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

[Danny Franks]

6 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. 

Nothing kills my interest in a TV show quicker than this bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, if you're really into another person, you wouldn't be getting into any kind of serious relationship with someone new. Especially not in the high stakes 'true love all the time' world of television romance.

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

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. 

I made it to near the end of season six of Castle, but the magic was long, looong gone by then. The first two seasons had so much fiery, potent chemistry between Castle and Beckett, but once they pulled the old 'he realises he likes her after she starts dating, then she realises she likes him and dumps her boyfriend but... too late! Now he's with someone!' nonsense, it was all downhill.

Anyway, I finally checked out when they decided Beckett had been secretly married for years, to some ex-boyfriend she got drunk with in Vegas. It was a character breaking moment, and a show that I'd once been obsessed with suddenly dropped off my radar entirely.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

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. 

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

Nothing kills my interest in a TV show quicker than this bullshit. As far as I'm concerned, if you're really into another person, you wouldn't be getting into any kind of serious relationship with someone new. Especially not in the high stakes 'true love all the time' world of television romance.

I made it to near the end of season six of Castle, but the magic was long, looong gone by then. The first two seasons had so much fiery, potent chemistry between Castle and Beckett, but once they pulled the old 'he realises he likes her after she starts dating, then she realises she likes him and dumps her boyfriend but... too late! Now he's with someone!' nonsense, it was all downhill.

Anyway, I finally checked out when they decided Beckett had been secretly married for years, to some ex-boyfriend she got drunk with in Vegas. It was a character breaking moment, and a show that I'd once been obsessed with suddenly dropped off my radar entirely.

I made it to the bitter end and it was bitter. Season eight managed to make it even worse by having Beckett suddenly and out of the blue break off things with Castle after everything they went through, all the stupid ups and downs and marrying, she's working on an investigation she wants to keep secret from Castle to protect him or something but of course instead of telling him that she breaks things off and won't explain why then acts like she needs space or something, while making Castle and pretty much everyone think Castle's at fault for their split. Castle spends so many episodes trying to win her back and wondering what happened, then when he finally, finally finds out the truth, you expect Castle to be outraged and he is but only for that episode then he completely lets it go. Beckett never once gets called for what she did or have to deal with the consequences for it either, since no one else finds the real reason for the sudden split so when they "get back together" everyone still thinks Castle was a fault.

I think its similar to the series mysteries or murder to solve. Shows never ever plan out the will they or won't they. At most they go for one season. It needs to take time to develop the relationship whether they start out friends or working together or whatever and how its going to evolve. Is one going to realize feelings first? Both? What are the reasons why they won't admit it. There's no real timeline for when their going to be put together or planning any real obstacles for them. Its really clear in most of the relationships on TV.

They drag the will they or won't they out forever, then add obstacles that don't make any sense Beckett got shot but won't admit she heard Castle say she loves him. Gilmore Girls has Lorelai for some reason lying about spending the night with Christopher's when all that happened was she found out his father died and went to see how he was doing. Why is that worthy of keeping a secret? Who knows. Castle and Beckett, Luke and Lorelai and so many others have enough with their backstories and issues that they shouldn't need to create weird obstacles. Then of course always comes the stall or if they put them together comes a big fight so they'll break up. Which never makes any sense. Luke flips out in one episode and lectures Lorelai on trust, so you know he'll be a big asshole when he learns he as an daughter and doesn't tell Lorelai. Why hiding information about a daughter he had 12 years ago is worth keeping a secret who knows. In the Nanny, there was the "Thing", Ross and Rachel of course had the Break. Carrie and Big cheated on their fiancé and wife respectively with each other.

If they actually took the time to develop the relationship, the romance and they could plan for possible fight and breakup, and lay the ground work for it or have the couple work things out (I know that's madness!). 

Edited June 1, 2019 by andromeda331

[Mabinogia]

52 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Anyway, I finally checked out when they decided Beckett had been secretly married for years, to some ex-boyfriend she got drunk with in Vegas.

That was a total "we've run out of ways to keep them apart, oh, lets make her secretly married all this time!" Worst writers EVER! 

[Mabinogia]

2 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

If they actually took the time to develop the relationship, the romance and they could plan for possible fight and breakup, and lay the ground work for it or have the couple work things out (I know that's madness!). 

Now you're just talking crazy! lol

Seriously, life is hard, relationships are hard. They could write a couple together who still have struggles. Castle is the perfect example. She's a cop. He's a millionaire writer. She could be worried about his tagging along, as her feelings for him grow she becomes more concerned about him being involved in her dangerous world. He could be worried about her being in a dangerous line of work, could try to convince her to quit because he fears for her life. She could be angry and think he wants her to just be a trophy wife. They argue, they talk it out like the adults they are meant to be, and they figure it out. Hell, he's got a daughter. There could be conflict with Beckett trying to figure out how to be a mother to Alexis. Maybe she sides with Alexis and it bothers Castle. SOOOOOO much drama they could have created for them as an actual couple. But they just dragged out the will they won't they until that poor dead horse was ground into little more than dust. 

Trying to be a couple in this world is a lot harder than trying to find ways to not be a couple. 

[Danny Franks]

Castle is the perfect example of everything that's wrong with the "Moonlighting Curse". I've been saying it for years, but when writers decide they need to devote all their creative energies to keeping characters apart for as long as possible - misunderstandings, roadblocks, bad timing, overheard conversations, all that bullshit - then they're not devoting creative energies to actually considering how to write an engaging relationship.

If you look at a pairing and think 'they can't get together or the show is over' then, quite frankly, you're a bad writer and should get a job doing something else. Relationships are an opportunity to write new stories, to explore new dynamics between the characters and look at how that can change their interactions with everyone else in the show. Why wouldn't any writer not want the opportunity to try all those new things?

And what usually happens is, they spend so long trying to stop the characters getting together, that actually putting them together is the last resort of writers who have run out of ideas. They can't recapture that sense of fun, they can't come up with engaging stories to write as the A-plots of episodes, and that's when relationships take over shows.

The opposite end of the spectrum is Brooklyn Nine-Nine, where the writers looked at Jake and Amy, and the undeniable chemistry they had, and realised they worked really well as a couple. They chose the right time to put them together, and they never saw it as a trap, or a dead end. They realised that it gave them the opportunity to write new stories and develop the characters further. And so they just wrote the relationship naturally - a few setbacks, but generally just a relationship that progresses and deepens, and is presented as healthy and fun. And it fits into the show perfectly, without ever threatening to sideline other characters.

