![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gategrrlWho else has started hating "will they or won't they" situations on television shows? The Watcher (Mo) who writes for the Chicago Tribune has stated she's dropping Bones from her list of shows to watch and review. The comments to the article are interesting, too.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 04:50 am (UTC)Psych actually did that this past season. The tension between him and Juliet O'Hara, the cop, was simply getting too heavy-handed (and the actors were/are dating in real life) so the writers wrote in a girlfriend for Sean. The tension went way down. Either they couldn't figure out a way to NOT make it into a soap opera of immense proportions, or it was getting too weird for the actors (or some other reason). I like what Psych did. There's still a hint that he's mooning after Juliet, but it's not nearly as bad as it was.
For Bones...if the reasons two characters are kept apart reach Stargate proportions (there's that word again!) then they really should shit or get off it. I FF through all the relationship crap on that show anyway to see the newest most absurd murder being solved in yet another absurd SFnal way, but I still have to see it sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 05:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 05:02 am (UTC)Writers think there must be a conflict. So they rely on the soap opera standard of if a couple does get together after a long dance of UST, it should immediately be followed by one or both cheating, a love triangle, fake or real death, etc., so they can "shake things up" and create conflict again. Character conflict =/= plot.
Whenever the question comes up amongst general viewers, it's often assumed someone has got to have sex, if not a happily ever after, and if the writers are going to tease about a couple, then they'd damn well better payoff. With interest.
Which I'd be fine with in shows in which such relationships work within the overall show. In other shows, I'd much rather the writers pretend the female character is male and just get on with the show. Because no one would think of WTOWT with two men. No, never ever! *g*
I've gotten to the point now where I watch pilots with the WTOWT factor in mind. The higher the probably the show will waste a lot of time on that instead of, you know, a plot, the less likely I'll be to tune in again.
Two het couples I fondly ship are John/Aeryn in Farscape, which was WTOWT with payoff, and Zoe/Wash in Firefly, who started off the series as a married couple (and ended with a side of "Damn you, Joss Whedon!").
Those relationships made sense within their shows. John and Aeryn did have a buildup, but it was a component obviously built in to the storyline, not added as a tease.
Then with Zoe and Wash, I always wondered how two such different people got together, but it was completely obvious they were deeply in love. And how much fun was it to have the wife be the military one and her husband be a little insecure about the close bond she had with her commanding officer. And there was nothing going on! \o/
One irony I've found in following one of the gay storylines in a soap opera is the writers are obviously trying to avoid potential landmines of showing love scenes like het couples would have, so the actors are really working their acting chops to convey their characters are in love. With most of the contents of the writer's bag of tricks hidden away, we got more old-fashioned romance. Imagine that.
I guess the short version is I'm a romantic, but give me romance. A real one. Not UST, WTOWT crap. Ship or get off the pot. *g*
no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 03:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 05:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 11:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 11:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 11:55 pm (UTC)Nickelodeon seem to be really good at this type of show. Wouldn't touch anything Disney with a ten foot pole. They're just as bad as the adult networks.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-20 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 05:25 pm (UTC)I don't mind what's going on in Farscape because that was a main plot string. Other shows? No.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 06:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 08:30 pm (UTC)And the writing was never *great*. At least the original characters had been settled and written consistently before the big shake-up, and the established actors had something to work with, if they wanted.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 08:49 pm (UTC)No, the writing was never great, but the characters were generally interesting (though technically half of the leads came from the movie) and the actors could really lift things. In later years, even before RDA left, you could tell everyone was getting tired. Their characters became more like them, they didn't have to "act" as their characters, so I didn't "see" their characters very much.
I sometimes wonder if it would be viewed with 20/20 rose-tinted glasses as a better show if it had ended at the end of the Showtime years. Leave things hanging with Daniel out doing the glowy Ascended thing, and not trying to completely change the dynamics again.
Sure, there would have still been people complaining to this day about how it shouldn't have ended then, it could have gone on longer, etc., but I've found I have much better associations with shows that "ended too soon" versus those that didn't.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 04:45 pm (UTC)I recorded a couple of episodes of Bones recently. I'd never seen it and knew nothing about it--not even the actors. I watched one episode and part of another, and I didn't like it. I have no clue if there was a "will they or won't they" thing going on, but I didn't like either of the main characters (or actors) at all. It's possibly one of those shows that would have to grow on me, though. I try to remind myself that it was at least 10 episodes in before I liked Stargate even a little, and then it wasn't until the end of the first season that I loved it. Few shows make it beyond that 1 - 2 episode thing with me, though.
Being Human is another one I quickly dropped. I'm not sure if it was the relationships between the main actors or if it was just that I found all three of the main actors completely unappealing. And the show itself was boring.
I actually watched many episodes of Leverage, though, but it still does nothing for me even though I adore Timothy Hutton. The show itself is boring and is a chore to watch. If I have anything at all to watch, I'll put off watching Leverage, and I have a feeling, I am never going to watch it. I dislike the whole thing between the main guy and the woman, but I don't think that would keep me from watching the show in this case if there were anything else to keep me watching. Alas, not even Timothy Hutton can keep me watching.
Interesting blog about Moonlighting. I remember just getting bored with the show. I'd already stopped watching by the time the two main characters got together. And, yes, I really, really hate how every show feels they have to invent some sort of UST between characters when it's not necessary. I also don't think every show has to have some sort of romance to it.
I mentioned The Closer above. The romance on that show was done right. It was integral to the character to give her a life outside of the office. It's the kind of show that it is. I've also been watching L&O: Criminal Intent lately, and I *love* that there appears to be no romance on that show whatsoever. Yay!
