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

[Luckylyn]

I consider the Moonlighting curse to be a myth because I don't think putting a couple together in a reasonable timetable automatically makes the couple and show less interesting.   Poor writing was the death of Moonlighting.   I think pulling will they or won't they bs for too long can hurt a show worse than letting the couple just be together.  That's the reason I prefer Monica and Chandler on friends over Ross and Rachel.  It's like writers lack creativity and think the only option is to keep a couple apart for contrived reasons or have them get together and break up over and over again.  I loved Ross/Rachel in the beginning but was anti-shipping them by the end of the show.

 

I think writers can lack creativity in how to keep a couple interesting once they get together and blame the Moonlighting curse as an excuse rather than admit their weaknesses as a writer.

 

Another issue, is poorly written love triangles as if that's the only obstacle writers can think of for a pairing.  It's so overdone.

[Shannon L.]

I agree, Luckylyn--I've always thought it was poor writing and that with the right script, the couples could be great once they got together.  Case in point (imo):  Sarah and Chuck.  My family and I are three episodes from the series finale and I'm just as happy with their relationship now as I was in the earlier seasons.  Sure, they wrote in one too many "I can't do this..." speeches from Chuck in the first 2 or 3 seasons, but once the writers committed to the relationship, I don't think they lost anything by finally getting them together for good. 

[ybrik]

Chuck was able to work once it put Chuck and Sarah together. Of course, they also overused the love triangle. Season 3 didn't need the other love interests as the show already had a logical reason to keep them apart: the Intersect 2.0.

 

Trying to avoid the curse, probably has ruined more potential couples and shows. Bones and Jag are two shows that come to mind. It was ridiculous how long they waited to put Bones/Booth and Mac/Harm together. Then of course, them getting together was completely underwhelming considering how long they waited.

 

It was terrible how the writers basically ruined Ross/Rachel. I honestly think if they could have kept them together several different times and the show would have been the better for it.

 

I think the main problem with love triangles now is that there is no mystery to it. There is usually a couple that is preordained to be together so there is no doubt who will come out ahead. Of course the writers also don't know how to make the triangle equal. So either the loser is a complete bad guy so the other person looks like the better option or the loser is such a good person that by chosen the other person looks completely stupid.

[Luckylyn]

 

I think the main problem with love triangles now is that there is no mystery to it. There is usually a couple that is preordained to be together so there is no doubt who will come out ahead. Of course the writers also don't know how to make the triangle equal. So either the loser is a complete bad guy so the other person looks like the better option or the loser is such a good person that by chosen the other person looks completely stupid.

I agree.  If they have to do triangles, both options should be written so that viewers can understand why the person in the middle is torn.

[Athena]

This makes me wonder. What love triangles have worked for you?

 

It's a divisive question because A) they are rare when done well B) they are relative to how the viewer sees the couple they could or could not want. I think it's easy for some characters to be shipped so even when the third party is a great person, it's a lot about chemistry too.

 

I have harbored some One True Threesomes (OT3's), but they almost never happen on TV so that's neither here or there. Then again, I often look for the platonic OT3s which aren't romantic, but have all three characters supporting one another.

[Luckylyn]

I remember before I broke up with General Hospital the Sonny/Brenda/Jax triangle was a good one the first time around.   I could see how she'd fall for both guys.

 

I appreciated on Veronica Mars that when Veronica was with Logan she was with him and when she was Duncan she was with him regardless of what feelings she had for both guys.  I also liked that Duncan and Logan cared about each other and struggled to maintain their friendship despite loving the same woman.  The only thing that made that triangle not totally work was that the actor who played Duncan wasn't that good.  He was super bland.

 

Penny Dreadful seems to have some intriguing things going on.  I thought Ethan and Dorian would end up at odds over either Vanessa and/or Brona but then Ethan and Dorian ended up in bed with each other with Ethan still devoted to Vanessa and Brona in different ways.  That's certainly a new way of handling the love triangle. 

[scarynikki12]

 

What love triangles have worked for you?