[andromeda331]

16 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

Now you're just talking crazy! lol

Seriously, life is hard, relationships are hard. They could write a couple together who still have struggles. Castle is the perfect example. She's a cop. He's a millionaire writer. She could be worried about his tagging along, as her feelings for him grow she becomes more concerned about him being involved in her dangerous world. He could be worried about her being in a dangerous line of work, could try to convince her to quit because he fears for her life. She could be angry and think he wants her to just be a trophy wife. They argue, they talk it out like the adults they are meant to be, and they figure it out. Hell, he's got a daughter. There could be conflict with Beckett trying to figure out how to be a mother to Alexis. Maybe she sides with Alexis and it bothers Castle. SOOOOOO much drama they could have created for them as an actual couple. But they just dragged out the will they won't they until that poor dead horse was ground into little more than dust. 

Trying to be a couple in this world is a lot harder than trying to find ways to not be a couple. 

That would really make sense and fit perfectly with Beckett. Her mother was murdered. She closed herself off and switched to being a cop. She already lost one person she loved to violence and knows what it did to her. She can't go through that again. Castle mostly jumps in and doesn't seem to realize the danger he's in.  Maybe he loves her but is afraid of marriage, he's already been married to two very different women and both ended in divorce, add in his worry over Alexis's safety or getting attached and his mother's many bad relationships it would be easy to see why he'd be weary of marriage and relationships. Or maybe its habit to not try and work things out in a relationship. Alexis mentions once in season three that maybe he and his mother both maybe gave up in a relationship too soon at the time Castle was dating his 2nd ex-wife and Martha was dating her old high school boyfriend. That could have been something that had a lot of truth in it but they don't do anything with it. Gina, Castle's 2nd ex-wife mentions even when they were married he kept Alexis away from her, that it was always the two of them and he didn't want anyone near Alexis. Which could be thinking he was protecting Alexis or memories of growing up with all his mother's boyfriends and husbands coming and going, or a sign he was sabotaging his relationship. 

[Mabinogia]

12 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

The opposite end of the spectrum is Brooklyn Nine-Nine, where the writers looked at Jake and Amy, and the undeniable chemistry they had, and realised they worked really well as a couple.

And they are freaking adorable together and a joy to watch. I think some writers forget that enjoying what we are watching is nice. They think angst is the only way to go. Jake and Amy are quirky, and fun and sweet and they put a smile on my face. That is the kind of couple I like to watch. 

Another couple, also from a Mike Shur show, are Ben and Leslie from Parks and Rec. They had a little struggle getting together, they are both pretty awkward so it had to be awkward getting them together, but once they did, they were wonderful to watch. They had struggles, but they were all mostly work issues since they worked together and she had her career pretty much mapped out. 

These are both couples I root for, couples I loved watching, couples I worried about but had faith that they would work out any conflicts together. And honestly, if either show had pulled a long, drawn out will they won't they storyline for either couple, I don't think I'd be rooting for them anymore. I root for them because they are together and they are trying to make it work together. 

[Mabinogia]

1 minute ago, andromeda331 said:

That would really make sense and fit perfectly with Beckett. Her mother was murdered. She closed herself off and switched to being a cop. She already lost one person she loved to violence and knows what it did to her. She can't go through that again. Castle mostly jumps in and doesn't seem to realize the danger he's in.  Maybe he loves her but is afraid of marriage, he's already been married to two very different women and both ended in divorce, add in his worry over Alexis's safety or getting attached and his mother's many bad relationships it would be easy to see why he'd be weary of marriage and relationships. Or maybe its habit to not try and work things out in a relationship. Alexis mentions once in season three that maybe he and his mother both maybe gave up in a relationship too soon at the time Castle was dating his 2nd ex-wife and Martha was dating her old high school boyfriend. That could have been something that had a lot of truth in it but they don't do anything with it. Gina, Castle's 2nd ex-wife mentions even when they were married he kept Alexis away from her, that it was always the two of them and he didn't want anyone near Alexis. Which could be thinking he was protecting Alexis or memories of growing up with all his mother's boyfriends and husbands coming and going, or a sign he was sabotaging his relationship. 

In one paragraph you wrote up about three seasons worth of relationship drama they could have mined. How sad is it that a casual post on a forum put more thought into Castle and Beckett as a couple than the show writers ever did?

[scarynikki12]

1 hour ago, Danny Franks said:

If you look at a pairing and think 'they can't get together or the show is over' then, quite frankly, you're a bad writer and should get a job doing something else.

Truth.

[Annber03]

1 hour ago, Mabinogia said:

I think some writers forget that enjoying what we are watching is nice. They think angst is the only way to go. 

This. Why do these writers think we root for these couples in the first place? We want to see them happy together. This is not that hard a concept to understand. 

I've been checking out B99 a little more here and there thanks to the reruns on TV, and I've definitely enjoyed the Jake and Amy moments from what I've seen so far :). As for "Castle", never saw that show, but boy, oh, boy, do I remember the constant discussion and debate about it online from those who did (hello, TV Line comment sections). I really feel for the fans of that pairing, with how messy it all got-both on screen and off. One thing I'm thankful for when it comes to the pairings I like on TV shows-the cast members get along, and that comes through nicely in their interactions on the show, whether they're actually a couple or not. 

[Miss Dee]

A triangle that works without making anyone look like a jerk is Tahani, Jason and Janet on The Good Place. Just in case you're interested.

my personal favourite romance trope is the friends-to-lovers one. Probably because the writers can keep everything low-key until they're ready to start.

[Annber03]

1 minute ago, Miss Dee said:

my personal favourite romance trope is the friends-to-lovers one. Probably because the writers can keep everything low-key until they're ready to start.

Same. I've said before that the best part of that one for me is that whether a pairing I like remain friends or eventually become a couple, either way they're interacting and having great moments together, so I'm still getting what I want in canon :D. 

Plus I like characters having that close bond already established, where you can already see what they like about each other and why they click and get on so well. It's a good foundation to build a romance on down the line. 

