there's more to a relationship than just happily ever after. Rapunzel and Eugene have a great relationship on their show.

Aladdin in particular wasn't afraid to go into the ups and downs of romance without things getting too angsty. Aladdin and Jasmine had a mostly healthy relationship, but they could get really petty and insecure with each other. One episode I remember had Jasmine flirt with a visiting prince because she felt like Aladdin was taking her for granted and it wound up resulting into the two of them using the poor guy to get back at each other. I normally hate this trope with a passion, but in the end they BOTH owned up to their faults and apologized to each other and to the prince. Whatever came between always learned and grew from their mistakes, and were ultimately stronger for it.

Compare that to the endless cycle of "marriage in crisis" episodes on The Simpsons where Homer always has to grovel and make a grand gesture for forgiveness to Saint Marge, who NEVER owns up to any of her faults and always acts like such a victim. And yet that show will go on forever while you can't even find Aladdin on DVD/Netflix. Go fucking figure.

[kathyk2]

3 hours ago, Trini said:

Oy - I know one showrunner of a show I used to watch (which had a revolving door of love interests for nearly every character) straight up said that happy/stable couples are "boring". Which I thought really sucked in this instance, because they had managed to hit the jackpot with the lead character's love interest, in terms of chemistry with the actors and likeability of the character. However they kept throwing obstacles at the couple, and eventually broke them up for good.

Are you talking about How I Met Your Mother? They had no good reason to break up Barney and Robin. Tracy was lovely as well.

[anna0852]

@aradia22 Mindy's parents were happily married until her mother died in 2012

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, magicdog said:

The problem with many writers today is they do not know how to write for happy stable couples/families. 

I think it all depends on where the focus is supposed to be.  If it's a family show, they often find a way to manage to keep couples stable.  If it's a drama or soap or comedy where relationships are front and center, they are less good at it.  It's not that I mind a split between people who are dating but eventually it's "enough already."  And this has been a problem a long long time--ever since the inception of will they/won't they?  Something I do love until they ruin it.

I'm going to give writers today a little more credit, though.  I think more are unlearning the Moonlighting lessons and when they do "will they/won't they", I'm finding more are eventually willing to put that question to bed by putting a couple together and having them take the next step in the journey.  I'm thinking of Ben and Leslie from Parks and Rec or Jake and Amy from Brooklyn 911.  Jim and Pam from The Office too, I think?

ETA: I always appreciated, in the will they/won't they heyday of it must go on forever 1990s, that Wings got Joe and Helen together for good in about season 5.  Heck, even Cheers ended Sam & Diane in season 5--but in that case it's because Shelley left.

The lesson--have a planned arc but put it to bed eventually even if your show lasts longer.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Irlandesa

[Trini]

17 minutes ago, kathyk2 said:

Are you talking about How I Met Your Mother? They had no good reason to break up Barney and Robin. Tracy was lovely as well.

I wasn't; but I kind of agree with you about Barney and Robin. What soured that pairing for me was that the the writers clearly weren't as into it as the audience was.
 

On 5/28/2019 at 4:55 PM, catlover79 said:

Yes, triangles or "will they/won't they" scenarios often have more drawbacks than not. That's why I mostly prefer the couples who were together from Day One - ...

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

It's only boring in the hands of bad writers. Good writers can make a loving, stable, happy couple enjoyable. I find all the convoluted obstacles thrown at a "will they won't they couple" incredibly boring. Any show I have watched with that kind of dynamic, I've completely lost interest in the couple long before the show finally puts them together expecting me to swoon. 

Agreed that it doesn't have to be boring.

However, I think these tropes can be done well; but I get the frustration with them. A key thing is that you can't draw them out for too long; and the reasons for not getting a couple together have to be good ones that make sense within the narrative.

Another thing with triangles is that usually at least one corner ends up getting screwed or looking like a chump; and at least one corner that ends up looking like a terrible person (even if it's the person/s you're supposed to root for).

[aradia22]

Quote

@ARADIA22 Mindy's parents were happily married until her mother died in 2012

Thanks for the fact check. So yeah, it's all on her for the mess that The Mindy Project became (or maybe other people on the writing team)... though my best friend tells me the later seasons got better again.

