A word of caution: I chose to link this column rather than present it whole on Spoiler TV for a reason. As it makes the case against its subject, it is highly critical, and I don't wish to upset fans of any of the shows and/or pairings mentioned in the piece. If you're fiercely protective of your show(s) or couple(s) of choice, or quick to take offense, the link above is not for you. We can agree to disagree.
Having said that, I welcome mature, sane discussion of the topic in the comments section of this column. I'll even take the sappy love stories. ;)
Brittany Frederick
DigitalAirwaves.net
ChicagoCodeFan.com
Examiner.com
Fanbolt.com
Starpulse.com
Twitter: @tvbrittanyf
I agree about Neal Caffrey... I think it's better for the character to be single... and also Dean Winchester... Lisa? (I don't remember if that was the name) was not good for him, the character I mean... and also I thinks Olivia and Peter in Fringe is no needed...
ReplyDeleteAnd totally agree " I’m just not that into it if the show doesn’t need it."
A couple I think it's great is Castle-Beckett... and few others! and of course, shows like Gossip Girl would be nothing without the pairings, but others are just like Ugh! It's not necessary!
After reading your article, I have to say that I believe this is a case of you having unrealistically high expectations.
ReplyDeleteYou're so particular about the inclusion of character romances that your prerequisites extend to fan reaction, plotline necessity, and promotional emphasis. If all scripted television dramas were required to adhere to your guidelines there would be nothing left. We'd have to bring back Law & Order from cancellation.
The inclusion of romantic relationships and entanglements is the cornerstone of episodic television. The entire medium is built on them. It's fascinating that someone with such enthusiasm for TV could be so adverse to its most basic, fundamental subject in so many ways.
:D I hate how they do it. But imo some shows do it well so I can't say I hate it. What I hate is when a show is NOT about romance at all and then they push it so much that I start to LOVE it and then I watch only for the possible romance and not for the show any more. That happened with Bones, NCIS (sadly), and I'm sure there are others I just dont think about it.
ReplyDeleteGonna read what you said now. I'm sure it will piss me off hahaha, but I can take it.
Romantic feelings and relationships are important, I don't think it's realistic at all to exclude them. However, plenty of shows have dropped in popularity because the writers chose to focus on romance at the expense of everything else. And I find the degree to which some people are obsessed with fictional people getting together rather nauseating and sad. Relationships are important to a shows success, and not all of them have to be about who is dating who. I hate how some fans forget there is more to relationships that who is screwing who. For example, I find TVD a show that really understands that its success lies not only in the romance but the bonds between the characters. Some shows could really benefit from that; a person's life, especially a happy person revolves solely on who they are seeing or married too. I expect the same on my TV shows.
ReplyDeleteI'm scared Castle-Beckett will fall in the BONESzone :( They are so obvisously into each other since season 1... but so far its good
ReplyDeleteMe too, I don't want them to end up like up Bones, I don't even watch that show anymore. Castle is doing it so right; heating it up with castle and beckett while still having that team and family feel about the show.:)
ReplyDeleteYeah, though they can't keep going like this. I mean this season had like a LOT of moments where they look like they were gonna say I love you are something haha, cool down or get together
ReplyDeleteAnd gosh, I WISH I could stop watching bones, i really dont enjoy it no more but I hope. Was my fav show for the past 4 years so I cant give it up ahhaha. (though now its supernatural AND GLEE)
I agree. I think if romance and love is not part of the show's DNA, it should still be used if it fits in the story but never should the writers make the romantic element more important than it should be. I am rather annoyed by Dean & Lisa in SPN and hope they're done for good with that one and hope that Peter & Olivia in Fringe will stay important in some overall storyline way.
ReplyDeleteI was rooting for Dean and Lisa in the beginning but they mucked it up.:(
ReplyDeleteFringe has been doing right so far IMO.:)
Personally I am okay with romances IF and only if the two characters being together does not change who they are as individuals to any large degree. I loathe when shows put two incredible characters together and then devolve both individuals to something they were not while alone.