[talktoomuch]

9 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 last time I remember this working well was A Different World when Dwaaaaayne pined for Whitley, then moved on to Kinu over summer break. Whitley started liking him back but it was too late because Kikookaloo was in the picture. They finally got together and were getting married when Dwayne got cold feet. Then Whitley moved on and was marrying Sen. Byron only to leave him at the altar in my favorite two episodes of any show ever: ADW's Save the Best for Last, Parts 1 and 2. "Please, Baby. Baby, please!"

Edited June 1, 2019 by talktoomuch

[Mabinogia]

3 minutes ago, Miss Dee said:

A triangle that works without making anyone look like a jerk is Tahani, Jason and Janet on The Good Place. Just in case you're interested.

I think they are actually doing a really good job with that triangle, and I'm still not sure which way I am leaning. I love all three characters, I love Jason and Tahani together, I love Jason and Janet together, I was shocked to love either pairing because they both seem so ridiculous and yet they both worked in different ways. And because of the very unusual circumstances, no one is the "bad guy" here, not even Jason, torn between two lovers. And they all still work well together/get along. I'm telling you, Michael Schur (read and article and realized I'd been spelling his name wrong) has a knack for assembling some amazing writing teams and doing unexpected things with his stories. 

[aradia22]

I'm sure it was mostly the writers but I wonder how much of the problem on Castle was Stana and Nathan hating each other. Like, the writers/production knew that getting them together might show a lack of chemistry or provoke more backstage fighting.

I watched a couple seasons of B99. I mostly enjoyed it but it was easy to drop off and stop watching. I quit before Jake and Amy got together. I kind of want to revisit it but I don't want to watch from the beginning. But I'm worried I won't get the relationship buildup or the inside jokes. Maybe I can find some kind of youtube clip reel that edits together major relationship moments.

[Annber03]

30 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I'm sure it was mostly the writers but I wonder how much of the problem on Castle was Stana and Nathan hating each other. Like, the writers/production knew that getting them together might show a lack of chemistry or provoke more backstage fighting.

Which, as somebody noted way back early on in this thread, was the same issue the stars of "Moonlighting" had. Talk about really living up to the curse. 

[Bastet]

47 minutes ago, aradia22 said:

I'm sure it was mostly the writers but I wonder how much of the problem on Castle was Stana and Nathan hating each other. Like, the writers/production knew that getting them together might show a lack of chemistry or provoke more backstage fighting.

14 minutes ago, Annber03 said:

Which, as somebody noted way back early on in this thread, was the same issue the stars of "Moonlighting" had.

Except that wasn't an issue on Moonlighting (I cannot speak to the other show, as I not only know nothing about what went on behind the scenes, I've never even seen it) -- while Cybill Shepherd and Bruce Willis drove each other nuts in many ways and outright battled, they also freely acknowledged their chemistry (on and off screen) from the beginning.  There was no concern by writers/producers that putting the characters together would reveal a lack of chemistry between the actors, (because of all the backstage problems, chemistry was not one of them), and specifically no concern that having the actors play the romantic aspects of the characters' contentious relationship would provoke further off-screen strife; low-key squabbles resulting from different styles of working and reactions to the chaos Glenn Gordon Caron created with all his last-minute jazz were a recurring theme, but as for truly battling, they tended to fight when the characters were fighting, and get along when the characters were getting along.

[Bort]

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

In the Nanny, there was the "Thing”

That was actually pretty funny, though. Niles not knowing what “The Thing” was drove him crazy and they got a lot of hilarious mileage out of that joke.

[andromeda331]

25 minutes ago, kariyaki said:

That was actually pretty funny, though. Niles not knowing what “The Thing” was drove him crazy and they got a lot of hilarious mileage out of that joke.

It was for awhile. I got tired of it. Mostly because it was a stall without really explaining or showing why. Sylvia mentioned it was probably due to him losing his wife. But then it dragged on for a season and a half without ever moving forward or Maxwell doing anything to fix it. I love the episode where Fran hands him a schedule with her hours and telling him they'd only be boss and nanny. It really was a good idea to hold him at his word or at least what he kept claiming to want. But I love the scene later when Fran realizes she needs to quit her job and move on with her life. As much as I wanted them together. I agreed with her. She had been waiting around for years with zero sign anything was ever going to change. I really wish we had more scenes like it and the one that follows with her telling Maxwell that she been waiting for years but he still doesn't know what he wants and she needs to quit and move on. While it does prompt him to get her to stay. I love what she says and that she was serious. 

Edited June 2, 2019 by andromeda331

[Danny Franks]

6 hours ago, aradia22 said:

I'm sure it was mostly the writers but I wonder how much of the problem on Castle was Stana and Nathan hating each other. Like, the writers/production knew that getting them together might show a lack of chemistry or provoke more backstage fighting.

I watched a couple seasons of B99. I mostly enjoyed it but it was easy to drop off and stop watching. I quit before Jake and Amy got together. I kind of want to revisit it but I don't want to watch from the beginning. But I'm worried I won't get the relationship buildup or the inside jokes. Maybe I can find some kind of youtube clip reel that edits together major relationship moments.

That one still baffles me. Because Nathan Fillion always seems like such an easygoing, likeable guy, and Stana Katic seemed very personable too, and in the interviews they did together during the first season, they clearly got on well. But she did have a 'serious actor' side to her, so maybe she got annoyed with him larking about on set. Or maybe the rumours that they did date and broke up were true. Either way, I didn't really notice any drastic changes in their chemistry, in the seasons I watched. A cooling, yes, but that always happens with a 'will they, won't they' couple as the characters settle into patterns of interaction. So I give them credit for being professional enough that the relationship still seemed to make sense, even if nothing else about the show's writing did.

As for Brooklyn Nine-Nine, I'd recommend watching it all, because I think the show did a great job of showing that Jake and Amy were friends who really did respect one another, before they got together. They're utterly believable as friends, and as a romantic couple.

[anna0852]

Another good example of a relationship done right is Kensi and Deeks on NCIS:Los Angeles. The writers did a great job of taking them from slightly antagonistic coworkers to good friends to romantically involved to happily married. Even though this played out over nine seasons if felt incredibly realistic with none of the will-they-won't-they nonsense.  The only major roadblock that was encountered was because Kensi's actress got pregnant in season 5 and they had to spend most of that season hiding it.

[Mabinogia]

12 minutes ago, anna0852 said:

Even though this played out over nine seasons if felt incredibly realistic with none of the will-they-won't-they nonsense.

I've never actually seen NCIS:Los Angeles but it is good to point out that there is a difference between a slow build, a relationship that grows slowly over say 9 seasons and 9 seasons of push pull / will they won't they / throwing stupid obstacles in their way. 