Quote

It's not that I mind a split between people who are dating but eventually it's "enough already." 

I don't think there's too much breaking up and getting back together on the shows I watch now. I do agree that reflects badly on the couple. Like, if you're breaking up that many times, maybe you're not supposed to be together. For real life examples, see Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor and Melanie Griffith/Don Johnson marrying and then divorcing twice. But I think the more common will they/won't they is just ENDLESS pining because the writers are scared that when the couple finally gets together, it will be boring. The prime example for me is Bones. Because they did string me along for so long and mostly managed to make it work. Even in later seasons, I found their conversations at the bar compelling. That show had a ton of writing problems outside of the main couple but it felt like they only got the couple together once they had completely abandoned any good writing on the show like... pfft, we don't care anymore. 

To me, the myth of the Moonlighting curse is really strong around procedurals built around the two characters having a contentious relationship. Like, if two characters often disagree at work, that doesn't stop because they become a couple. They can still argue their points. Maybe they do it more maturely because they care about each other. But if you're a couple seasons in and they're not terrible people they should already have more respect for the other person's POV whether or not they're sleeping together/dating/married/etc.

[Annber03]

21 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I'm going to give writers today a little more credit, though.  I think more are unlearning the Moonlighting lessons and when they do "will they/won't they", I'm finding more are eventually willing to put that question to bed by putting a couple together and having them take the next step in the journey.  I'm thinking of Ben and Leslie from Parks and Rec or Jake and Amy from Brooklyn 911.  Jim and Pam from The Office too, I think?

Agreed. A lot more shows are putting their main couples together much sooner nowadays, it seems. Quite the difference from fifteen, twenty plus years ago when it seemed people were more than happy to drag that stuff out for years. I do love me a good slow burn romance, but yeah, at some point, it's the whole "shit or get off the pot" thing, you know? 

I also agree that anyone who claims that happy/stable couples are "boring" needs to actually spend time with more happy/stable couples. There's plenty of good stories and drama to mine from those kinds of relationships, too, and a large part of the appeal in those instances is seeing how the couple works through the ups and downs and the drama together. You get a much better idea of why they love and trust each other and want to be together, and it can be very romantic to see the lengths they'll go to help and support each other when the chips are down. 

[andromeda331]

8 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

It's only boring in the hands of bad writers. Good writers can make a loving, stable, happy couple enjoyable. I find all the convoluted obstacles thrown at a "will they won't they couple" incredibly boring. Any show I have watched with that kind of dynamic, I've completely lost interest in the couple long before the show finally puts them together expecting me to swoon. 

Very true. A good writer can keep it exciting.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Trini said:

I wasn't; but I kind of agree with you about Barney and Robin. What soured that pairing for me was that the the writers clearly weren't as into it as the audience was.
 

Agreed that it doesn't have to be boring.

However, I think these tropes can be done well; but I get the frustration with them. A key thing is that you can't draw them out for too long; and the reasons for not getting a couple together have to be good ones that make sense within the narrative.

Another thing with triangles is that usually at least one corner ends up getting screwed or looking like a chump; and at least one corner that ends up looking like a terrible person (even if it's the person/s you're supposed to root for).

That's true. Pretty much all the tropes I hate are ones I never seen done well or even good. Like the triangle. Maybe there are shows where the man or woman really is torn between two women or two men and had feelings for both or you can see why their torn. I've never seen it. Its almost always easy to tell who they'll end up with, it drags on forever to the point it makes all three characters look horrible. Same with the will they or won't they, so many times they drag it out, throw up obstacles that make them look horrible like get engaged to someone else, flying to England to tell Ross she loves him even though he's getting married, Daphne telling Niles how she feels on the eve of her wedding day and three days after he got married. 

[aradia22]

I don't think a love triangle needs to be an equilateral or isosceles. It can be a squalene triangle and work. For this argument, I'll assume MMF and two possible heterosexual couples. Maybe the girl likes one guy more. Maybe one guy is less into the girl. Maybe one guy is too into her to the point that it's offputting. All of that can work. 

