(Untitled)

[dotsomething]

Dear flist,

There are a number of you who need to read this article in Slate right now, this minute. Here's an excerpt:

Television hates nothing more than a happy couple....we've all grown used to the couples we love waiting a lot longer than two years to get it on. The problem seems to be that writers and actors are unable to reliably generate

Comments

[laudre]

To me, it just strikes me as laziness to not be able to figure out how to write characters as a couple vs. just flirting. Sure, their dynamic is going to change. But this should be interesting -- how are they going to be different? What are we going to learn about them now?

And then, if they're in an ensemble show, it's not like how they relate to everyone else is going to change. At least, not as significantly.

I don't know. I don't see any reason to tolerate it; just because it's the norm doesn't mean it should be.

[dotsomething]

Exactly. I think the "Moonlighting era" is long over, and I would love to see a married couple on television (I mean in a serial, complex genre tv series).

Do you remember a TV series from the 80's called "McGruder and Loud?" I adored it. They were cops, and because of the demands of their jobs they decided to keep their marriage a secret. As I recall, their apartments had a secret panel that opened. There was lots of drama (especially when one got shot and the other couldn't conceal their anguish publicly). Probably now it would seem primitive 80's. But I'd like to see something along those lines again.

[laudre]

The title and premise both sound really familiar, but I can't remember anything specific about it. But it does sound, at the very least, like subverting the trope a bit, though I don't know how developed the trope was at the time.

I'm right now thinking of Northern Exposure; unfortunately, I'm only really familiar with the early seasons, because most of my viewing of the show was on late-night reruns when it was still airing first-runs (IOW, I only saw bits and pieces of 5th season, in particular.) As I recall, Joel and Maggie did eventually get together, though it was not too long before Joel left, so they didn't have much time to explore it. The writing on that show was strong enough that if Joel had stuck around, I'm sure they would have kept their chemistry going.

[dotsomething]

Northern Exposure's Joel and Maggie could be Exhibit B...*headdesk* That frustrated me so much.

McGruder and Loud didn't last very long. I don't remember if objectively speaking it was any good. I thought it was good at the time, which isn't saying much.

[allaine77]

Favorite line, referring to Mulder/Scully:

Wherever they are now, I hope they're compensating for their chastity. (In the world of fan fiction, they certainly are.)

LOL

Why the hell can there be so many TV shows on the air where the two central characters are a married couple? Why can't THOSE shows be an example to the others?

Although yeah, Jim/Pam, that IS so much fun.

Sincerely, Allaine

[dotsomething]

Once Mulder and Scully did get together, The X-Files was ridiculously coy about it. The show actually continued one *after* they were together, but you'd never know it, and the show never dealt with the new dynamics of them being a couple in their crazy mixed up conspiracy theory world. The only time I felt they did go there were the scenes that took place when they went back to the same town and hotel from the first episode (there was spooning but no sex). But that seemed to hint at what their couplehood was like.

[ex_iinga]

Moonlighting is the example everyone gives for why happy-couples-equal-show-death but the fact that Dave & Maddie got together had nothing to do with why that show SUCKED at the end and got canceled. Moonlighting was this quirky detective show featuring snarky people and, as such, was a delight. I truly believe that the original formula of Moonlighting could have easily sustained the consummation of the relationship, because there still would have been snark and quirk and a mystery plot each week. However, there were infamous problems behind the scene and somewhere along the line some fool decided that this show as not about two snarky and funny people solving quirky cases together; this show was now going to be about two bitchy and angsty people having a relationship

[dotsomething]

When Maddie and David finally did it, I thought, great, now it's really going to be interesting, because they'll solve mysteries together and banter and care about each other

[ex_iinga]

Zoe and Wash are exhibit A in my wails about why aren't there married couples on genre or drama tv series.

I loved them to pieces. The dynamic was just wonderful.

I really want a Nick and Nora Charles style detective drama/comedy/mystery tv series

Yes! You have to give the characters a story to work with. Too many shows start with a premise that will instantly collapse if the couple ever gets together. (For instance, if the name of your show is The Nanny than if the nanny marries into the family and becomes the stepmother than your title doesn't even make sense anymore.) But if you start with a premise that says "These two people who are meant for each other are going to team up to fight crime or whatever," then you've got a chance. Which is why Moonlighting was such a crash-n-burn disappointment, because it had the potential to be a modern Nick & Nora (with added snark!) and instead they jettisoned the very part of the show that would have made the show work.

I have only the fuzziest memories of Hart to Hart (and some folks have

[dotsomething]

Why has TV given up on the married-sleuths formula?

Probably because all the married-sleuths tv series crashed-and-burned ;)

There's no real reason why that format shouldn't work on tv. We see it all the time with sitcoms. But not in dramas or genre. Do TPTB honestly think people *don't* want to see couples together? That this will keep us from watching? Or is it as the article on Slate suggests--that it's more fun to write misery than it is to come up with fresh ideas when people are married and settled down.

Why was the 80's flush with boy-girl detective shows, and now...zip?

(See in one of my comments above--there was Hart to Hart and there was also a show called McGruder and Loud which did the married cops dynamic beautifully).

[evillittletwit]

I feel left out since I'm young and not cynical about fandom yet and am still capable of hoping that the couple of my choosing will get together sometime before the end of the series and that it will not suck.

[dotsomething]

Oh, you should have known me while Moonlighting was on the air. The squeeing! I obsessed over every innuendo, every gesture. I could recite their dialogue. And I totally believed they would be a couple and together, they would fight crime! But no. It was not to be.

There's a long list of fandoms since then where I've been burned, but there are some where things have worked out okay.

I think it's great you're just enjoying the shows. My advice is, enjoy the ride and keep a floatation device handy for the landing...

[amilyn]

And read Yahtzee's "Put the Blame on Steele".

*happysigh*

[burger_eater]

If the show builds its drama on the relationship and if "Will they do it?" is the major dramatic question, there can't help but be a let down when they finally get it on. The question is answered--that story is over, and it ended on a (hopefully) powerful moment

[dotsomething]

That's probably why this is such a problem in TV series, how do you keep it interesting and not soap-opera? The Nick and Nora stuff worked in part because the tone was light--it was comedy with a bit of social satire. The serious moments were rare. Moonlighting started as a comedy with moments of drama. If they'd kept the wacky humor, the Howard Hawkes style overlapping dialogue and fighting and occasional cross dressing and pie-in-the-face, that could have prevented it from wallowing as Maddie and David dealt with relationship stuff.

Too much of the time with series, the couple everyone wants to see together is kept apart or breaks up because of reasons that start to feel forced or arbitrary. Which then makes the audience care less about the characters, which leads to dropping ratings, and then to cancellation. Ironically, the artificial obstacles were dropped in to boost ratings in the first place.

[burger_eater]

That's probably why this is such a problem in TV series, how do you keep it interesting and not soap-opera? As you say, the way to do it is make it funny. Sitcoms are set in the home and in the workplace, and most of the ones set at home spend years playing out the stresses and tribulations of connubial heaven. Years. Can you imagine a drama about a troubled couple that lasted as long as MAD ABOUT YOU

[dotsomething]

Dramas typically have a mechanism to bring continual influx of outside dramatic situations--they're solving crimes or diagnosing patients or handling legal cases. Without that main story engine, you get the endless (and uninteresting, IMO) family crises of soap opera.There have been long-running married couples on TV and they're all in the night-time soap category