I love a slow burn. Slow burn relationships are hot, sexy, they leave you wanting more, the anticipation is palpable. They start out maybe not quite getting along, then something happens where they grudgingly gain respect, then even trust and friendship, then sexy thoughts start popping into their heads, but is the other person feeling the same? will taking it to the next step ruin the friendship they've built? So they wait, and they maybe test the waters once in a while, but they are afraid to push too far and ruin everything, then one day it happens. Maybe a touch, or a kiss, or a stolen moment where they see that the other feels the same, so they try a date, or two or three. It's awkward at first, they are tentative, but slowly, over time they find their groove, they are feeling it, then thoughts of marriage creep in. Everyone watching is rooting for them. We're invested in their relationship because we've watched it grow. We don't need them to date other people, have stupid misunderstandings or secret spouses pop up out of nowhere because the excitement of them as a couple has been building for so long that when they get married it's like a member of our own family is getting married. We are into it. 

Sorry. Got a bit carried away there. I just get so annoyed with lazy writing and putting stupid obstacles in a couple's path so you don't have to write then as an actual couple is about as lazy as it gets, and disrespectful to the couple's fans IMO.

[supposebly]

Adding to the Castle discussion: The show was built solely around the Will-they-won't-they conceit, a pretty sparse concept for a show at the best of times. So, if it runs for a while, you do run out of ways to keep them at the won't stage.

I remember thinking, really? This is all the show is going to be about? 

[AntiBeeSpray]

On 6/1/2019 at 2:46 PM, Mabinogia said:

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. 

Definitely. I loved it too, but that time it was a case of the actors not getting along and it showed on screen.

That said, I hate will they/won't they for ANY show. Period. I find it to be rather patronizing and annoying. XF did that until s7 originally and then tried and failed to bring it back in s10 by having Mulder and Scully broken up. There was absolutely no tension there. It was laughable to say the least. Then they tried to kiss shipper's butts in s11, but only having the characters be friends with benefits. 🙄

Edited June 2, 2019 by AntiBeeSpray

[Danny Franks]

49 minutes ago, supposebly said:

Adding to the Castle discussion: The show was built solely around the Will-they-won't-they conceit, a pretty sparse concept for a show at the best of times. So, if it runs for a while, you do run out of ways to keep them at the won't stage.

I remember thinking, really? This is all the show is going to be about? 

The writers went from saying the show would be an homage to the Thin Man series, to saying that the procedural aspect was the driver of the show. They never bothered to develop an ongoing narrative about anything but Castle/Beckett. Even the storyline about Beckett's mother was tied to her and Castle.

It was Castle that made me finally realise that I have no time for procedural, episodic TV. I pretty much stick to serialised shows now, other than the odd sitcom.

[Mabinogia]

3 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

The writers went from saying the show would be an homage to the Thin Man series

They should be ashamed of themselves for ever comparing Castle to The Thin Man. Nick and Nora Charles were one of the best relationships in film history. Castle and Beckett were Moonlighting 2.0 at best. Honestly, the least interesting thing about Castle to me was their "relationship" which is why I ended up giving up on the show when I realized it was going to be about nothing but their "relationship". 

I suppose they thought themselves extremely clever for the gender swap. That's probably about as far as they went with the homage because other than a rich person and a detective solving crimes together, Castle was nothing like The Thin Man.

Nick and Nora's banter was magical. Sorry, big fan. 

[Ceindreadh]

8 hours ago, anna0852 said:

Another good example of a relationship done right is Kensi and Deeks on NCIS:Los Angeles. The writers did a great job of taking them from slightly antagonistic coworkers to good friends to romantically involved to happily married. Even though this played out over nine seasons if felt incredibly realistic with none of the will-they-won't-they nonsense.  The only major roadblock that was encountered was because Kensi's actress got pregnant in season 5 and they had to spend most of that season hiding it.

The one thing that should have been a massive road block for the relationship was that Deeks and Kensi were working as partners on the job.  I know there’s a lot of suspension of disbelief required for that show, but that was just a step too far for me. (It wasn’t the only reason I dropped the show but it was a strong contributory factor)

[Irlandesa]

On 6/1/2019 at 10:02 PM, aradia22 said:

But I'm worried I won't get the relationship buildup or the inside jokes. Maybe I can find some kind of youtube clip reel that edits together major relationship moments.

You'll miss some inside jokes but you can always ask about them in the B99 forum. A lot of their comedy comes from who they are as individuals and how they play off of one another.  They're a little bit different in that I don't really think of them as having this huge defining "couple" moments but maybe that's because, while I like them, I never shipped them the way I've shipped other couples.

10 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

They never bothered to develop an ongoing narrative about anything but Castle/Beckett.

And this is where I think a lot of writers get into most of their trouble.  Many of the successful couples we're talking about here live in well established ensembles which might be the reason the writers were more willing to put them together.

Castle is an example of believing too much in the Moonlighting myth but also not having a plan of what to do when the show lived longer than their initial conceit should have. In the end, however, it's a double edged sword.  Sure, the dragging it out was tiresome but because they never moved past the Castle/Beckett of it all, the show got the much needed ax when it was considering dumping Stana/Beckett. 

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

You'll miss some inside jokes but you can always ask about them in the B99 forum. A lot of their comedy comes from who they are as individuals and how they play off of one another.  They're a little bit different in that I don't really think of them as having this huge defining "couple" moments but maybe that's because, while I like them, I never shipped them the way I've shipped other couples.

And this is where I think a lot of writers get into most of their trouble.  Many of the successful couples we're talking about here live in well established ensembles which might be the reason the writers were more willing to put them together.

Castle is an example of believing too much in the Moonlighting myth but also not having a plan of what to do when the show lived longer than their initial conceit should have. In the end, however, it's a double edged sword.  Sure, the dragging it out was tiresome but because they never moved past the Castle/Beckett of it all, the show got the much needed ax when it was considering dumping Stana/Beckett. 

That is where they get into trouble. Which makes no sense when you think about it. They knew from the beginning Castle and Beckett were going to get together. Its not as if they put them together and noticed the chemistry later. That was the plan from the beginning. But then don't plan it out.

