You are here: Home » Blogs

Pop&Circumstance: Will they or won’t they, should we or shouldn’t we

By Blair Thill, blairthill, on April 28, 2010 9:49 PM

By Blair Thill, Gavel Blogger -

Answer: A TV series everyone should know yet few college students recognize aside, perhaps, from the fact that it launched Bruce Willis’s career before uttering the words, “Yippee kay yay mother…” – well, you know the ending. Question: What is the one-time 80s hit, Moonlighting?

Any TV fan, whether 23 or 53, should take note of the impact Moonlighting has had on the TV landscape. You see, Cybil Shepard and Bruce Willis, the stars of the show, hated each other, nay, abhorred each other off screen. This utter disdain somehow translated into magnetic chemistry on screen, and so their characters, Maddie and David, embarked on their crime-fighting partnership filled with sarcastic quips and lustful glares. The tension kept viewers tuning in week after week. The the producers and writers decided to give fans their payoff by orchestrating the hook-up of Maddie and David. And that’s when viewers tunes out. The characters lost all their bite and spark. It became awkward instead of exciting.

Moonlighting was canceled later that season. That’s when the TV world took notice. The dilemma of the showmance had been presented and the question morphed from “will they or won’t they” into “should we or shouldn’t we?” And yet, what has since become one of the primary tools in any drama or sitcom’s toolbox? The couple that everyone roots for. The couple that makes you think, “Gee, if they can’t make it, who can?” In short, the couple you tune in for.

Think of how many popular shows have employed this buzz-building technique since the 80s. We had Diane and Sam on Cheers, Niles and Daphne on Frasier, Corey and Topanga on Boy Meets World, Amy and Ephram on Everwood.  Each show succeeded in their showmance to varying degrees. Diane and Sam got together, broke up, got together, and then broke up for good (or until the finale) when Shelly Long decided to leave the show, so perhaps that isn’t the best example. Niles and Daphne were considered supporting players, so perhaps they aren’t the best example. Things got awkward with Corey and Topanga when they decided to get engaged during high school graduation, then college just never felt the same. Amy and Ephram were perhaps the best example, though the thought that Madison’s pregnant babysitter was the most frequent distraction still feels wrong.

Then there are the granddaddies of them all that don’t even need show identification: Luke and Lorelai, Ross and Rachel. These two couple are, for the most part, sterling examples of how to keep the romance alive through multiple seasons. Luke pined after Lorelai for four seasons before they got together in the perfect first date. Was their breakup annoying? Of course. But the key to Gilmore Girls’s success was that there was a suitable alternative to Luke for Lorelai, and that was Christopher. There was always something attractive about the idea of Lorelai ending up with Rory’s dad, even though we always knew Luke was the one she belonged with. The reason why Ross and Rachel worked is much simpler: the ensemble cast of Friends took the pressure off of the couple to succeed, but that didn’t make the payoff of Rachel getting off the plane any less sweet.

What, may you ask, specifically prompted my lesson in the history of showmance? A situation arose about a month ago amongst fans of the much adored, little watched NBC action/comedyChuck. Fans were sent into a tizzy when they heard that both Chuck and Sarah would be kissing different people, and what’s more, Sarah would be dating her target, Shaw, played by Superman, er, Brandon Routh. Fans were outraged that Sarah and Chuck could possibly be with different people after just two and a half seasons and (hopefully) counting. But if Chuck-hards really want their show to succeed, should they have been rooting so fervently for the romance that serves as a main basis of the show? Chuck and Sarah are now together and while it certainly isn’t awkward, it still remains to be seen if that move will, indeed, bring in more viewers and save the show from its fate on the dreaded bubble.

To theorize Chuck’s fate, let’s look at other current shows that rely on the showmance. There’s Grey’s Anatomy, where Derek and Meredith are the only consistent couple in the series’ romantic revolving door. Shonda Rhimes swears they’re together for good, which would have been welcome if it weren’t for the boring story lines and general creative rut that accompanied their union.The Office is still going strong after Jim and Pam’s hook-up, but it’s really just working off of the Friends ensemble. The best model for Chuck is probably Bones, as the popular Fox show is likeMoonlighting II: This time we learned. Booth and Brennan have been doing the dance for roughly six seasons, and the creative team has figured out just the right amount of give and take to keep the romance between viewer and show alive.

But is it too late for Chuck, now that its main characters are actually together? Time will tell. While the show has never provided a suitable alternative to Sarah and can’t be considered a true ensemble a la our previously explored archetypes, it does have the element of charm on its side, which is no small asset.

But the moral of the story, friends, is that will-they-or-won’t-they couples are not toys to be played with. They are integral cogs in the wheels of television, and one wrong tweak could send the wheel flying and the car in a tailspin. Isn’t fictional love grand?