[ SECRET POST #5147 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5147 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 41 secrets from Secret Submission Post #737.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Most people enjoy resolved romances. The more people that enjoy your creation, means more money.

[(Anonymous)]

Not sure how that logic really follows when most shippy endgame scenarios (in TV universes, at least) happen in the final season/episode/movie, i.e., after the money stops comingin for creators anyway.

Given that shippers and shipwars are a pretty big talking point during a show/movie series/whatever's run, giving them the endgame moment feels more like a "thanks for your unpaid advertising revenue".

That, or creators assume pairing up every character is the only conceivable way to give closure to their show/movie/whatever?

[(Anonymous)]

most shippy endgame scenarios (in TV universes, at least) happen in the final season/episode/movie,

I don't think that's true at all

[(Anonymous)]

People like the idea of resolved romances. In reality, so many shows go downhill as soon as the leads get together that it's literally a cliche. Avoiding the Moonlighting Curse and maximizing shipping potential sounds win-win.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the Moonlighting curse and some others that followed were less about the show going downhill as writers not knowing how to write funny, interesting, romantic banter for people in relationships. They've been using the UST as their crutch and that there is no relationship as the conflict. If that conflict disappears, a lot of writers then think the conflict must come between the characters because they like writing them getting together.

As someone whose main source of sustenance was UST as a teen, as someone older now, I want to see grown up relationships that are still sexy and fun without being completely new. It can be done!

[(Anonymous)]

DA

Well, that's why if they don't have a thought-out plan for the established couples, I think they should just stop and keep it UST. Been burned so many times by bad relationship writing. Leave it to the people who set out wanting to portray couples being couples.

[(Anonymous)]

There is no such thing as the Moonlighting Curse. The multitude of problems with that show and its downfall is well-documented.

[(Anonymous)]

The moonlighting curse in this context is frequently used to describe the what happens when a show/fictional relationship starts sucking as soon as the UST becomes RST. You can call it whatever tvtropes changed it to when the genericked up all their trope names if it makes you feel better.

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, I know what the moonlighting curse is, and I don't care what you want to call it. Writers prefer to blame viewers/fandoms for their fickle attention spans rather than admit they suck so badly at their jobs that they can't even write interesting stories about couples. And far too many people have heard about that "curse" or whatever trope you want to use over the years to the point where they automatically buy into it and perpetuate it instead of critically assessing whether "resolution is boring" rather than "this writing is bad".

It's just doubly obnoxious to see that term thrown about, as it's referring to a, what, 35-year-old show as if it's proof of the trope, even though entertainment has dramatically changed over the decades, and most importantly, it was never proof of anything to begin with.

[(Anonymous)]

Dude, no one thinks Moonlighting was literally cursed. Everyone uses the term to describe the fact that writers frequently fail to write actual relationships well in long-standing series where “will they/won’t they” was a major plot point earlier in the series. Which is, coincidentally, what this thread is about.

People use things to describe other things that remind them of the first thing. Sorry it pisses you off so badly, but that’s really something you need to deal with on your own.

[(Anonymous)]

You continue to deliberately distort what I'm saying and act like the term is the problem here. Obviously no one thinks the show was literally cursed. But far too many people have bought into the idea that "getting a couple together is the kiss of death for a show" and typically blame the viewers for that and/or think that is the only reason long-running shows "suddenly" suck, NOT that writers fail to write relationships well, which of course is the actual problem.

[(Anonymous)]

I want to say the exact same thing. Moonlighting did not die because the writers did not know how to write a resolved relationship. A pregnancy, a movie career and a writer's strike were much more to blame, to name just 3 of the issues involved.