Roush on The Office, Moonlighting and Bruce Willis
Question: In another blog on TVGuide.com, someone was bemoaning having Jim and Pam together on
The Office, saying, "Did we learn nothing from the
Moonlighting debacle?" Not being a viewer of
The Office, I cannot weigh in on the specifics of this situation. But I'm tired of
Moonlighting being cited as the reason no couple has been allowed to get together on a TV show for the last 20 years. In my opinion, the reason
Moonlighting failed to work once they put Dave and Maddie together is because by that point,
Bruce Willis and
Cybill Shepherd couldn't stand to be in the same room with each other. Their chemistry was gone and their loathing was evident. After a while, manufactured excuses to maintain sexual tension take their own toll on an audience. Add that fact to everyone claiming that, post-
Moonlighting, couples must be kept apart at all costs, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the couple finally gets together, people look for what they were told was going to be there: a loss of chemistry, a loss of drama, etc., and, of course, they find it, whether it's really there or not. I can think of any number of shows —
Lois & Clark and
Gilmore Girls leap to mind — where the real problem wasn't what to do once the couple got together, but rather the ridiculous attempts to keep them apart, which destroyed all audience goodwill. If writers can't figure out what to do when a couple get together, maybe they shouldn't try to tell us those couples belong together in the first place. Personally, I feel cheated if I am not given time to enjoy a relationship that I have been rooting for for months or years. That's one advantage of TV over movies: getting to see what happens after the happily ever after. What do you think — is it time to retire the assumption that a show must necessarily die once a relationship is allowed to live?
— Ryan P., Valley Village, Calif.
Matt Roush: With all due respect to whoever wrote the comment that inspired this question, I agree that the Moonlighting yardstick should be retired. The problem with the Dave-Maddie consummation was that there was no joy in it (either on screen or behind the scenes), whereas with Jim and Pam, there is only joy and continued good humor in their now-open relationship. It is a great payoff for viewers, and I don't understand the backlash — not that I've been seeking it out (why would I?). I'm lucky that way, in that it has to come to me before I respond, and so far, I'm only hearing about it secondhand. Gilmore Girls is a terrific example of how people could misconstrue the results of bringing beloved characters together. Lorelai and Luke were doing just fine and were delightful company before the April incident and the Christopher incident spoiled things in such ridiculously contrived ways that it helped ruin the final seasons of the series. No fault of Lorelai or Luke (or the actors, for that matter). Let's just hope the Office producers aren't planning similar miseries for Jim and Pam anytime soon.