None for me. It's impossible for me to watch a love triangle because all I can think about is how I would react in real life.  If I were dating someone who couldn't decide between me and another woman, I'd just make it easy for him and end things because I don't like being dicked around and very few people who are "torn" between multiple partners are actually that way.  Most just want to fuck multiple people and not get in trouble, but also don't want an open relationship.  Conversely, if I found myself attracted to more than one man at a time (assuming they'd both be into me as well) I wouldn't lead them on but keep the relationships friendly until I knew if I wanted to make things romantic.  I would expect a real life person who found him/herself genuinely interested in two people would also not take years to decide, as people get sick of that shit fast.  The person deciding would just pick one and move on.  Love triangles on television are never about one person genuinely attracted to two people equally, they're really an excuse for that person to cheat on whomever he/she dated first and get away with it.  

 

Now, if shows were to explore platonic or familial triangles, I'd actually find that interesting.  I was the kid who had two BFFs who couldn't stand each other and I was constantly going back and forth between them.  Luckily, they grew out of that and are now friendly and laugh at their childhood antics.  However, there are adults who have friends who simply don't like each other and don't want to have to choose between those relationships.  Watching these people deal with their friends would be interesting.  Also, a person dealing with family members who don't like each other would be equally interesting as well and we all know families where some members inexplicably dislike each other and the people who have good relationships with both sides can find themselves in awkward and uncomfortable situations.  

 

Love triangles are all about everyone behaving like assholes while platonic or familial triangles would be about character nuance.

[Luckylyn]

Platonic love triangles is something I hadn't considered.  Now I'm remembering on My So Called Life when Angela was torn between her old best friend and her new friends.

 

I do think with better writing a romantic triangle could be nuanced too.  It's just that writers resort to lazy tropes instead of dealing with organic character development.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I have never understood why it was Moonlighting that got this moniker; considering there were two other shows, on different networks that had the same thing.

 

NBC had Remington Steele, one of my favorites, but pissed me off when they changed the fact that Laura and Remington had had sex at the end of the first season or was it the second, and then acted as if that had never happened. They stretched out the will they won't they for these two painfully.

 

CBS had Scarecrow & Mrs. King, and this show stands above the other two in terms of growth and natural progression, because there was no idiotic jealousy plots, and you watched both Lee and Amanda fall in love, and the show continued for another season after they got together. Don't get me started on the stupid sekrit marriage plot. Who knows? If Kate Jackson hadn't gotten sick (I believe it was breast cancer), we would have gotten another season?

 

Okay, I was wrong. I think Moonlighting when the other two had ended. But the formula was the same.

[ToxicUnicorn]

Let me just say upfront that my sense of timing may be completely wrong, as I had young kids during this period, but it seems to me that a lot of stupid, stupid triangles have appeared since Twilight became a thing.  Before that, other than on soaps, I don't seem to remember them being so prominently dreadful.

 

If I am wrong, I am sure this is the place to find out!  

[Sweet Tee]

 

If I were dating someone who couldn't decide between me and another woman, I'd just make it easy for him and end things because I don't like being dicked around and very few people who are "torn" between multiple partners are actually that way.

Agreed.  I've been thinking if any love triangle has ever actually worked for me and I can't think of a single one.  I will say that Dawson/Pacy/Joey is the only one I can think of where I was genuinely surprised at who she ended up with.  It's been pointed out here that most love triangles on tv aren't even dramatic because one couple is touted as the one true pairing of the show and the other is just a temporary obstacle.  Dawson and Joey were that way so I was pleasantly surprised when she ended up with Pacy, who I always thought she was better suited with.

 

Does House, Wilson, and Amber count as a love triangle?  Because I enjoyed that plot until they "solved" it by killing Amber off.  Still kind of pissed about that, even though the two parter where it happened is some of the best television I've ever seen.

 

OT3s are hard too because again, the relationships are rarely treated equally by the show.  I think Kirk, Spock, and McCoy is a good example of solid, platonic OT3.  I know Kirk and Spock is the pairing most people remember but I always felt that the actual show and the movies treated McCoy as pretty equal and they made it clear that they were a trio who all loved and needed each other.  Now, if only the new movies could remember that.

[Pickles Aplenty]

 

What love triangles have worked for you?

