Do you agree with Alan Ball's belief on TV relationships?

[DarthPipes]

What about Lee and Kara on BSG? I never thought they made a good couple. Moore seemed determined to make them more and more unlikeable when they were a couple and the obstacles thrown in their way just seemed to annoy the audience more. I don't think that "love affair" benefitted anyone.

 

[bigdaddy]

What about Lee and Kara on BSG? I never thought they made a good couple. Moore seemed determined to make them more and more unlikeable when they were a couple and the obstacles thrown in their way just seemed to annoy the audience more. I don't think that "love affair" benefitted anyone.

That's because Alan Ball plans things at least a little in advance and can, you know, write. While Moore pulls things out of his ass.

 

[Joe Washington]

Ain't that the truth.

 

[stj]

Putting conflict into romance stories is kind of thickheaded on the face of it. The question is whether the protagonists decide to make the romance work, not overcoming arbitrary conflicts that short circuit the romantic equivalent of molecular bonding (meaning, the pairing is due to collision or proximity and is completely mindless.) Of course these can be legitimate stories.

Unresolved Sexual Tension stories where there is no sane reason to remain unresolved are common in serialized shows, probably far more common than romances. These to my mind are a perfect example of what these kinds of writers mean by conflict and drama in relationships. They are generally stupid, trivial conflicts, inflicted only to drag things out with big histrionic scenes. Histrionics are not drama.

 

[Flibble]

I think there should be a mixture of both happy relationships, and those beset by problems.

 

[Joe Washington]

When Alan Ball was talking about conflict in relationships, I don't think he was talking about keeping couples constantly at apart and from my experience of watching Six Feet Under and True Blood, I don't think he's a fan of it. Nate and Brenda hook up in the first episode of Six Feet Under and the Bill/Sookie relationship began in the first episode of True Blood though they didn't sleep with each other until mid-way through the season.

 

[bigdaddy]

It's not like he is the only one either. I went looking and found this interview from David X. Cohen about Fry and Leela on Futurama...

Are they going to pursue a relationship?
We don’t want to get into a rut where they’re having a baby and moving away to the suburbs. That would mess up the show to some degree. Without giving too much away, to have their relationship be on-again, off-again is a little more exciting for the ongoing drama of the series.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/05/25/futurama-david-x-cohen-preview/

 

[stj]

See next post!

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ Oops, wrong Thread.

 

[Anwar]

As long as the show itself isn't DEFINED by "Will they or won't they" like "The Nanny" and "I dream of Jeannie" were then there's nothing stopping a happy functional relationship from still being interesting.

 

[StarshipDefiant]

As he mentioned more than once, happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series.

While you don't have to have over the top conflicts and problems, there probably should be some conflict, I mean... that's how it is in real life. Even the most in love, happiest with their spouse/lover/whatever people I know, have issues and conflicts within their relationships. I imagine you could still portray it as mostly happy and functional though, and definitely avoid the standard formulaic/cliche stuff of relationships though (though, a lot of that would probably be in sitcoms).

 

[Pauln6]

You do need drama to prevent functional relationships from becoming boring but affairs/unwanted pregnancy/oh no I had sex with my brother/untimely death are indeed very lazy, cliched ways to do this.

I did actually think that the way BSG handled Starbuck and Apollo's relationship was pretty good apart from the fact that Dee's role was too minimal, generally involving a few sideways glances when I was itching for her to get stuck in and sort them out like she did with Adama in Season One. The issue there though was more about Starbuck's self-destructive streak rather than any relationship.

Still, Jonathon and Jennifer Hart managed to stay happy amongst all that 'moyder'. It can be done as long as there is enough drama elsewhere.

 

[Australis]

A happy family family can unite against drama from outside.

Hey Joe, is this your private writing tuition course? You ask a lot of questions about writing. Just wondered.

 

[Jimmy Bob]

Yeah. Joss Whedon's writing & plot twists, while previously surprising & subversive, have now become his own personal cliche. For gods' sake, there's even a t-shirt that says, "Don't fall in love or Joss Whedon will kill you." Once that happens, I think it's seriously time to reevaluate your writing techniques. Perhaps, to subvert the new expectations, his next TV series should be about perpetually doomed characters who miraculously survive each episode.

QFT.

I disliked how Whedon resorted back to his old cliches in the final episodes of Dollhouse, after doing a season and a half something new.

 

[doubleohfive]

I don't know ... didn't Alan Ball get himself an Academy award for a little film (American Beauty, which was also, coincidentally awarded Best Picture that year too) about conflicted relationships a few years ago?

Didn't Ball create, write and produce a little show about same (Six Feet Under) that is (near as I can tell) very well regarded?

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I think the man has earned the right to have his own philosophy on the subject.

 

[Smiley]

I'm going through The Dick Van Dyke Show right now, and that is a perfect example of how you can show a married couple in a loving, committed relationship while still having conflict and comedy from differing personality traits, outside antagonists, and the simple differences between male and female outlooks and approaches.

I agree that there have to be problems to create drama, but they do not have to be relationship-threatening ones all the time.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

As he mentioned more than once, happy, functional relationships are boring on TV. The best relationships on TV shows are the ones filled with drama, difficulty, and conflict with temporary moments of happiness and that the only time everyone should get happy is the end of the series.

It's a pretty basic dramatic principle, yeah, and hardly an original thought. Hard to argue with.

 

[FPAlpha]

I refer to Mad about you

Awesome couple with their ups and downs and very well written and played.

It is however easier to just write some cliche drama and put in some problems than find a way to make a stable relationship interesting enough for a TV show.

 

[Random_Spock]

Here's the thing, drama/conflict/whatever you want to call it is not necessarily a bad thing when portraying relationships, but it is often poorly done on television. Most TV couples end at the drop of the hat because the writers think it will make the show more interesting.

While the "Will They/Won't They" cliche is pretty old, I do wonder what it says about our society. At somepoint the writers started looking around and realized that with the high divorce rate, there are probably fewer June and Ward Cleaver's than there are Al and Peggy Bundy's or, for the single set, Ross and Rachel's.

Personally, I enjoy watching a couple that deals with problems, but stays together, than one that is constantly going through the cycle of love/hate/friendship/love/hate/friendship, ad nauseum.

Me too. That cliche has been run through the ringer imo. Too many tv shows go with that old plot device and frankly its wearing thin. What's the point to it... other to show drama over and over...?

That's me as well. I'd rather see a couple that stays together through thick and thin then have to go through the whole will they?/won't they? thing. That's just utterly tiring.

I'd rather see the couples develop and change over the years. Then to have things remain static... that just makes watching any show, a waste of time to a degree.

 

[doubleohfive]

...but Al and Peggy Bundy stayed together for the entirety of the 11-seasons of Married...With Children. And granted, while they weren't the ideal set of parents, they were also cartoon characters on a live action show satirizing married life.

I fail to see how they apply to this discussion?