ReplyDeleteCould not agree more with your article. Once the shippers embrace a series and start to influence TPTB I lose interest fast. Cast in point Human Target. Last season was much, much better than Season Two. Why? Simply put... the show did not need a romantic counterpart to Chance or any romance at all other than the occasional guest star flirtations. They do not have any chemistry and it does not enhance the stories of the week... it detracts from them.
ReplyDeleteSame with Nikita. If they don't end Michael and Nikita by season's end I'm done with it. The show ran on the trauma of Nikita losing everything... INCLUDING a man she loves. In La Femme Nikita I enjoyed the hot and cold of Nikita and Michael, but Peta and Roy had serious chemistry, they both were working in and for Section 1 at the same time and it made it possible to have a romance. Maggie and Shane.... eh, not so much. He fights for Division and she wants it destroyed. That little bitty fact alone would get in the middle of most relationships and end them before they started. Not to mention any serious professional in the spy game would avoid romantic entanglements since they only bring added risks... especially when they need to be hidden like theirs will be. Series ruination for me.
I don't have as big of an issue with the hooking up after meeting some new guest star in the same episode. It happens in real life all the time, but most are doomed to be short term.
Not every pair of coworkers wants to date... even if both are attractive Let's take 1 male and 1 female lead, they work together and are dating other people but secretly want one another. Cliche much? Happens all the time in the real world I guess, but it so overused on TV. Can't we get some people that actually dislike one another for a change? Not love/hate passive-aggression, I mean some serious apathy. PLEASE!.
It has come to the point that if the two leads do not get romantically involved at some point on a series it stands out as something unique. That is just sad!
Yeah! I'm also scared about the Bones' Zone... I hope it doesn't happen with Castle! and I also watch Bones although I'm tired of Booth-Brennan... but my fave character is Hodgins, so I like the show!
ReplyDelete! Yeah Hodgins the best! I like angela a lot too so thats a nice pair :D
ReplyDelete"You know absolutely squat about the human psyche."
ReplyDeleteApologies, but I feel the need to defend myself against that statement, as I actually studied both psychology and sociology in college, and was a member of the Sociology Honor Society. So I take just a bit of offense there.
I think you're taking my argument just a little too broadly - as I state repeatedly in the article, I'm not calling for a complete abolition of romantic subplots, nor do I say that they don't work. As mentioned above in the blurb, it's a discussion of certain reasons why those plots can go wrong. Just because I choose to mention a certain series as an example of one of those items does not mean that it automatically hits every one of those bullet points or is a total failure - just that it exemplifies a particular issue that irks me.
In the case of Human Target, I wasn't questioning anything about the pairing itself - though you are correct, I don't care for it and have said so in my reviews, which I'm sure you'll agree I have the freedom to do, just as you have the freedom not to read them if that bothers you. My point was that the addition was unnecessary. Literally. The show could have gone on fine without it, in my opinion. I still watched the show all through season two and enjoyed it for the most part.
I haven't seen Castle, so I won't comment on what I haven't watched.
I don't think that a show needs a romantic relationship to last a long time. I think we viewers can become just as invested in characters, in plotlines, in mysteries and friendships as we can with romance. At least for me, when I think of a show I love, I think about characters that I've gotten to know, episodes that have made me think or cry, plot twists that surprised me. So just as I wouldn't say that a show shouldn't have romance, I think it would be a mistake to go to the other extreme and say that it needs it.
I'd correct you on one thing, Bruce: the use of the word "romantic." Relationships and entanglements are great TV. They really are. But I don't think that they have to be - or shouldn't be if the case is right - romantic. There are great friendships on TV. Great partnerships. Great adversaries, too.
ReplyDeleteAnd these aren't "prerequisites," either. It's not a checklist that has to be met or not met, but a general set of things that have informed my opinion on the idea of TV romance, over my years of watching television. Shows and pairings that have hit an item or two on this list are not horrible ideas. I just don't like that particular aspect of that particular pairing.