Jim/Pam/Karen from The Office worked for me because it was messier than the usual triangle.  It wasn't just two people staying away from each other for stupid reasons and a third person who was an obvious foil, it was more complicated than that.  There were hurt feelings, insecurities, and sincere feelings about wanting to move forward after being rejected, it felt very true to life.  I love the way it was written.

[Shannon L.]

You know, I was thinking about that same triangle this morning.  It really was written well. 

[Luckylyn]

I just remembered.  Dr. Mike and Sully from Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman were allowed to get together at a natural pace and the show continued one quite a while after they got together.  So putting the couple together doesn't have to hurt a show and the main couple can still be really compelling.  I think they were officially a couple by the end of the second season and the show lasted 6 years. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Luckylyn

[ToxicUnicorn]

Dr. Mike and Sully were allowed to get together at a natural pace

All I imagine are a blue and green monster.  What show is this?  

[Luckylyn]

@ToxicUnicorn I was referring to characters from Dr. Quinn Medicine.  I forgot to mention the title of the show in my post, oops.

[GHScorpiosRule]

I just remembered.  Dr. Mike and Sully from Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman were allowed to get together at a natural pace and the show continued one quite a while after they got together.  So putting the couple together doesn't have to hurt a show and the main couple can still be really compelling.  I think they were officially a couple by the end of the second season and the show lasted 6 years. 

 

D'OH! That's right! I LOVED that show, but I thought this was about romantic comedies, due to the title, otherwise I would have mentioned this show too. It also didn't hurt that Lando and Seymour had chemistry out the wazoo! The scene upon the rock after he'd saved her when she'd been kidnapped by the Renegade Dog Soldiers! Oh, myyyyy...

 

Ahem. Methinks I should go and create a thread for that show now...

[AimingforYoko]

Brenda Leigh Johnson and Fritz Howard on The Closer is another couple that was shown from first date to (somewhat) happily married. Although the relationship was never the main story, it was an important part of rounding out Brenda Leigh.

[AntiBeeSpray]

A good deal of the Moonlighting problem was the fact that the stars weren't getting along.  In the beginning they had chemistry but as things fell apart behind the scenes they also fell apart in front of the camera.

Exactly. And that's in part what drives me nuts whenever someone brings it up as an excuse for characters to NOT get together... it gets OLD fast.

 

I never bought into the curse to be honest. I've seen plenty of tv couples who ended up being together, even getting married, and it didn't hurt their stride.

 

Niles and Daphne and Mulder and Scully are a couple of sets of couples that worked just fine imo, even after getting together. What counted is that they still cared for one another and the chemistry was still there no matter what.

 

But there is some truth to it in regards to what happens behind the scenes... so to play devil's advocate... I'd say it would affect things on set, no matter if the characters were together or not, if the actors aren't getting along.

[merylinkid]

Dr. Quinn did have a love triangle.   But it was well done, believable and done in about 2 episodes.   Her believed dead fiance turned out to be alive (okay that part was contrived).   He showed up in Colorado Springs and wanted to be with Dr. Mike again.   It was believable because she had loved the guy once and things ended because well, death.   She had moved on and fallen in love with Sully.   But it made sense that when he showed up again she would explore her feelings and see if they were the same.   He wasn't a bad guy.   They still had interests in common, etc.   But it turned out, she really had moved on and preferred Sully.   No muss, not a lot of fuss.   No kidnapping by the old one to force her to live him again, not too much sulking by Sully.   

 

The only problem with Dr. Mike and Sully is Joe Lando wanted to leave the show in season 6.   So they had to work around that.   By bringing in John Schneider as his best friend who develops feelings for Dr. Mike.   But eventually Joe Lando was persuaded to return to close the show.   And that was not the fault of getting them together but actor moving on.   

[ParadoxLost]

I think its a tough thing for a show to take on, using UST as the primary source of drama.  If it goes on too long, the characters become unlikable because of all the contrivances to keep them apart and the avoidance relationships which starts to feel like cheating or cheapens the UST relationship after a while.  But getting them together, if there is no other meaty story to drive drama becomes a tough road and it seems like most writers can't do it.