I think love triangles really go back to the marriage plot which is why I chose a MMF scenario. In many old stories, the only way a female character could have agency and decide her fate was in choosing the "right" husband. Obviously things have changed and there's more focus on romantic love and compatibility but I still think the bones of it are the same. Love triangles can still work as long as you establish what either choice means. For example, one man is more financially stable but boring. The other man is passionate and exciting. One choice is safe. The other choice is risky. One choice means stability. The other involves some struggle. One choice means being content with a predictable life. The other means surrendering control and giving yourself up to emotional highs and lows. Obviously this is oversimplified, but it's a pretty standard breakdown of this choice.

That said, there are definitely ways to do it wrong. I stopped watching Jane the Virgin early on for a number of reasons but particularly because I had a feeling the love triangle would be annoying and they'd keep going back and forth.

I do think part of the problem is the way TV is written. Unless you're Game of Thrones, a lot of shows seem to be written without a major plan and with the threat of cancellation. I would contrast this with K-dramas which can often be very tightly plotted because one person writes the whole thing and then they shoot the whole show. There's no question about whether they'll be able to finish the story or if they'll keep getting renewed and need to find more story to tell. This allows writers to figure out what they want to say and then say it. Too often, I think shows end up with unfortunate implications or lose their grasp on how the audience sees the character because they're writing without a plan or an outline for the show as a whole. 

I feel like Cheers might have avoided this myth if Shelley Long hadn't decided to leave the show. 

[Danny Franks]

So I decided to rewatch New Girl, and see if I can make it further than the third season, but I'm already reminded of a lot of the issues this show had when it comes to writing relationships. Forget about the Schmidt creepiness, forget about ruining Nick's character to give him and Jess drama, I want to go back before that.

I just watched the episodes with Julia, in the first season. She's introduced as a love interest for Nick and establishes a really strong presence in just two episodes - we get Nick being reluctant to show her who he really is, then she's completely accepting of it. Cute moments as she watches him with his friends. And we get them both being insecure about labelling their relationship, to the point they're acting like they're not invested at all. But then there's a really nice moment where Julia (played with so much energy by Lizzy Caplan) admits that "I don't want to date other people, I just want to date you" and is thrilled when Nick admits he feels the same.

It felt like a decent sized, romantic sitcom moment, intended to set up a relationship that will run for a while. But what actually happens is... they break up a couple of episodes later because Julia decides she doesn't like Nick that much after all. What?

The show did this a few times. They'd get a relatively familiar guest star - Justin Long, Lizzy Caplan, Olivia Munn, - set them up in what appeared to be a semi-serious relationship within a couple of episodes, then dispose of them even more quickly. It was like the writers enjoyed setting these romances up, but then hadn't a clue how to actually write them. And if you know you have someone for three episodes, why would you write the relationship as anything other than a fling?

Edited May 30, 2019 by Danny Franks

[Luckylyn]

Siren went in an original direction with their triangle.   Ryn’s a mermaid that a couple, Ben and Maddie, end up helping.  They all bond with each other.  Ben and Ryn are drawn to each other immediately.  Ben is particularly affected by Ryn’s Siren Song to the point of addiction and so she can’t sing to him anymore.   She didn’t realize her song would have that effect on him.  Maddie temporarily breaks up with Ben over it.  

Because Ryn isn’t human she doesn’t understand human social customs so she makes no effort to hide her attraction.  When Ben kisses Maddie goodbye Ryn walks right up to him in front of Maddie and kisses him too.  Maddie rolls with it because she understands that Ryn isn’t trying to be hurtful.  She approaches Ryn’s behavior in a scientific way.  Maddie and Ryn become close and start showing signs of attraction as well.  Ben and Maddie are clearly thrown by how open Ryn is about physical attraction.   They want to take things slow while Ryn is confused by why they don’t all just act on what they feel.  The second season ended with them consummating their three way relationship.  I love that these characters communicate so well with each other because they are literally from different worlds.  Ryn is an innocent regarding human society but she can be quite dangerous.  She has killed.  In her society in the ocean women have all the power and there is family love but not romantic love.  Woman decide who to mate with and the men comply.  Sex for mermaids is about dominance and procreation leading frequently to the death of the male.  Ben and Maddie are the first partners she’s ever had where sex is about pleasure and an emotional connection.   It’s definitely a new take on a triangle.  All love each other, have flaws, support each other, and no character gets put down to prop others in the triangle up.  They’ve been other shows where I’ve wished the writers went into the polyamorous option.  It’s tricky but with the right actors and writing it can be done organically.

