Why is it TV thinks sexual tension is more interesting than sex?

JoeB131

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2011
167,364
30,988
2,220
Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
[Rant mode]

This really annoys the crap out of me.

I'm watching this show, "Castle", with Nathan Fillion. And I really like Nathan Fillion. I liked him in "Firefly" a decade ago. He's a little older and a little fatter now, but still a pretty good actor.

And I guess one of the subplots is that he's pining away for the female lead in the show, where they have some chemistry. And they've been jerking the fans around for three seasons with this, I guess.

And, oh, wait, his character on Firefly had the same issue. he was in love with the "Companion" (which was a fancy way of saying "Hooker") on his ship.

Come on, writers, this kind of writing was lazy back in the 1980's with Dave and Maddie on Moonlighting.

[/rant mode]
 
Sex is vulgar and mundane; sexual tension is unexplored potential. Not saying I feel that way, but it happens that way a lot. People are aroused, feel lust, and then certain things in their lives keep them from going all the way.

Those things can be getting found out and losing a valued mate/partner, the reliable for the untested/unknown, the loss of a dream. Eric Hoffer said something like: A man risks losing his fantasy when he comes face to face with it.
 
Sex is vulgar and mundane; sexual tension is unexplored potential. Not saying I feel that way, but it happens that way a lot. People are aroused, feel lust, and then certain things in their lives keep them from going all the way.

Those things can be getting found out and losing a valued mate/partner, the reliable for the untested/unknown, the loss of a dream. Eric Hoffer said something like: A man risks losing his fantasy when he comes face to face with it.

Interesting point.

I think that a lot of these writers just can't write a relationship for crap.

Going back to the original templete, after Dave and Maddie hooked up on Moonlighting, no one cared anymore. The writers intended to drag the misery out for years, but then Cybil Sheppard went and got pregnant.
 
[Rant mode]

This really annoys the crap out of me.

I'm watching this show, "Castle", with Nathan Fillion. And I really like Nathan Fillion. I liked him in "Firefly" a decade ago. He's a little older and a little fatter now, but still a pretty good actor.

And I guess one of the subplots is that he's pining away for the female lead in the show, where they have some chemistry. And they've been jerking the fans around for three seasons with this, I guess.

And, oh, wait, his character on Firefly had the same issue. he was in love with the "Companion" (which was a fancy way of saying "Hooker") on his ship.

Come on, writers, this kind of writing was lazy back in the 1980's with Dave and Maddie on Moonlighting.

[/rant mode]

Because resolving sexual tension with Moonlighting failed. It failed in the X-Files. It failed in LA Law. When the sexual tension is defused, it is the last season of the show.
 
The moment Castle and the lady cop get to together, I'll stop watching the show. I'm rooting for them to get together, but the fun is the chase and the tease.
 
At least Bones and Booth finally hooked up.

Not really. Bones may have gotten pregnant, but without a relationship or even a recognition that a relationship is possible. Since the underlying sexual tension has never been resolved, the baby should not affect the show, excpet to add a dimension to it. We now have more than sexual tension, but parental tension as well.
 
[Rant mode]

This really annoys the crap out of me.

I'm watching this show, "Castle", with Nathan Fillion. And I really like Nathan Fillion. I liked him in "Firefly" a decade ago. He's a little older and a little fatter now, but still a pretty good actor.

And I guess one of the subplots is that he's pining away for the female lead in the show, where they have some chemistry. And they've been jerking the fans around for three seasons with this, I guess.

And, oh, wait, his character on Firefly had the same issue. he was in love with the "Companion" (which was a fancy way of saying "Hooker") on his ship.

Come on, writers, this kind of writing was lazy back in the 1980's with Dave and Maddie on Moonlighting.

[/rant mode]

Because resolving sexual tension with Moonlighting failed. It failed in the X-Files. It failed in LA Law. When the sexual tension is defused, it is the last season of the show.

Well, let's look at that. It's not that they resolved it, so much of how they did.

They shoehorned Dave and Maddie into bed a lot earlier than they wanted to becaue Sybill got pregnant. So did whatshername from the X-files. (Incidently, I stopped watching both shows long before then). They they just kind of moped around with the characters instead of buidling on that. (David Ducovny actually left the show).
 
The moment Castle and the lady cop get to together, I'll stop watching the show. I'm rooting for them to get together, but the fun is the chase and the tease.

I'm coming into this show fresh... only having seen six episodes from the third season.

(I only came upon it by accident, when I was web surfing on IMDB and asked myself, "What is Nathan Fillion doing these days?") But six episodes, I already have a feel for the characters and all their relationships.
 
At least Bones and Booth finally hooked up.

Not really. Bones may have gotten pregnant, but without a relationship or even a recognition that a relationship is possible. Since the underlying sexual tension has never been resolved, the baby should not affect the show, excpet to add a dimension to it. We now have more than sexual tension, but parental tension as well.

I think the parental tension will be hilarious at times. I agree that sometimes hooking up kills the show but in the case of Bones, the way it's being done it won't mean the death of the show.
 

Similar threads

Forum List

Back
Top