 

Its easier to do on procedurals because they can always solve a crime and the relationships are generally secondary to that.  But comedies are tough.  Think about Cheers.  I think they got really lucky that Shelley Long left.  I loved Sam and Diane.  Their constant push and pull, breaking up and making up, didn't ruin the characters because it fit with who they were.  But if that had gone on eleven years, I doubt I'd feel the same.

[Luckylyn]

That's a good point of how how an actor leaving can force the writer's hand on screen.

 

I hadn't thought about Cheers but Shelly Long leaving did require changes that revitalized the show.   Joe Lando not wanting to be on Dr. Quinn as much lead to lots of storylines that required Sully to leave to explain Lando''s absence.

 

Dr. Quinn had a few triangles.  There was the platonic/romantic one between Hank/Myra/Horace.  There was tension because Myra maintained a friendship with her old pimp and her husband was threatened by it.  Hank sometimes seemed in love with Myra and in the end understood her in ways Horace didn't, but Hank had a cruel streak which is probably why Myra was never interested in anything beyond friendship. It's kinda amazing she was forgiving enough to stay friends with him because he really could be awful which I think contributed to Horace's confusion over why Myra was close to Hank.   The marriage of Myra/Horace fell apart in a believable way and had nothing to do with Hank but with the fact that they probably married too soon after Myra quit being a prostitute.  For years Hank was controlling her and then Horace also tried to fit her into his box of what a wife should be.  Her desire for independence felt really well done.  I never knew if the actress quit or was fired but her decision to leave Horace was developed in a believable way.  Myra/Horace is definitely an example of a couple that was more fun in the build up to their romance and lost the spark after they got together.

 

The John Schneider/Mike/Sully triangle was interesting because Mike honestly didn't have a clue that Schneider was in love with her for a while and nothing romantic ever happened between them.  Plus, Schneider and Sully were having tension for financial reasons too which just made things more complicated.  They wrote in that Mike/Sully were having financial issues.   Schneider suddenly being wealthy after years of struggle that sometimes required Sully's help made Sully who was now struggling uncomfortable.  His buddy wanting to lend money and going to Mike's clinic to help her get organized financially really got under Sully's skin.  Plus, Sully had to leave town for work and that meant Schneider was alone with Mike all the time since he was staying at the house.  It worked because there were layers to the story.

 

Then there was Loren/Dorothy/Jake.  She tried to pursue relationships with both men.   I always felt like Jake was the one she felt passion for, but Loren was the reliable one she could had a ton of history with.  Things came to a head when she found out she had cancer.  Jake wasn't there for her but Loren was.   The romance with Jake ended, but she and Loren only ended up closer friends.  She and Loren both fell in love with other people as time passed.

 

One thing about Dr. Quinn was that there was a lot of romance.  Some relationships lasted while others fell apart.  There were triangles but the show didn't only rely on that for tension.  They had realistic issues like when Grace and Robert E. marriage struggled after the death of their son. Couples got together and broke up, some couples got the live happily ever after but it was written organically most of the time.   I wonder if the variety in romances is what made the writers decide to just let Mike/Sully get together. This whole discussion is really bringing back some memories. 

[Swansong]

I think another problem is that once a couple gets together almost all, if not all, their storylines become about the relationship. They stop treating the characters like individuals with potential storylines outside of being a couple. So any drama they go through ends up being about the relationship and writers can only do so much with that before it becomes repetitive and then to compound the problem the relationship angst they come up with often isn't even all that organic to the couple it's usually contrived, often in the form of a third party being thrown into the mix.

[Luckylyn]

I totally agree. Writers can stop letting characters be individuals and run into a rut writing them as extensions of each other.  The drama that's needed to keep things interesting doesn't only have to come from the relationship.  Characters should have other stories going on in addition to the romance.

 

Too many triangles or make up and break ups can make a couple more boring to me than just letting them be together.

[lucindabelle]

Good point about the triangles... I was in one once by accident (guy lied about having broken up) and in retrospect my first reaction, leaving and slamming the door,w as the right one. Instead he was going to break up with her I. Person... And so on.

The only one that's ever worked for me is in Camelot, not a tv show, but I could totally see how. Guenevere loved Lancelot and her husband and her tears at the end always had me bawling, even when I was a little girl. Helped that Lance and Arthur loved each other, too.

