What Really Happened to Moonlighting?

What Really Happened to Moonlighting?
Here's an eye-opener...

by Linda Holmes

I had a brief talk today on Twitter with two of my very favorite TV writers, Alan Sepinwall of the Star-Ledger and Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune, which started because Mo was talking about tonight's season premiere of Bones, a show that has done a will-they-or-won't-they dance between Bones (Emily Deschanel) and Booth (David Boreanaz) for several seasons. Essentially, she was saying she was giving up on the show out of frustration.

(To get in on these gabs, of course, as well as to hear random observations that don't make it to the blog, follow us.) (She wound up writing more about it, by the way, here.)

She went on to point out that too many TV writers make use of what they think of as either the the Moonlighting rule (some also think it's the Cheers rule), which says that if you put two characters together, the show instantly dies. As she put it, "Do I think all couples with tension should get together? No. But it's lazy or fear-based thinking to constantly avoid putting [the] couple together." And we agreed -- me, and Maureen, and Alan -- it's a dumb rule that isn't even real, and it should be retired immediately.

The myth and the facts, after the jump...

Two things. Leave Cheers out of this entirely. They put Sam and Diane together at the end of the first season, and the show lasted ten more years. So let's just ... put that aside as obviously terrible evidence of this phenomenon, if it exists.

That leaves Moonlighting, where David Addison (Bruce Willis) and Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) coupled up near the end of the third season. The show limped through a fourth and a fifth season, but creatively, there was very little that was worth watching thereafter. That made it popular to take the position that they killed the show by putting them together, which some shows seem to interpret as evidence that your sexual tension storyline must be dragged out FOREVER with no resolution.

Here's the problem: As The A.V. Club recently noted, there are plenty of shows that have survived sending their characters into relationships -- not the least of which is The Office, as we were talking about just today.

Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that what happened with Moonlighting didn't happen because they were together. It happened because for most of that fourth season, they weren't together. Literally, not together. Not fighting, sleeping together, or anything else. They were in different cities -- she fled to Chicago, and he hung around and went to prison and some other stupid stuff, and in the end, they were separated in an episode that aired on September 9, 1987 and weren't reunited until an episode that aired on February 2, 1988.

There were a couple of reasons for this: Shepherd was having twins and Willis was making Die Hard, but no matter what the reasons, that will kill your show. Eight of the fourteen episodes they made that season, the two leads were not doing scenes together. Chemistry can work if you're romantically together or if you're fighting, but not if you're not interacting in any way.

As if that weren't enough, by the time they brought the leads back together, they had married Maddie to a stranger -- perhaps the most un-Maddie thing to do in the history of stupid character dodges -- meaning that there was no opportunity at any time for them to relate to each other normally while (1) a couple, and (2) in the same city. You cannot possibly tell what would have happened if they had played scenes together as a couple, because during its death spiral, that never happened.

Seriously: They slept together. They then spent eight episodes apart. There were five more episodes that season in which she was married to someone else, and that was the ball game, creatively. If you're looking for the string of episodes where they were a couple and it was boring and their couplehood caused people to lose interest, you will not find them, because they don't exist.

So the next time you hear anyone -- about Bones or about any other show -- tell you that you can't put a couple together because the show instantly becomes boring, by all means, don't let them bring up Moonlighting. Because it just doesn't work

Source: NPR

I saw this out there too, Mama. I was around watching this show when it originally aired and I loved it too. I must have bowed out before all this came about though, because when she mentioned half of it I didn't recall it.

It is interesting though that so many cite it as proof of keeping our two apart, and yet it sounds like Moonlighting just screwed things up wildly, nothing that you can blame on the story itself or the fans' love of the show.

I am vindicated yet again! I've argued against the moonlighting theory again and again and again, and I was right. Ahhhh smell that my loyal Chamberlain? THAT is the smell of thy king being right, and it smells like victory...and possibly cheetos.

RM

I have to agree with the article that Mama posted... you don't kill a show because you have your two leads together, you kill it by not having any meaningful (or any at all) interaction between your leads.

I was a piece-meal watcher of Moonlighting as we only had ONE commercial station in the mid 80's where I lived and we got it on and off for a few years. Yes, the fighting was what got me watching in the first place, but when David and Maddie finally got together I cheered! And then, there was nothing. So I stopped watcing - like the rest of the human population.

