Moonlighting, Season 1
So, why did Moonlighting fail, exactly? I've passed the season mark in the 1st and 2nd season DVD set, so here are a few thoughts on the matter.
Back in the day, when the show was first airing, I distinctly recall hearing people talk about avoiding a 'Cheers Problem', which, in hindsight, sounds utterly silly. Cheers went 11 seasons; any show would be lucky to have it's problems. They kept the Sam-Diane relationship as the central focus for 5 full seasons, too, by allowing it to thread through a distinct stage for each of those seasons. (1. Sam pursuing Diane. 2. A relationship between them on Sam's terms. 3. The breakup's aftermath and their attempts to move on. 4. Diane pursuing Sam, and 5. A relationship between them on Diane's terms.)
I think that one of the main things that did go wrong was that the producers started to believe their own press; to think that the romance between David and Maddie was the sole reason for the show's popularity, and not that people are interested in them as a couple because the characters are drawn as witty, funny people. So when they inexplicably stripped away the episodic plot-fodder of the detective stories and the comedic content as well, people didn't care if these no-longer-interesting people were sleeping alone, with each other, or with random astronauts.
The second problem with the show, evident even in the early days, is a dearth of characters. "Two detectives and a secretary" works, just barely, in a strongly plot-driven series like Remmington Steele. When the plots aren't the point and you're aiming for character and humor, you need more. Lots more. Regular, recurring, all of the above. McGillicutty was a step in the right direction, but too little, too late.
Are hourlong comedies inherently doomed? Could be. Of course, doomed in this case means 'five year run, with immence popularity early on and a cultish following up to the bitter end' (See Ally McBeal, Northern Exposure...), which, well, a lot of shows should be so lucky. Let's see how Desperate Housewives is doing in 2009...
Back in the day, when the show was first airing, I distinctly recall hearing people talk about avoiding a 'Cheers Problem', which, in hindsight, sounds utterly silly. Cheers went 11 seasons; any show would be lucky to have it's problems. They kept the Sam-Diane relationship as the central focus for 5 full seasons, too, by allowing it to thread through a distinct stage for each of those seasons. (1. Sam pursuing Diane. 2. A relationship between them on Sam's terms. 3. The breakup's aftermath and their attempts to move on. 4. Diane pursuing Sam, and 5. A relationship between them on Diane's terms.)
I think that one of the main things that did go wrong was that the producers started to believe their own press; to think that the romance between David and Maddie was the sole reason for the show's popularity, and not that people are interested in them as a couple because the characters are drawn as witty, funny people. So when they inexplicably stripped away the episodic plot-fodder of the detective stories and the comedic content as well, people didn't care if these no-longer-interesting people were sleeping alone, with each other, or with random astronauts.
The second problem with the show, evident even in the early days, is a dearth of characters. "Two detectives and a secretary" works, just barely, in a strongly plot-driven series like Remmington Steele. When the plots aren't the point and you're aiming for character and humor, you need more. Lots more. Regular, recurring, all of the above. McGillicutty was a step in the right direction, but too little, too late.
Are hourlong comedies inherently doomed? Could be. Of course, doomed in this case means 'five year run, with immence popularity early on and a cultish following up to the bitter end' (See Ally McBeal, Northern Exposure...), which, well, a lot of shows should be so lucky. Let's see how Desperate Housewives is doing in 2009...
posted by Jeff R. at
2:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home