So tis possible. But it's rarely portrayed that well. It's usually just a foil.

[Anna Yolei]

I think another problem is that once a couple gets together almost all, if not all, their storylines become about the relationship. They stop treating the characters like individuals with potential storylines outside of being a couple. So any drama they go through ends up being about the relationship and writers can only do so much with that before it becomes repetitive and then to compound the problem the relationship angst they come up with often isn't even all that organic to the couple it's usually contrived, often in the form of a third party being thrown into the mix.

This, exactly. This I think is a reason soaps have become a dying artform over the past ten years (arguably longer)...90 percent of any given show is about people screwing or discussing who others should be screwing. There are few stories onvolving friends and family and even fewer involving careers and jobs.

[Hava]

This maybe should go in the Unpopular Opinions thread, but, in general, I'm not a fan of OTPs--you know, the ships that are established early in a series and that are clearly endgame and the show runners push the viewers to like. In fact, most of the time I actively root against these couples. I think my problem with them is that they are predestined and that takes all the fun out of discovering chemistry between two characters and hoping they get together down the line. And it also leaves little room for adapting to actor chemistry and evolving story lines.

[Wax Lion]

One triangle that worked for a little while was on Awkward. There was a believable transition from Jenna seeing Matty as some hot guy she was perusing because she couldn't have him, to realizing she connected with his best friend intellectually. Once Jenna broke up with Matty, he realized he needed to bring more to the relationship and worked to be a better/more interesting person.

 

Overall, the show did a good job being about teens who weren't done growing up and the love triangle worked because it relied on the characters growing as people to advance.

 

One couple that didn't work as a couple was Jess and Nick on New Girl. They were funny as friends. As a couple, the writers didn't want to give up Nick's personal dysfunctions. He dragged her down, she became more irresponsible around him. That could have been interesting if they were trying to depict a relationship where two people were good as friends but terrible as a couple, but the writers seemed to think they were funnier together.

[callie lee 29]

 

What love triangles have worked for you?

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.

[Mars477]

This maybe should go in the Unpopular Opinions thread, but, in general, I'm not a fan of OTPs--you know, the ships that are established early in a series and that are clearly endgame and the show runners push the viewers to like. In fact, most of the time I actively root against these couples. I think my problem with them is that they are predestined and that takes all the fun out of discovering chemistry between two characters and hoping they get together down the line. And it also leaves little room for adapting to actor chemistry and evolving story lines.

I can think of a number of shows where this fails miserably. Every goddam show on the CW, which lives and breathes on the possibility of sexy times and UST between a predetermined hot frequently white couple would serve as a good example. If you're pulling the trigger on baserunning before the first season is over, you're probably moving to fast and should reconsider the premise and longevity of your show. Let us get to know the characters before asking us to give a damn about their romantic troubles.

Arrow is a good example of this. Oliver and Laurel are in true love, their chemistry is so good, the talking heads say. Hah, no, viewers reply.

And in other, male led shows, too often his designated love interest (and frequently the only woman around) gets little to no characterization because she's only around to be the hot sex object. Brooklyn 9-9 dodged this handily, teasing a romantic interest and then pulling back to establish the parties' platonic and professional relationship.

[ToxicUnicorn]

What love triangles have worked for you?

The Jax-Brenda-Sonny reference got into my subconscious because I knew there was at least one triangle from a soap opera that I had enjoyed.  I finally pulled it from the recesses of my memory.  GH's Jeff Webber - Heather - Annie Logan period.  Gosh, that was 1980.  Also, Reva - Josh - Annie Dutton, from Guiding Light, when Annie was first played by Cynthia Watros.  The great thing about those love triangles is that, in each one of them, one of the women was seriously unhinged, and was so entertaining that you sort of had to root for them, even though the sweeter side of the triangle was clearly the long-term outcome.

 

I was so disappointed by Cynthia Watros' character on Lost (Libby).  Based on her GL days, I was expecting great things.

 

This message was brought to you by a product of the Luke and Laura generation.