I think the finale of S4 of Bones proves that the fans want to see our two heroes together. Didn't HH say it was a love letter to the fans? I am yet to see the opener of S5 (but I will in the next couple of days), so I'm really hoping that the 'separation' - for want of a better word - between our two is only a reaction to Booth's surgery and he'll move on to better health soon, and peace of mind.

As for the 'Moonlighting rule', here's hoping that the writers of our favourite show don't become lazy and leave them in limbo for the next two seasons. I'd probably do a Moonlighting, and stop watching.

Tan

Here are the links alluded to in the article:

[Only admins are allowed to see this link] (the original article w/ links)

[Only admins are allowed to see this link]

Not a lot of Bones love there

It bothers me that every show compares a romantic liason between the two main characters to Moonlighting.
I don't understand why a show can't just have a happy couple as the main leads.
The "Moonlighting Curse" was one circumstance of one show, and the article clearly shows, that there was extraneous circumstances with real life.
It's up to the writers to ensure that happiness can exist, and I dare a show to prove that it can work, by having the two main characters together and still have the show be successful.
I think Bones would be brilliant at this, because the premise of the show should be the case-work, with a romantic storyline being a minor plotline.
It can work. I know it can.
But...that's just me.

G-Woman wrote:It bothers me that every show compares a romantic liaison between the two main characters to Moonlighting.
I don't understand why a show can't just have a happy couple as the main leads.The "Moonlighting Curse" was one circumstance of one show, and the article clearly shows, that there was extraneous circumstances with real life.
It's up to the writers to ensure that happiness can exist, and I dare a show to prove that it can work, by having the two main characters together and still have the show be successful.
I think Bones would be brilliant at this, because the premise of the show should be the case-work, with a romantic storyline being a minor plotline.
It can work. I know it can.
But...that's just me.

The can and they have. Thing is like in real life, in the TV world the one spectacular failure has greater impact on the pea brained TV executives than the dozens of successes. I mean, these are the same people who are so devoid of original thought that they search European TV for successful show ideas and then in their "wisdom" they Americanize them, robbing the shows of whatever it was that made them successful in the first place --see Coupling, in the UK an immensely fun and funny show, in the USA a cluster fuck of network meddling that gave us a lame ass 'Friends' clone. I swear, network execs could fuck up a wet dream without much effort, but they'd employ two dozen writers, directors and producers to do a thorough job of it anyway.

RM

THX1138 wrote:

G-Woman wrote:It bothers me that every show compares a romantic liaison between the two main characters to Moonlighting.
I don't understand why a show can't just have a happy couple as the main leads.The "Moonlighting Curse" was one circumstance of one show, and the article clearly shows, that there was extraneous circumstances with real life.
It's up to the writers to ensure that happiness can exist, and I dare a show to prove that it can work, by having the two main characters together and still have the show be successful.
I think Bones would be brilliant at this, because the premise of the show should be the case-work, with a romantic storyline being a minor plotline.
It can work. I know it can.
But...that's just me.

The can and they have. Thing is like in real life, in the TV world the one spectacular failure has greater impact on the pea brained TV executives than the dozens of successes. I mean, these are the same people who are so devoid of original thought that they search European TV for successful show ideas and then in their "wisdom" they Americanize them, robbing the shows of whatever it was that made them successful in the first place --see Coupling, in the UK an immensely fun and funny show, in the USA a cluster fuck of network meddling that gave us a lame ass 'Friends' clone. I swear, network execs could fuck up a wet dream without much effort, but they'd employ two dozen writers, directors and producers to do a thorough job of it anyway.

[Only admins are allowed to see this image] RM

I agree. Whole-heartedly.
Original thought is dead. The UK version of The Office comes to mind as one of the only successful copies. The UK version was one of the funniest shows I have ever watched because of the genius dry-wit of Ricky Gervais. he is actually one of the executive producers of the American version, but even this doesn't really compare.
I don't know how network execs get their jobs, but the screening process needs to be tweaked me-thinks.
There are 6 hours of prime-time slots filled by two franchises right now. CSI and Law and Order. Sitcoms are dead. reality television is silly.
What can we do. Every show that has an inkling of originality is buried and under-rated, or on HBO, where you get maybe 10 episodes a year.
*sigh*

G-Woman wrote:I agree. Whole-heartedly.
Original thought is dead. The UK version of The Office comes to mind as one of the only successful copies. The UK version was one of the funniest shows I have ever watched because of the genius dry-wit of Ricky Gervais. he is actually one of the executive producers of the American version, but even this doesn't really compare.