And yes, fan reaction and promotional emphasis do factor into that decision. I think you'd agree that it's a bit out of control to have people making threats and insults in real life over a couple on a TV show, wouldn't you? Or to say, on a show with fantastic writing, excellent actors, and so much else that goes into it, the thing we're going to put in the article is about how "hot" two of the actors are? All I'm saying with those two points are that when discussing romantic pairings, we ought to keep things in perspective.
The reason I brought that up is because (no offense to the slashers as I know a few myself) it feels to me, to be a curious standard - we're changing a character's sexual orientation, which seems to me to be taking a little too much of a liberty with said characters. I sort of look at it this way - I have a lot of gay friends in real life, and I don't think it'd be great if they're straight so they could date someone else. I take the same approach with characters. I'd be equally bothered if someone tried to make a gay character straight. It does not float my boat, but I respect the right of fans to go ahead and do that, even if I don't agree with it.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I think my issue with guest star romances is if we're supposed to invest in them long-term (like the Hawaii Five-O situation). There are always those one-episode plots where like, Character A falls for Guest Star B, they have sex, she turns out to be a serial killer...and you know, those don't bother me as much because they're supposed to be short-term. It's when I'm supposed to then support this longer relationship that I get turned off, because I haven't had the time to know who this person is.
ReplyDeleteI'd say that I support a Michael/Nikita relationship, but not emphatically. I'm waiting to see how the events of "Covenants" affect the rest of the season before I weigh in on the matter. I'm also curious to see how they address Nikita and Michael's past relationships as opposed to this one. Some shows have pulled the thing where Character A and Character B were true loves the whole time and they suddenly forget or devalue those characters' previous relationships. I actually liked how Nikita didn't do that...so far.
Mostly, that one came up because of the reactions I've seen out of that show's fandom. There's the Mikita fans and the Malex fans and...people get very vicious, and I think we lose sight of the fact that we all love the show just because we don't agree on the same...well, love story.
You summed it up perfectly, IMO. I'm not definitively against love relationships, but there are other kinds of equally fulfilling relationships out there that aren't romantic. I have a great group of friends with whom I am very close, and I honestly have a better relationship with my best friend of over 10 years than anyone else. So I don't think a relationship has to be romantic to be important, though I'm not saying that romantic relationships can't also be important.
ReplyDeleteThis is also true. I didn't mention shows like GG specifically because of that - some shows ARE about romance and pairings, and have every right to be. (Like soaps.) And they're successful, too. So I have no problem with that whatsoever. It's exactly as advertised.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree that fan reaction and fan behavior get out of control sometimes. I also agree that a lot of people who write about TV hold a very shallow, superficial interest in programs that offer a lot more substance. What I don't understand is how someone can let all this white noise that surrounds a TV show influence how they enjoy what happens on screen. Yes, it's annoying but letting it get to me would be like a few drunken idiots at a ball game stopping me from going to more ball games.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary... and sad.
ReplyDeleteTo me a viewer should NEVER like a relationship on a show more than the show itself. Excluding soap operas (daytime or prime time) shows usually use romance or relationships to enhance or advance the story... not BE the story. If it gets to the level of advertising a relationship and not the series story arc, in my mind, the showrunner has failed.
I am in wait and see mode for Nikita too... but from the little of the romance I have seen on the series I don't think it will be a positive or handled well...
I know what you mean, but its FANfiction... its not in the show. I just dont understand that the fans writing something on internet would bother you about a tv show... It's just weird hahaha. (and for supernatural... i dontknow for you but im more bother by the brother thing then the straight thing haha.) The fact that you have gay friends is kind of .. not the point though.. they are real personne (im sure you know that though ahaha)
ReplyDeleteThanks for this article, it made me feel less of a freak for hating the way 'Mikita' (CW's Nikita) is being forced up on me. Even the nickname 'Mikita' makes me vomit a little, since the original Michael and Nikita were referred to as just 'Michael and Nikita'. Yeah, you heard me, there was a time cool tv couples didn't need cheesy nicknames to be 'epic'.
ReplyDeleteAlways a pleasure to read your reviews and articles!
ReplyDeleteWaiting for more!