[merylinkid]

Speaking of Luke and Laura -- talk about destroying a character just to make another point of the triangle look good.    When it started, Laura was newly married to the fine upstanding dependable Scotty who was a lawyer.   He had finally gotten rid of the psycho stalker Bobby Spencer to marry Laura.   Luke was involved in the mob (sound familiar) and ran a disco (sound familiar).   Laura worked at the club to earn extra money.   Luke raped her one night in the park after she left the club.   Laura refused to name her attacker even though she knew darn well who it was.   Then comes the summer on the run with Luke.   Laura dumps her stable dependable guy to go on the run with Luke from the mob.   When she comes back, she divorces Scotty who still loves her.   Scotty then becomes the unhinged, depraved, violent one just to justify Laura running off with her rapist.   Yeah the greatest love story evah.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

To be fair, the Luke-and-Laura storyline was supposed to be a one-off. Tony Geary was initially brought in for a short period of time, and Luke was supposed to be killed off after the rape. Gloria Monty, who was the executive producer of General Hospital at the time, saw the chemistry between Geary and Genie Francis, and she rewrote the story and changed the outcome to capitalize on it. She was given thirteen weeks to turn the show's bad ratings around, and L-n-L was mostly responsible for saving it from cancellation. Also, unlike certain other douchenozzles on that show (hi, Sonny!) Luke pretty much spent every waking minute of his marriage to Laura apologizing to her for what he'd done and asking for forgiveness. I'm not saying it's awesome or anything, but this happened in nineteen seventy eight. That's why the similar, more modern,  storyline on Days of Our Lives (*spits* EJami *spits*) is pretty widely hated.

[GHScorpiosRule]

  Luke raped her one night in the park after she left the club.

 

Actually, Luke raped her in the disco club, not in the park. We saw Laura falling down and crying her heart out in the park.

[merylinkid]

Sorry.   I remember her running through the park at one point.   But the point is he raped her but it was okay because he was her twu wuv.   And Scotty that nice guy who stood by her while she was on probation for killing someone?   Yeah he had to become totally amoral.

[Irlandesa]

To be fair, the Luke-and-Laura storyline was supposed to be a one-off. Tony Geary was initially brought in for a short period of time, and Luke was supposed to be killed off after the rape. Gloria Monty, who was the executive producer of General Hospital at the time, saw the chemistry between Geary and Genie Francis, and she rewrote the story and changed the outcome to capitalize on it. She was given thirteen weeks to turn the show's bad ratings around, and L-n-L was mostly responsible for saving it from cancellation.

 

But none of that explains why they had to throw Scott under the bus.  I didn't watch back then but what I've seen shows a very interesting dynamic between Luke and Laura.  I'm anti rape romance stories but even I find them very compelling to watch.  But honestly, the thing that mars them the most isn't the rape, it's the fact that Scotty was thrown under the bus and they tried to rewrite the rape to a 'seduction.'  If you're going to tell a somewhat tale of twisted love?  I can respect it but goodness, please tell it honestly. 

 

And I think things like that, for me, are the biggest issue I have with triangles.  It's rarely the beginning.  That's usually the best part because it's pretty easy to create two different people that one person would be attracted to for different reasons.  Sonny/Brenda/Jax was perfect with this.  And I can't think of another time that a plot twist was used so effectively to heighten stakes.  The middle can be iffy.  I get being torn but if it goes on too long, the middle person looks wishy washy.

 

No, where it usually falls apart is when it comes time to end it.  It usually becomes about the unchosen in the triangle doing something "bad" to incredibly psycho to justify the writers' choice of OTP. 

 

And that's why triangles suck.  Shows seem to be afraid of putting responsibility on the couple that chooses to be together.

 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

But none of that explains why they had to throw Scott under the bus.  I didn't watch back then but what I've seen shows a very interesting dynamic between Luke and Laura.  I'm anti rape romance stories but even I find them very compelling to watch.  But honestly, the thing that mars them the most isn't the rape, it's the fact that Scotty was thrown under the bus and they tried to rewrite the rape to a 'seduction.'  If you're going to tell a somewhat tale of twisted love?  I can respect it but goodness, please tell it honestly.