Ricky Gervais is the Office to me, the American version isn't bad but it still lacks the edge and sparkle of the original. Then again Ricky Gervais is sort of like Simon Pegg in that respect, anything either of them is in I find immensely entertaining.

I don't know how network execs get their jobs, but the screening process needs to be tweaked me-thinks.

I believe the current process is a combination of ass kissing, toadying, and blackmail. Personally before we tweak the screening process we need to do something to thin the existing herd. I favor a limited hunting season, say no more than two weeks, a one executive per hunter limit, tags to go for $1000 a piece with all proceeds going toward a charity - me. If we managed to kill every third executive over a two week period...well that'd be a good start.

There are 6 hours of prime-time slots filled by two franchises right now. CSI and Law and Order.

You neglected to mention that only two of those six hours are entertaining anymore. The original L&O is tired, SVU is crap, only Criminal Intent has any fire anymore. Likewise the orignal CSI hasn't been the same since Petereson left (I like Fishburne, he's just not enough), Miami is a joke (magic sunglasses and all) and only CSI:NY has any punch to it. Of course this only serves to underwrite how intellectually bankrupt TV is these days.

Sitcoms are dead. reality television is silly.

I agree on both accounts. And aren't we glad sitcoms are dead? Seriously they sucked. The last decent one I can recall was Everybody Loves Raymond, and that was only good because of the ensemble cast - Peter Boyle, Marie Roberts ruled that show.

What can we do. Every show that has an inkling of originality is buried and under-rated, or on HBO, where you get maybe 10 episodes a year.
*sigh*

Don't forget Showtime! I do love me some Dexter and would love to see a Bones/Dexter crossover season. Booth & Brennan taking on Dex? That would be something to watch, especially Brennan and Dex given their relative high IQ's, a battle royale to be sure.

*sigh*

Of course this can never be, so as you say, what are we to do? I guess we simply pray that House and Bones manage to hang on and get better, stay original, and not become formulaic jokes (As BONES threatens to do if Booth & Brennan don't get together soon).

RM

I thank god for the BBC...

queen bess wrote:I thank god for the BBC...

Second that!

There was also one other thing that wasn't mentioned with Moonlighting. There was a writer's strike back then as well. That would throw off a storyline also(Just like it did on Bones)

I agree that Bones' writers need to reach a resolution of the will they won't they question and that the demise of Moonlighting had more to do with the career needs of the leads to move on than the script writers. I sense their biggest problem is, with a two season extension, they are running out of plausible ideas to keep the game going so we see Booth revert, for the nth time, to being a total wimp in the presence of the chance to speak his heart to Bones and we see Bones go throw herself at anyone who shows interest in her after soon after another Booth wimp attack. Enough already. These are two intelligent people with strong ties and shared experiences. At least for me, their best moments are their banter/disagreement skits where they absorb and and grow from the dialog but do not admit mistakes. At these times they seem very human, very real, and believable. The rest feels contrived.

The Bones writers should read the Dorothy Sayers books involving Peter Wimsey and Harrient Vane's "courtship" to see the tension issue resolved with style and class as described in the following review site starting on the bottom of page 3 in the link below. While it was written in the 1930s, the sexual tension has a modern feel and, like Bones, Vane is also a best selling novelist but with a tainted past. As did not become apparent until after Sayers' death, the plots are highly autobiographical which makes them more titillating to modern readers. [Only admins are allowed to see this link]

I love those books!

And there is definitely a one knows what they want and the other is (almost) running scared from both the relationship and the desire both.

"Will it make you desperately unhappy if I say No?"
...
"Placetne, magistra?"
"Placet."

Some thought it should have been spicy French instead of studious Latin, you know.

dawnsfire wrote:I love those books!

And there is definitely a one knows what they want and the other is (almost) running scared from both the relationship and the desire both.

"Will it make you desperately unhappy if I say No?"
...
"Placetne, magistra?"
"Placet."

Some thought it should have been spicy French instead of studious Latin, you know.

Ah, who says Latin can't be spicy?



Is much hotter than



Don't you think?

RM


The Latin comes from Catullus' Poem to Lesbia "Vivamus, mea Lesbia, atque amemus." The French comes from an old ELO song lyric.