I still can't believe the show thought axing Stana/Beckett was going to fly. The whole show was built around their romance and eventually getting together. Fans weren't going to just accept killing off Beckett and Castle moving to a new city and starting all over. They also were going to ax Lanie too. It is amazing when they when to ax people the women both got the ax.

[Mabinogia]

15 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I still can't believe the show thought axing Stana/Beckett was going to fly. The whole show was built around their romance and eventually getting together. Fans weren't going to just accept killing off Beckett and Castle moving to a new city and starting all over.

I know without a doubt I am in the minority, because the show as all about the SHIP but I would have come back to the show if they had gotten rid of Beckett and given Castle a change of scenery. So long as his mom and daughter stuck around. The family scenes were all I liked towards the end, when they basically abandoned any pretense that they cared about the cases. 

[ABay]

What I enjoyed about the first few seasons of Castle were that 1: the supporting cops were smart and capable, not idiots there to make Castle look brilliant, and 2: the way the show played the fiction/reality line. For example, Fillion was Rick Castle, a mystery writer, and they had Rick playing poker with actual mystery writers in an episode or two (I only remember James Patterson but there were others). When mystery novels were published to go with the show, they had titles mentioned in the show and Fillion's picture on the book jacket as Richard Castle. Castle's books featured characters based on the characters in the show. A show within a show, sort of, breaking into reality. I also liked that the precinct was the 12th, the ol' 1-2, from Barney Miller.

IMO, there's really no such thing as will they.won't they because of course they will. It's more when will they. And I still hate it.

[Mabinogia]

13 minutes ago, ABay said:

What I enjoyed about the first few seasons of Castle were that 1: the supporting cops were smart and capable, not idiots there to make Castle look brilliant, and 2: the way the show played the fiction/reality line. For example, Fillion was Rick Castle, a mystery writer, and they had Rick playing poker with actual mystery writers in an episode or two (I only remember James Patterson but there were others). When mystery novels were published to go with the show, they had titles mentioned in the show and Fillion's picture on the book jacket as Richard Castle. Castle's books featured characters based on the characters in the show.

The did seem to put effort into the show in the beginning. The show really had so much promise before it went all in on the SHIP. If they had just gotten Castle and Beckett together in some time in Season 2 then made them this hot, bantery crime fighting couple (like The Thin Man) I think it would have worked much better. But apparently the viewing public love ships so that is what they went with. It sold well, so I guess they were right to do it, but they quickly lost me as a fan because I have better things to do with my life than get cock teased by a TV show. 

[andromeda331]

3 hours ago, ABay said:

What I enjoyed about the first few seasons of Castle were that 1: the supporting cops were smart and capable, not idiots there to make Castle look brilliant, and 2: the way the show played the fiction/reality line. For example, Fillion was Rick Castle, a mystery writer, and they had Rick playing poker with actual mystery writers in an episode or two (I only remember James Patterson but there were others). When mystery novels were published to go with the show, they had titles mentioned in the show and Fillion's picture on the book jacket as Richard Castle. Castle's books featured characters based on the characters in the show. A show within a show, sort of, breaking into reality. I also liked that the precinct was the 12th, the ol' 1-2, from Barney Miller.

IMO, there's really no such thing as will they.won't they because of course they will. It's more when will they. And I still hate it.

I liked that too. Ryan and Esposito were good detectives too. They weren't just standing around. They did their job too. Same with Beckett. They did show her to be a good cop. Times when Castle knew stuff it almost always made sense. Like when the little girl was kidnapped in season one he was the one who realized the little girl had the same stuffed animal in every picture. Which made sense because he had a kid. The other three (four if you count the FBI agent) didn't have kids so its not surprising they missed that detail. I did love so much of stuff that Castle came from was from research for his books. Writers generally do pick up a lot of different stuff from research.   

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I know without a doubt I am in the minority, because the show as all about the SHIP but I would have come back to the show if they had gotten rid of Beckett and given Castle a change of scenery. So long as his mom and daughter stuck around. The family scenes were all I liked towards the end, when they basically abandoned any pretense that they cared about the cases. 

I would have hated them getting rid of Beckett. I liked both characters. But I really did like the family scenes. The three of them discussing the case. Like one episode he asks Martha and Alexis how they'd kill someone and both immediately come up with answers. I liked how close Castle and Alexis were. Some times the B or C plot was some problem Alexis was having. Or when Castle asked Beckett for advice. Those scenes were great. I hated how much of a brat Alexis came in season six with that arc about her and her dumb boyfriend and that she never apologized to Castle for how crappy she treated him. Season eight was also a little weird with her suddenly being an expert in PI stuff. It would have made more sense if we send it more gradually over the series or even in the last couple seasons. But no they just suddenly made her an expert.  

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I know without a doubt I am in the minority, because the show as all about the SHIP but I would have come back to the show if they had gotten rid of Beckett and given Castle a change of scenery. So long as his mom and daughter stuck around. The family scenes were all I liked towards the end, when they basically abandoned any pretense that they cared about the cases. 

I wouldn't have been back if both Beckett and Castle were both on the show.  The  BTS angst was reaching the screen and it ruined it.  Would I have watched a show that was just Castle?  Probably.  Just Beckett?  Probably not.  But that is more because this was a bit more screwball comedy than procedural and Castle is where the comedy was.  It still would have failed.

On 6/1/2019 at 7:08 PM, Annber03 said:

This. Why do these writers think we root for these couples in the first place? We want to see them happy together. This is not that hard a concept to understand. 

I'm always shocked that writers aren't more afraid of inserting angst into the relationships.  Its touching a live wire to toy with viewers taking sides in a ship during relationship angst and then expecting to be able to walk it back.  I usually end up hopping off the ship before they circle back to the couple reuniting.  Its really hard to introduce angst with no bad behavior.  Even no fault misunderstandings or differences have each character reacting in ways that can make viewers think the characters aren't good for each other.

My problem with HIMYM was that they did too good a job convincing me that Ted and Robin weren't a good fit to end up with them together.

On 6/1/2019 at 7:23 PM, Miss Dee said:

my personal favourite romance trope is the friends-to-lovers one. Probably because the writers can keep everything low-key until they're ready to start.

Mine too.  But I prefer it when they start and then stick to it.  An example of this, which I think was well done, was Monica and Chandler on Friends.

[andromeda331]

4 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

I wouldn't have been back if both Beckett and Castle were both on the show.  The  BTS angst was reaching the screen and it ruined it.  Would I have watched a show that was just Castle?  Probably.  Just Beckett?  Probably not.  But that is more because this was a bit more screwball comedy than procedural and Castle is where the comedy was.  It still would have failed.