[aradia22]

Quote

The show did this a few times. They'd get a relatively familiar guest star - Justin Long, Lizzy Caplan, Olivia Munn, - set them up in what appeared to be a semi-serious relationship within a couple of episodes, then dispose of them even more quickly. It was like the writers enjoyed setting these romances up, but then hadn't a clue how to actually write them. And if you know you have someone for three episodes, why would you write the relationship as anything other than a fling?

I know very little about New Girl. Wasn't Jake Johnson/Zoeey Deschanel a thing on that show? 

[catlover79]

On 5/29/2019 at 5:24 PM, aradia22 said:

The rest of your comment brings up the point that the place where marriages stay strong is in family sitcoms. I know it was a cartoon first but Addams Family mainly started as a family sitcom. I'm thinking... Fresh Off the Boat, Modern Family, Yes Dear, etc. The reason those relationships are strong and the couples work through problems is that the show is all about presenting a stable narrative about home and family. The exceptions stand out... Married with Children, that one story arc in blackish... You could make an argument about Step By Step and Who's the Boss but I think an unconventional family structure doesn't mean a lack of stability in the present... especially since those other spouses are rarely discussed. 

That reminds me - another couple I totally loved who remained stable for the entire nine seasons was Frankie and Mike Heck (Patricia Heaton and Neil Flynn) on The Middle. The Hecks were not unlike my own family in many ways. Money was tight but their love for each other, and their kids, was never in doubt. P.S. I can never hear Boston's "More Than a Feeling" now without picturing Mike singing it in his car!!! LOL!!!

[kathyk2]

Jimmy and Maya DiMeo from Speechless are another couple who didn't allow money troubles to impact their marriage. Bonus points because the family has a son with cerebral palsy named JJ. 

[Danny Franks]

On ‎5‎/‎30‎/‎2019 at 5:47 PM, aradia22 said:

I know very little about New Girl. Wasn't Jake Johnson/Zoeey Deschanel a thing on that show? 

They were, yeah. It was a less annoying version of Ross/Rachel - They had a bit of flirtation and connection for the first two seasons, but neither was desperately yearning for the other. Then they hooked up and dated for about a season. I stopped watching before they broke up, because the writers seemed to think that turning Jake into even more of a hopeless manchild - to the point where he could barely function as an adult - was the only way to make their relationship 'interesting'.

Then I think they got back together at the end of the show. But as I'm rewatching, Lizzy Caplan's character was way more interesting as a romantic partner, as was Olivia Munn's (an unashamed stripper who forced Nick to examine his own attitudes and boundaries). And Jess could have dated Dermot Mulroney's character for longer, and done some interesting things with the idea of a thirtysomething woman dating an older guy who has an adolescent daughter. But they got bored of it within about four episodes.

[aradia22]

Quote

They were, yeah. It was a less annoying version of Ross/Rachel 

Ah, thanks for the confirmation. I'd assume that's why the love interests didn't last. 

As we've been discussing, if you know your OTP, just go with it. Don't let all these ships set sail and then torpedo them. I do think it's fine for characters to need time to grow into the people they need to be for each other. But they can't spend the whole time pining for each other or getting together and breaking up or any other nonsense. 

[Mabinogia]

10 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

But they can't spend the whole time pining for each other or getting together and breaking up or any other nonsense. 

The worst for me is when they pull the old one person is ready but the other is in a relationship. Then #2 breaks up with their SO realizes they really love #1 but now #1, having given up, is now with someone else. So #2 pines away, and it isn't until #2 moves on that #1 realizes their mistake and tries to win #2 back, lather, rinse, repeat. 