I won't stop watching Psych because of the Shawn/Juliet thing or the Shawn/Girlfriend thing, but I do find both of those things to be annoyances and distractions from the show--at least, the show as I liked it originally.
I would have hated it if Monk developed a long-term romantic interest. I'm glad they did nothing more than flirt with that in a couple of episodes over the years. That was enough.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 05:21 pm (UTC)Yeah, they backed away from it on Psych, and Shawn's girlfriend isn't a ball and chain. He was made out to be a ladies man back at the start of the show, and then they sort of dropped it after a season and a half. He's still a boy-man, though, so I can't see any relationship lasting long with him anyway.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 07:16 pm (UTC)I didn't like the new assistant at first either, but I have to admit I never noticed that. It could be because I've just watched the episodes randomly over the last few months and not all in order, though I think I've seen them all now. This current season is the only one I've watched as it aired (still recording and watching later, though).
After a while, I came to like Natalie (new assistant) much better than Sharona. Sharona treated him like a child and was quite mean to him sometimes. That grated on me once I'd seen more Sharona episodes. Natalie can be annoying and even cruel sometimes, but Monk is thoughtless and selfish, too, and overall, she at least treats him like an adult.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 06:46 pm (UTC)I'm pretty sure Fritz should be up for sainthood sometimes, but we have seen cases in which he can be just as focused on the job as Brenda. I think they balance out well in the end.
I'm really surprised you dropping Being Human quickly, as there's only 6 episodes. If you don't mind me asking, how many did you watch?
I watched the first season of Leverage on DVD. I like the concept and characters overall, but the whole WTOWT on top of "man getting revenge for his dead child" trope was a bit much. If they'd ditch WTOWT, I'd be thrilled.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 07:12 pm (UTC)I thought this season was the first season--I thought it was a new show. I was surprised near the end of the season (or after the end?) when they were advertising season 4 on DVD, so I had to get the rest of it on DVD. I'm glad I did. I've really enjoyed it.
I'm also really, really glad that they eventually dropped the "everyone hates Brenda and makes her life difficult" thing, though I do think it was well-done and probably realistic for someone in her position--being the new guy, taking over for someone already established, jumping over the heads of people who might have been promoted, AND a woman with a thick, Southern accent... *g*
I sort of disliked the fact that they set her up as having had an affair with a married man who was now her boss, but overall, they've done pretty well with that, too. I think it's clear that, in the beginning, the chief was harboring feelings, but it's also clear that he brought her in to do the job and not for other reasons. Or at least, that's how I read it. While I wish they hadn't saddled her with that cliche background, in this case, they didn't make too much of it, and, really, it just shows that she was young and foolish once like many of us, but that she was really ready for her grownup relationship with Fritz now.
While I prefer when the show doesn't stray too far from the "Brenda solves a case" plot (ex. of straying too far is that episode where they were all in the RV), but I genuinely like the bits and pieces we see of her life, including her relationship with Fritz.
I think I only watched one episode of Being Human and never made it all the way through the second. It wasn't purposeful. I just thought it was boring, and I meant to get back to it, but I never did. There's only six episodes? I probably should have given it more of a chance, I guess. *g*
Re: Leverage -- I'm not quite sure what's not working for me. I'm still recording it, so I may get back to it, but I just find myself avoiding it, because I think it's kind of boring. I'm not really a fan of the general setup of the show, and none of the characters really grabbed me.
The problem could also be that I started watching it this season, so I've never seen the earlier seasons. It seemed like they'd done some sort of reboot and that the Timothy Hutton character used to be an alcoholic and/or a heavy drinker previously. I'm not sure I want to go back and watch that as I have a thing about that. lol
I didn't know about the "man getting revenge for his dead child" thing, though. Is it Timothy Hutton's character whose child died?
no subject
Date: 2009-09-21 07:39 pm (UTC)I thought the "everyone hates Brenda and makes her life difficult" was something that had to be done to establish the character and they did a good job without it going on forever. They wouldn't have liked "her" much as a "him" either, under the circumstances, but it might not have been so obvious with a guy.
I didn't like the backstory of an affair with Pope either, but looking back, it was a sort of retroactive cautionary tale about sexual politics in the workplace. It was yet another thing to make her team think Brenda had slept her way into the job, because she really had slept with Pope.
And I have to add it give me a little smile to see Brenda's addiction to sweets? Just about everyone has some comfort food hangup, and it adds to the character to see that as an ongoing thing.
There's only six episodes to the season with Being Human, so it doesn't quite build the same way a 13 or 20+ episode season would.
As it progresses, you get the backstory into how each character came to be in their current state and how they're (not) dealing with it, with episodes highlighting each combined within the rest of the storyline. They start to come to terms with themselves by being friends with each other.
I also adored that they showed the trio as very supportive of each other, without trying to make it into a love triangle. Annie's a ghost, but still, most shows would have tried to have the boys arguing over her attention, or her mooning over one of them.
Hutton's character setup is that his child died because the insurance company he worked for wouldn't pay for a treatment. IIRC, it was experimental, so there's no guarantee he would have survived anyway, but he latched on to how even that chance was given to him.
I've recorded season two that's aired so far, but haven't watched it. They did have an ongoing storyline in the first season about Hutton's character drinking a lot after his son's death, and what I've heard about the fallout of the finale doesn't inspire me to watch right away.
I like the "Robin Hood" aspect of someone helping the little guys against the big guys, and generally doing it with style, but the UST and the actress they chose for that role both annoy me.