I'm always shocked that writers aren't more afraid of inserting angst into the relationships.  Its touching a live wire to toy with viewers taking sides in a ship during relationship angst and then expecting to be able to walk it back.  I usually end up hopping off the ship before they circle back to the couple reuniting.  Its really hard to introduce angst with no bad behavior.  Even no fault misunderstandings or differences have each character reacting in ways that can make viewers think the characters aren't good for each other.

My problem with HIMYM was that they did too good a job convincing me that Ted and Robin weren't a good fit to end up with them together.

Mine too.  But I prefer it when they start and then stick to it.  An example of this, which I think was well done, was Monica and Chandler on Friends.

So am I. After awhile all the hoops get boring or aren't very good or one or both end up horrible in someway. In most cases they end up convincing me too well that the couple shouldn't be together. 

[Mabinogia]

18 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I'm always shocked that writers aren't more afraid of inserting angst into the relationships.  Its touching a live wire to toy with viewers taking sides in a ship during relationship angst and then expecting to be able to walk it back.  I usually end up hopping off the ship before they circle back to the couple reuniting.

I remember when Psych, in an attempt to prolong Shawn and Jules getting together, put him in a relationship with Rachel Leigh Cook (forget the characters name). They really screwed the pooch on that one for me because I loved them together and was kind of pissed when their relationship ended and it was obviously because he had to end up with Jules and RLC was just a roadblock. Abigail! That was her name, and she fit so well with Shawn that I no longer cared about Shawn and Jules, the "true" ship. 

18 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

After awhile all the hoops get boring or aren't very good or one or both end up horrible in someway. In most cases they end up convincing me too well that the couple shouldn't be together. 

I cannot think of a single show with a "will they/won't they" dynamic where I still cared about the couple by the time they hooked up. Even the original, Mike and Maddie on Moonlighting. By the time they got together I no longer cared about them as a couple. I quit Castle long before they hooked up, as said above, I moved on from Shawn and Jules. I never really cared who the mother was on How I Met Your Mother. The only ship I liked on that show was the Lily and Marshall. I thought they were cute. Of course they were allowed to actually be a couple during a good portion of the shows run. 

Hell, for YEARS I was one of the biggest House/Cuddy shippers imaginable. Lost a job because of them (Was writing multiple fanfics at work. All my log in names were based on them. I made photo manips, wrote thousands of pages of FF. Buy the time they finally got together on the show I was over them. It just took too long and the spark, the magic, the interest was gone. 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Mabinogia

[Luckylyn]

The will they/won’t they thing has an expiration.  Sometimes writers find organic ways to take their time getting a couple together and other times it’s just contrived stalling that makes you lose interest in the couple.   Sometimes obstacles writers place in the path of a couple have unintended consequences.  

I remember on Dawson’s Creek the impression I had that Dawson/Joey were the planned end game.  To stall their progression from friendship to romance they introduced a storyline where Joey falls for Dawson’s best friend Pacey.  I think the plan was for Joey/Pacey to be a temporary block for the Dawson/Joey romance but it backfired.  Joey/Pacey had more chemistry and were a more compelling couple. Some fans stuck with the Joey/Dawson ship while others got on board with Joey/Pacey.  I was totally on board with Joey/Pacey and was frustrated that they were broken up.  I felt like the writers ended it because it was becoming more popular than their originally planned Dawson/Joey pairing.   They tried to kill the pairing but the fans held on. The show concluded with a kind of compromise.   Joey/Dawson were platonic soulmates while Pacey/Joey were true love.   

I agree that How I Met Your Mother spend years showing why Ted/Robin were wrong for each other and that holding on to Robin was blocking Ted from true love.  So it made sense to end the show with Ted finally letting Robin go making the timing right for him to meet Tracey and finally have the romance he’d been waiting for his whole life.  So the conclusion with Tracey being treated as in incubator for Ted’s kids who dies leaving Ted free to start chasing after Robin again with the encouragement of his children was just confusing and so disrespectful of the fans who had been rooting for Ted to finally meet Tracey.   They managed to find an actress who lived up to being The Mother who the fans liked and just destroyed it.  At least on Dawson’s Creek they changed direction when they realized the originally planned pairing wasn’t going to work for a satisfying conclusion.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Mabinogia said:

I cannot think of a single show with a "will they/won't they" dynamic where I still cared about the couple by the time they hooked up.

There were lots of couple that were "will they / won't they" when they hooked up and I still really like them.  I think in most cases they didn't end up together or by the time the did or didn't end up together I no longer cared.

Diane and Sam - Cheers -rendered somewhat bitter sweetly perfect by Shelley Long deciding to leave before it was ruined

Mulder and Scully - X Files - Not saved by David Duchovny leaving (although I apparently care enough to watch "David Duchovny" on youtube at mentioning his name - which led me to a Kimmel video with the two of them that was the best thing ever so... never mind)

Jack and Allison - Eureka - but they kept resetting time and with every reset Allison's personality became more annoying and her treatment of Jack got worse

Buffy and Angel - BTVS - ruined by every mention or visit of Buffy to the spin off.  A parallel world where I don't need an explanation that Angel doesn't care that much about what is going on in Sunnydale because they are on different shows would have been fine by me.

Buffy and Spike - BTVS - ruined by their hook up and post hook up relationship. (but damn did I love them before that)

Alex and Izzie - Grey's Anatomy - until Heigl started being Heigl

Max and Liz - Roswell 90s - until Heigl started being Heigl and Tess and the mindwarp

Chuck and Sarah - Chuck - ruined by amnesia

Sidney and Vaugn - Alias - ruined by constant rebooting to give new viewers an entry point and two missing years and a new wife

Logan and Veronica - Veronica Mars- ruined by a habit of hooking up in the finale and breaking up before the premiere

So was there anything that didn't lose my interest.

Maybe Farscarpe - Aeryn and John.  But even though they are on the will they/won't they trope page, you can argue whether they belong there.

I was still so hooked on Ten and Rose that I was willing to accept a tearful farewell and a clone to have a happily ever after with on Doctor Who.