The Goldbergs actually did a funny play on this with Erica and Geoff Schwartz where they try to go to the prom together but Geoff has a date so Erica gets a date but Geoff broke his date, so Erica breaks her but Geoff then got another for the whole ep. But it was only for one ep and was played for laughs. When shows do this for years it just gets incredibly stupid and, for me at least, impossible to root for the two idiots to finally get together. I usually just think "you're clearly not meant to be together, can we all just move on already" 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

The worst for me is when they pull the old one person is ready but the other is in a relationship. Then #2 breaks up with their SO realizes they really love #1 but now #1, having given up, is now with someone else. So #2 pines away, and it isn't until #2 moves on that #1 realizes their mistake and tries to win #2 back, lather, rinse, repeat. 

The Goldbergs actually did a funny play on this with Erica and Geoff Schwartz where they try to go to the prom together but Geoff has a date so Erica gets a date but Geoff broke his date, so Erica breaks her but Geoff then got another for the whole ep. But it was only for one ep and was played for laughs. When shows do this for years it just gets incredibly stupid and, for me at least, impossible to root for the two idiots to finally get together. I usually just think "you're clearly not meant to be together, can we all just move on already" 

I so wish that would happen more often. What is all this pining? Yeah, it sucks when someone you like or maybe even love ends up with someone else. But its not the end of the world! It doesn't mean they should be pining forever. Why can't any of them see their crush or love is happy with someone else and realize its not meant to be an move on? Why can't they be happy for that person. And not that I'm happy for them while being so miserable or a martyr. I hate when the will they or won't they start involving other people. One dates someone else or gets engaged or they both do or whatever because in most cases it always ends up making one or both look horrible and they hurt a perfectly nice person or try to make that person suddenly bad, horrible, crazy or make them the bad person for dating the man/woman.

So many are ridiculous. Like Castle in season four, Castle told Beckett he loved her after she was shot, she says she remembers nothing after being shot, later we learn that's no true, she remembers everything. So she knows what he said and lied to him. But he doesn't find out for months until she says it to a suspect that he overheard and learns she liked the whole time. But he doesn't confront her or tell her he knows he instead decides to act like a jackass and hooks up with flight attendant. Beckett its all pissed off and rants to her therapist that he's daring to date someone else. The therapist is actually decent pointing out that he told her he loved her months ago and nothing happened. She didn't do anything, she didn't say anything but thinks she as a right to be pissed off because Castle appears to move on. Exactly how long do these couples have to wait for the other person to get a clue or realize their the one? Months? Years? At some point you'd really think they'd realize its not meant to be and moved on. In Castle's case season four started out with Beckett being a jerk for lying and doing nothing for months. But once Castle learns she lied, he because just as bad because instead of confronting her, talking to her or even deciding to move on he acts like jackass to her for until his mother points it out to him. At that point he does realize he needs to quit and walk away.  So many months and years are wasted on will they or won't they because they won't tell the other person how they feel. Then that's your problem. That's not their problem. Its not their fault that they start dating someone else because you've never told them how you feel. They are free to date anyone they want. That they spend months or years working together, being friends or whatever but don't take any of those opportunities is on them for not saying anything.  Is the other person suppose to be a mind reader? Wait until when ever the person finally decides to tell them how they feel?

In Gilmore Girls you have Lorelai telling Luke not to date one of the moms from Chilton and Luke a couple episodes later getting on Lorelai for dating a guy who turned out to be younger then Lorelai thought. Ah, their both single and free to date who ever they want. Luke nor Lorelai should have to wait around waiting, not dating anyone until the other gets up the courage to say how they feel. Sookie explains to Lorelai why Luke is being such a jerk because she's dating everyone but him Lorelai just listens instead of pointing out that Luke never asked her out, so why should she have to take his crap, just as it was never Lorelai business in the earlier episode who Luke dates nor should she be telling him who to date. They are never "wrong" for doing that or realize they were wrong for treating them like crap for dating or possibly dating someone else or have that person be ticked at them and consider ending the friendship.

[Mabinogia]

14 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

So many are ridiculous. Like Castle in season four

OMG I had to give up on Castle because the will they won't they was just so painfully bad. That show is one of the worst cases of writers not being good enough to have a successful couple to they throw every cliche obstacle at the couple to the point that they both look like horrible, selfish morons. Towards the end I couldn't stand Rick Castle (I never cared for Beckett. She was a pile of cliches played by IMO a mediocre actress). I just couldn't watch the "dance" anymore.