 

@Irlandesa, I didn't watch the first incarnation of Luke and Laura either, partly because I was only nine at the time. I don't know why Monty decided to chum the waters using Scott as bait, and I don't even really know how bad it was at the time it happened. And FWIW, years later the retcon was un-retconned when their son Lucky found out that his father raped his mother before he was born. So they did put it to rights in a way, although maybe for some people that was too little and way too late.

[Dejana]

Much of the original Luke & Laura rape storyline from 1979 is on Youtube. Contrary to the claims of the 1990s revisit, the show did treat it like a rape in the immediate aftermath and the incident was discussed as such for multiple episodes, though that shifted in time and eventually became the seduction rewrite. But the rewrite shows that even back then, TPTB knew that the initial version was just too ugly of a history for a supercouple. It's not admirable but it was a long time ago; I have no patience for the soap writers who trotted out the same sorts of stories ten, twenty, thirty years later, by the time that network TV execs really should have known better.

 

Scotty being the villain in a story where his wife left him for the man who raped her is an extreme example of how TV writers feel that they have to trash the third person in love triangle in order for viewers to shift their allegiance to the pet/golden couple.

[FurryFury]

Leslie and Ben in Parks and Recreation is probably the only couple involving main characters that managed to stay together for good and didn't became boring (and also avoided any of the usual break-up make-up forced melodrama). The reason is the show doesn't focus on their relationship too much and has lots of other storylines for both characters. I also find their marriage pretty sweet and believable.

IIRC, they also managed to avoid love triangles on their way to being a couple, which is particularly noteworthy for a sitcom.

Like many of you, I'm wary of obviously "endgame" couples and love triangles with clear winners to the point of rooting against a couple the show wants me to cheer for too strongly. Sadly, more and more shows are caving under the pressure of vocal online fandoms to provide them with romances they want - often to the show's detriment. Pretty Little Liars and The Vampire Diaries are probably the best examples, but they are far from the only ones.

[tennisgurl]

To me, Parks and Rec is an example of how to couple off your characters the right way. No obvious end games, no pointless love triangles, just people getting together, and then living their lives, with more opportunities for jokes and storylines. If the only thing that can be an obstacle for a couple is bringing in some third party, who is more plot device than character (they did this on The OC so many freaking times) or taking original characters and messing with them to creat more love triangle drama (the whole Wesley/Gunn/Fred mess on Angel), it shows a real lack of creativity on the writers part. I know some fans have complained about so many characters on Parks and Rec getting married, having kids, etc., but it always seemed very natural to me. I never saw it as a very "shippy" sort of show, in that the couples became more important than the stories. They just allowed for more stories to be told. And yes, I find Ben and Leslie to be freaking adorable.

 

Also total agreement on writers caving into internet pressure when it comes to certain couples. I have always felt that, in the age of the internet and the increasing visibly of fandom, its important for writers to be aware of what fans are saying, but not be ruled by them. Its one thing to listen to actual constructive criticism, and hear what's working and what isn't, including couples and characters. Its another to assume that all people want is shippy stuff, and to leave behind the story, or platonic relationships. I feel like that's seriously hurt Glee (back when it was sort of tolerable), and is currently happening on Arrow ( I wouldn't say that the show has been hurt TOO terribly much, but I worry that its the direction its moving in, with the writers paying too much attention to the shippers, and less attention to the story). At the end of the day, I want to see how the writers tell the story, not how Tumblr would tell it.

Edited July 19, 2014 by tennisgurl

[Irlandesa]

Ben and Leslie did break up when she was going to run for city council to avoid scandal.  There were also Chris's rules but that didn't stop them before.  It didn't last long and it wasn't full of triangles or other BS that usually accompanies a breakup.  Ben and Leslie may not be the couple I've shipped the hardest in my years but the timing with them was done really well.  They liked each other initially but had legit reasons for not dating.  But once they realized how much they liked each other, they took the leap and it has been a pretty realistic progression ever since.

Also total agreement on writers caving into internet pressure when it comes to certain couples. I have always felt that, in the age of the internet and the increasing visibly of fandom, its important for writers to be aware of what fans are saying, but not be ruled by them. Its one thing to listen to actual constructive criticism, and hear what's working and what isn't. At the end of the day, I want to see how the writers tell the story, not how Tumblr would tell it.