Edited June 5, 2019 by ParadoxLost

[Luckylyn]

Aeryn and John on Farscape is a good example of a pairing having reasons that are organic for them not to get together too quickly.   They are literally from different worlds and Aeryn grew up in a society where long term monogamous relationships were against the rules.  Sleeping around was okay but love was not allowed.  It made sense that loving John confused her.  Then John has been abruptly separated from everything he knows, living with aliens, and dealing with some really traumatic events.  So Aeryn is terrified of committment and John has some PTSD.  A slow burn made sense for them.  It never reached a point of me wanting to abandon the John/Aeryn ship, and I felt that although there were obstacles that there was forward momentum leading them closer and closer until finally they got together.   Once they got together, they were solid and the drama came from outside sources and not romantic angst.

Also I was fascinated by John and Chiana’s unique flirtatious one minute, brother/sister the next minute dynamic.  They are a good example of close friends who are attracted to each other who aren’t intended to be each others endgame.  One of my favorite scenes is Chiana telling John off but still kissing him hello with him just beaming at her despite how harsh she is talking to him.  Despite the flirting, they were very supportive of each others relationships.  In her own way Chiana tried to nudge John and Aeryn together, and John was very disappointed in how Chiana self destructively imploded her romance with D’Argo.   They loved each other, were attracted, but understood they weren’t suited to a romance.    In real life, there are people who care for who you have chemistry with but you don’t end up dating.  Chiana and John were never obstacles to each others romances but just sorta sparked without it leading to anything.  I kinda felt like the flirting was just another type of communication for them and that it was clear they would never try to break up each other’s relationships.

[Mabinogia]

19 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

Buffy and Spike - BTVS - ruined by their hook up and post hook up relationship. (but damn did I love them before that)

they are the biggest case of "be careful what you wish for" for me. I was all about the Buffy/Spike dynamic before they hooked up. I hated Angel so I was never on the Buffy/Angel ship. It was always Spike for me...until they hooked them up. And it wasn't because the chemistry died or anything. The actors did their best. The writing was just HORRIBLE! It turned into some kind of bad fanfic. 

20 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

Maybe Farscarpe - Aeryn and John.  But even though they are on the will they/won't they trope page, you can argue whether they belong there.

Adore them! I think that their conflict was always more character driven so it didn't feel as manufactured. A lot of it was about Aeryn becoming more "human" for lack of a better word. But their spark never died for me. 

As much as I LOVED X-Files I never actually shipped Mulder and Scully so I was more annoyed by the ship-bating than anything. 

And I loathe Rose Tyler with the passion of a thousand million suns, so yeah, I was shedding a tear that Clone Ten was stuck spending his life with her. That poor Clone did nothing wrong. Why must he suffer so? 

25 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

Logan and Veronica - Veronica Mars- ruined by a habit of hooking up in the finale and breaking up before the premiere

Logan was an asshole, so I never got on that ship either. (Love the actor but hated that character so much that I just couldn't get over it)

I tend not to ship most of the pre-panned ships. It's very frustrating for me, but I just can't get on board if I'm not feeling it, no matter how much the writers tell me I'm supposed to love a couple. It's all very subjective. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Mabinogia said:

As much as I LOVED X-Files I never actually shipped Mulder and Scully so I was more annoyed by the ship-bating than anything. 

I think Mulder and Scully is one of those cases where the partnership was better than them hooking up and it was better to have not wanted more thinking it was going to be a good thing.

[Mabinogia]

2 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

I think Mulder and Scully is one of those cases where the partnership was better than them hooking up and it was better to have not wanted more thinking it was going to be a good thing.

Yes, I loved them as a male/female friendship. Unfortunately, those rarely exist in TV so of course they had to turn romantic. It just didn't work for me and it kind of ruined the strong friendship vibe that I had enjoyed. 

[Luckylyn]

John and Chiana are a good example of show writers acknowledging a pairing’s chemistry without making them into a will they/won’t they or part of a triangle.   People can spark and not end up together.   I think that is a creative direction to take some pairings just to let the attraction simmer while establishing why a romance wouldn’t work.  With the right writing it doesn’t have to come off as contrived.

My Boys did something like that with PJ and Brandon who were best friends and roommates.  Brandon makes a move at the end of season one and PJ panics over the idea of risking their friendship so it never goes beyond one kiss. It was awkward between them in the beginning of season 2 but their friendship recovered.  They remained platonic the rest of the series.  I kinda wanted them together but they provided a believable reason for PJ to hesitate.   She and Brandon were so close it that it made sense for her to be afraid of risking the friendship.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Luckylyn

[Spartan Girl]

Another tiresome trope that ruins couples is how after a character (usually female ones, unfortunately) gets snotty and plays the victim when the person THEY dumped moves on with someone else, or doesn't call or contact them at all. I mean, they basically get mad at them for respecting their wishes?! Geez.

Little Miss Josephine Potter on Dawson's Creek was especially guilty of this. Not only does she play the victim when Dawson doesn't want to get back together after she dumped him TWICE, but also takes every opportunity to make snide remarks about his new girlfriend.

Even married couples aren't immune to this. If I had a dime for every time that petty little bitch Marge Simpson iced Homer out for something or other, but got even madder for him avoiding her while he secretly was trying to make amends, even though SHE wanted space from him in the first place, I'd be rich.

[Danny Franks]

15 hours ago, Luckylyn said:

Aeryn and John on Farscape is a good example of a pairing having reasons that are organic for them not to get together too quickly.   They are literally from different worlds and Aeryn grew up in a society where long term monogamous relationships were against the rules.  Sleeping around was okay but love was not allowed.  It made sense that loving John confused her.  Then John has been abruptly separated from everything he knows, living with aliens, and dealing with some really traumatic events.  So Aeryn is terrified of committment and John has some PTSD.  A slow burn made sense for them.  It never reached a point of me wanting to abandon the John/Aeryn ship, and I felt that although there were obstacles that there was forward momentum leading them closer and closer until finally they got together.   Once they got together, they were solid and the drama came from outside sources and not romantic angst.

Also I was fascinated by John and Chiana’s unique flirtatious one minute, brother/sister the next minute dynamic.  They are a good example of close friends who are attracted to each other who aren’t intended to be each others endgame.  One of my favorite scenes is Chiana telling John off but still kissing him hello with him just beaming at her despite how harsh she is talking to him.  Despite the flirting, they were very supportive of each others relationships.  In her own way Chiana tried to nudge John and Aeryn together, and John was very disappointed in how Chiana self destructively imploded her romance with D’Argo.   They loved each other, were attracted, but understood they weren’t suited to a romance.    In real life, there are people who care for who you have chemistry with but you don’t end up dating.  Chiana and John were never obstacles to each others romances but just sorta sparked without it leading to anything.  I kinda felt like the flirting was just another type of communication for them and that it was clear they would never try to break up each other’s relationships.

