Amy, they're going forward with it. Hanson and Nathan are all in. [link]
Mal: Does she understand that? River: She understands. She doesn't comprehend.
'Objects In Space'
Procedurals 1: Anything You Say Can and Will Be Used Against You.
This thread is for procedural TV, shows where the primary idea is to figure out the case. [NAFDA]
Maria - May 20, 2011 8:37:33 am PDT #7788 of 11831
Not so nice is that I'm about to ruin a Friday morning for a bunch of people because of a series of unfortunate events and an upset foreign government. - shrift
§ ita § - May 20, 2011 8:42:48 am PDT #7789 of 11831
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
the show’s producers not only blew off that pesky (and outdated) Moonlighting curse, but they kicked it in the groin
?? First off, I hate the premise that there is a Moonlighting curse. And then, past that, I hate the conceit that any show is so clever that they have avoided it. Just keep writing, guys! If your show has hinged on the fact that they're not together, it's probably too late to fix things now.
Amy - May 20, 2011 8:51:08 am PDT #7790 of 11831
Because books.
That's really interesting, Maria. I'm not incredibly enthusiastic about it, though.
Maria - May 20, 2011 9:08:33 am PDT #7791 of 11831
Not so nice is that I'm about to ruin a Friday morning for a bunch of people because of a series of unfortunate events and an upset foreign government. - shrift
We'll see what happens. The premise is intriguing, in that they wouldn't be a couple at this point if she (Brennan, not the actress) wasn't pregnant, but the writing and execution are going to make or break this.
edited for subject/verb agreement.
§ ita § - May 20, 2011 9:09:33 am PDT #7792 of 11831
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I think the Cousin Oliver curse is a lot more real and worrisome than the Moonlighting one, too.
erikaj - May 20, 2011 9:33:45 am PDT #7793 of 11831
Always Anti-fascist!
it happens a lot more often. Moonlighting was having other problems... I think CS and BW weren't getting along and one or both had pissed off some writers, too? I only watched it a few times, though.
aurelia - May 20, 2011 9:35:41 am PDT #7794 of 11831
All sorrows can be borne if you put them into a story. Tell me a story.
I seem to be in complete agreement with ita today.
§ ita § - May 20, 2011 9:39:06 am PDT #7795 of 11831
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
The stars weren't getting along, and the writers had to write around a pregnancy and Bruce being unavailable due to a movie. Absolutely nothing intrinsic to romantic tension caused that plotline to fail.
And even if it had all hinged on will-they-won't-they, why decide that's a pattern for all romantic tension? Isn't it just a marker of poor writing?
erikaj - May 20, 2011 9:50:07 am PDT #7796 of 11831
Always Anti-fascist!
Well, I think because that happened in Moonlighting because the show was bailing out of a mess, it's kind of become an urban legend to say that's always why you bring the battling leads together. But I don't think it is. Although I've barely watched any "Bones" so I can't comment on this particular one.
Ginger - May 20, 2011 9:52:34 am PDT #7797 of 11831
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda
What bothers me about the Moonlighting "curse" is that it implies that there's no potential drama or interesting storylines for a happy couple. I wouldn't go so far as to blame the ever-decreasing marriage rate on the lack of television role models, but I don't think it's too far fetched to think it has some influence.
I have never been a Bones-Booth shipper, because they're an impossible couple and any sexual attraction between them is invisible to me. However, in some of the scenes where they have drinks after a case, they come across as wonderful friends.
That leads me to another rant, the one about how men and women can have a good working relationship without falling into bed with each other.