 

I don't think creatives listen to the Internet as much as the internet thinks it does.  I think 90% of the pairings/relationships told are told because that's the way TPTB want to go.  There are enough disparate opinions on Twitter, Tumblr, formerly TWoP, ONTD, Livejournal that it's very easy for a creator to find confirmation bias for what they want to do. Creators may say that they're listening to fans but it will always be the fans they choose to listen to.  Take the aforementioned Glee, for example, does anyone really think that an egomaniac like Ryan Murphy lets fans decide his story?  Hell no.  If he did, he would've tried to find a solution to how bad his show has become.

Edited July 19, 2014 by Irlandesa

[GreekGeek]

Has there ever been a Will They or Won't They storyline where they didn't? There was the occasional teaser about Frasier and Roz on "Frasier," but not enough to make a running storyline. And that funny "Lou and Mary Date" near the end of "The Mary Tyler Moore Show."

[The Crazed Spruce]

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

There's Brent and Lacey from Corner Gas, but I think they're pretty much the exception.

[FurryFury]

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... Was it "Without a trace" or something like that? I didn't watch it, just read about it.

[Sweet Tee]

House did a will they/won't they in the early seasons with House and Cameron. Thankfully, they backed off of that and the answer was a firm they won't.

[Luckylyn]

From The Ask Box: Olicity & The Moonlighting Curse

 

Debunking the Moonlighting Curse – 18 TV Couples Who Did/Did Not Kill Their Show When They Got Together

[Luckylyn]

I just though of a really interesting triangle that worked for me.  Daria had a triangle with Daria/Tom/Jane.  It was really well done and didn't shy away from how rough the situation was on both Jane and Daria.   Basically Daria and Jane's boyfriend fell for each other which of course hurt Jane deeply.  The build up happened over several episodes. Daria initially hated Tom because she felt like Jane was ditching her for him.  He makes the effort to befriend Daria for Jane's sake and eventually feeling developed.   I like the fact that it took time for the Daria/Jane friendship to be repaired and that even after that what happened wasn't forgotten.  It did come up again more than once.  Plus, it inspired one of my favorite Trent/Daria scenes where he tells her she and Tom having feelings for each other is on one's fault, but she had to stop playing stupid about it.  Somehow Trent managed to be a solid brother to Jane and good friend to Daria by trying in his own way to smooth things over between them.  It was a good triangle because I felt everyone was sympathetic, and no one was made into a villain.

[braziliangirl]

 

One triangle that worked for a little while was on Awkward.

Yeah! I thought they did a great job with the first season triangle. Both guys were sweet, had their insecurities and you could understand why she liked both of them.

 

But then Jake became a caricature and Matty was kind of retconned to be "best boyfriend ever" and her OTP.

 

One thing I hate about love triangles is that they retcon a lot of stories when they "shift" the couple. When Joey and Pacey broke up and she went with Dawson it was almost like she never dated Pacey. Same thing with Jenna/Jake/Matty. Or Callie/George/Izzie.

[CabotCove]

Also total agreement on writers caving into internet pressure when it comes to certain couples. I have always felt that, in the age of the internet and the increasing visibly of fandom, its important for writers to be aware of what fans are saying, but not be ruled by them. Its one thing to listen to actual constructive criticism, and hear what's working and what isn't. At the end of the day, I want to see how the writers tell the story, not how Tumblr would tell it.

 

CW are especially vulnerable and notorious for this.

 

Creators may say that they're listening to fans but it will always be the fans they choose to listen to.  Take the aforementioned Glee, for example, does anyone really think that an egomaniac like Ryan Murphy lets fans decide his story?  Hell no.  If he did, he would've tried to find a solution to how bad his show has become.

 

There are extremes on each side. If there is Ryan Murphy on one side there is Marc Guggeinheim writers on the other.

Edited March 2, 2015 by Conell

[memememe76]

I think Felicity did an excellent job with its triangle. Knots Landing also had a great triangle among Val/Gary/Abbey. 

 

Another myth is the belief that a couple getting married or having a baby will ruin the show.