I really enjoyed John/Aeryn in the first couple of seasons of Farscape, and appreciated that they quickly got to a stage where they genuinely trusted one another, and were actually relatively open about having feelings for one another. But the differences between them, and the extreme circumstances of their lives always gave the show a realistic reason for them not getting together.

But the overly-angst-filled end to season 3 kind of killed it for me. The show wallowed in that shit, managing to have John dying, Aeryn mourning him to the point that she was suicidal, and other John being jealous and then having to deal with Aeryn rejecting him. It was all too much.

So in season 4, I was actually rooting for John to have a fling with Sikozu, even though the John/Aeryn train was clearly driving the show. I loved Sikozu's look and personality, until they made her Scorpius' zealot for some reason.

And I would have enjoyed a John/Chiana thing too. I loved their chemistry, and the unabashed attraction between them. They managed to combine a healthy and supportive sibling-like relationship with genuine sexual heat, in a way that came off as hot rather than icky (at least, to me). Not many shows have the confidence in their writing to push things that far with two main characters who aren't the intended couple.

[andromeda331]

5 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

Another tiresome trope that ruins couples is how after a character (usually female ones, unfortunately) gets snotty and plays the victim when the person THEY dumped moves on with someone else, or doesn't call or contact them at all. I mean, they basically get mad at them for respecting their wishes?! Geez.

Little Miss Josephine Potter on Dawson's Creek was especially guilty of this. Not only does she play the victim when Dawson doesn't want to get back together after she dumped him TWICE, but also takes every opportunity to make snide remarks about his new girlfriend.

Even married couples aren't immune to this. If I had a dime for every time that petty little bitch Marge Simpson iced Homer out for something or other, but got even madder for him avoiding her while he secretly was trying to make amends, even though SHE wanted space from him in the first place, I'd be rich.

Oh, I hate that one. That could be so many characters. Rachel from Friends, Rory Gilmore, Carrie from Sex and the City. Every time it happens I end up shouting at the TV part of what Lorelai tells Rory in Gilmore Girls "You dumped him, you rejected him, you picked someone else! He's not your Dean he's Lindsay's Dean." Or who ever he is and with. 

[Luckylyn]

I just thought of another example of a platonic pairing that had chemistry but never ended up together.  Jax and Alexis on General Hospital. There was a storyline where Chloe who was clearly intended to end up with Jax needed a husband to gain an inheritance.  Circumstances lead Ned who was dating Alexis to offer to be Chloe’s husband of convenience.  Jax/Alexis faked a romance to fake a break up between Ned and Alexis.  Chloe had a relative who caught on to the scheme leading Jax/Alexis to elope to prove their relationship was real.  Interestingly the platonic love story of Jax/Alexis was more compelling than the romance between Jax/Chloe.   Even though it was a marriage of conveince Jax/Alexis’ marriage was a happy one, and they were clearly having fun living together.   They became best friends who flirted but never consummated anything.   When the fake marriage was no longer needed, and they divorced they were both genuinely sad to end it.   The scene where Alexis moves out of Jax’s penthouse makes it clear how much they loved their partnership.   They continued to be close but never a romance.  It was always clear how much they adored each other.  The writers let the characters chemistry be shown but left them as friends.   Sometimes I shipped them and at other times I was glad they were just friends because I was worried a romance would ruin their lovely dynamic.  The writing on GH can be such a mess but Jax/Alexis was something they got right.  Just because there’s a spark doesn’t mean a romance has to happen.  Sometimes the flirting is more fun than the consummation.

[andromeda331]

50 minutes ago, Luckylyn said:

I just thought of another example of a platonic pairing that had chemistry but never ended up together.  Jax and Alexis on General Hospital. There was a storyline where Chloe who was clearly intended to end up with Jax needed a husband to gain an inheritance.  Circumstances lead Ned who was dating Alexis to offer to be Chloe’s husband of convenience.  Jax/Alexis faked a romance to fake a break up between Ned and Alexis.  Chloe had a relative who caught on to the scheme leading Jax/Alexis to elope to prove their relationship was real.  Interestingly the platonic love story of Jax/Alexis was more compelling than the romance between Jax/Chloe.   Even though it was a marriage of conveince Jax/Alexis’ marriage was a happy one, and they were clearly having fun living together.   They became best friends who flirted but never consummated anything.   When the fake marriage was no longer needed, and they divorced they were both genuinely sad to end it.   The scene where Alexis moves out of Jax’s penthouse makes it clear how much they loved their partnership.   They continued to be close but never a romance.  It was always clear how much they adored each other.  The writers let the characters chemistry be shown but left them as friends.   Sometimes I shipped them and at other times I was glad they were just friends because I was worried a romance would ruin their lovely dynamic.  The writing on GH can be such a mess but Jax/Alexis was something they got right.  Just because there’s a spark doesn’t mean a romance has to happen.  Sometimes the flirting is more fun than the consummation.

I remember that storyline. As much as I loved Ned and Alexis, I really liked Jax and Alexis. They seemed like an interesting fit. But it was nice that they didn't go there like you'd think they would have. No they divorce and still remain friends. Ned and Chloe were an interesting couple too. They were friends and remained friends after the divorce. 

[aradia22]

Quote

I cannot think of a single show with a "will they/won't they" dynamic where I still cared about the couple by the time they hooked up.

I feel like there are two versions of a will they/won't they that gets resolved past its expiration date.

1) The writers try to cope with all the baggage they've built up even if they don't talk about it most of the time (which makes sense, you don't constantly bring up your exes) though it does get brought up

2) The writers retcon the characters to some extent and the audience is instructed to basically forget all about the messy stuff in the middle

I can see the problem that if a show has drawn out a will they/won't they and suddenly let the characters hook up, the quality of the overall writing might be declining and they might be making a last ditch effort to hang on to fans. BUT, I am mildly curious about whether you could start watching a show fresh and then pick it up seasons later when the characters do get together. Like, assuming you mainly care about a couple getting together (I think this works best with procedurals where you don't need to watch every episode) could you do that time jump and have a show that works?