|
Post by beesnbears on Mar 10, 2011 16:10:23 GMT -5
If Moonlighting were to run again in syndication how do you think it would be accepted by old and new viewers? Would a whole new generation of fans begin to grow? How do you think it would stack up against shows of today like "Castle" or "Bones"?
|
|
|
Post by jpen on Mar 10, 2011 17:22:20 GMT -5
Ooooh, good question, bees! I have to say, I think it would hold up easily against/with those shows. As you know, I really like Bones (haven't watched Castle yet), but the banter on ML is, IMO, one step up...as is the chemistry, I think.
We have some young'uns here on the board, I believe, who have discovered ML on DVD...so seems to me, if they put the show back on, it would pick up a whole new generation of fans! ;D
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Mar 10, 2011 17:26:40 GMT -5
Well, I think old diehard fans like us will always appreciate it; for me ML has set the standards for will-they-or-won't-they-relationships, and I love both Castle and Bones, but ML is never topped. Not even reached.
New viewers? Well, maybe I'm biased, but I can't think of any viewer who can deny the chemistry here. The shows you mentioned have their chemistry, but the ML chemistry is for ever unrivaled.
|
|
|
Post by finefinegoodgood on Mar 11, 2011 9:16:55 GMT -5
I think it would hold up in todays market for sure!
I have only started to watch Bones, and I have never seen Castle...but from what I have seen they are great shows, but dont have the chemistry of Maddie and David.
I dont think I have seen a chemistry like that since Moonlighting...I would have to say the closest thing to a David/Maddie thing was Mulder and Scully, and we all know how that turned out.
I think if Moonlighting were to air tomorrow it would do well...everyone loves relationships like that! Thats why shows like Bones/Castle do so well.
|
|
|
Post by bluemoonshampoo on Mar 11, 2011 10:45:21 GMT -5
I haven't seen 'Bones' or 'Castle' YET - but plan to order the series based on the recommendation from so many of you guys :-)
I enjoy the chemistry on 'House' - love the Huddy! I watch for the Huddy more than the diagnoses lol.
However - Nothing I've seen since Moonlighting has ever come close to that chemistry between our two main characters! Most shows desperately try to emulate it but there's an imbalance in the chemistry somehow- so it works but it's just not as hot as Maddie and David- our Blue Moon duo had an equal amount of attraction to each other through their television characters and the actors who played them.
I do think that if they ran this show again it would attract a new audience - and the fact that it's set in the eighties would add to its charm! When I showed it to my class of twelve year olds - they absolutely loved it and wanted to see more so there's your proof- its age did not put them off in the slightest and they were laughing just as hard at the jokes now, present day, as we did back then.
Personally, I'd love to see it back on our screens. It might even make the reunion idea more probable because more people would know about it and crave that happy ending!
|
|
|
Post by rose35 on Mar 11, 2011 11:41:20 GMT -5
Yes i think it could hold it's own against those other shows & even do better than them We know we have seen alot of younger fans jump on the bandwagon once the DVD's were available so yeah younger generation would love it too! I am a new fan to Castle, i'm really enjoying it! I like the lead characters. I tried to watch BONES but just didn't feel it and i'm a fan of David Boreanaz from his BUffy/Angel days. Again for me too no one has ever come close to M&D and the chemistry there except my # 2nd fave couple is Buffy/Angel!
|
|
|
Post by diane on Mar 11, 2011 21:51:15 GMT -5
One thing I might find as an obstacle for newer viewers is that ML is definitely an 80's show. When most of us started watching it was really cutting edge, and it didn't take much to draw us in. But I think especially the younger folks would be distracted by the clothing, hairstyles, and the pop culture references that they just wouldn't get.
I also think you would have to get people to watch a few episodes.....not sure the pilot would reel them in like it did me. I know some of you really love the pilot, and there are a couple of amazing scenes in it, but my true appreciation and love of Moonlighting grew as D&M started to reveal themselves to us (and the actors grew into their roles). I am afraid that many young people today are looking for more instant gratification....
If you are talking about the Bones/Castle fanbase........they would love ML. Alas, I think they might find out how superior it is to both of those shows.
I watch both Bones and Castle. I find Bones much better and more interesting than Castle...the writing is better, and the relationship between Booth and Bones is full of challenges and fun. I love that both Bones and Booth are flawed individuals that are eventually going to find out (if they, in their heart of hearts haven't already) that they are pretty darned perfect for each other. I also think the ensemble cast of Bones is one of the best put together in TV. Not a bad apple in the bunch (is that a mixed metaphor?).
Castle just makes me mad. I think Castle has the potential to be a good show, and I think there is chemistry between Castle and Beckett. But the writing is sloppy, they have both continuity and believability issues (can I tell you Castle, THE WRITER, disabled a bomb a few weeks ago....by yanking out all the wires?) They steal regularly from other shows....first and foremost ML, and then poopoo the ML curse.... I will bet you anything that if you watch one hour of Castle, you will see at least 2 instances of ....I will say it kindly......the Moonlighting influence reflected in their work. I want Castle to be better.......every week I watch and root for it to be...then I end up throwing stuff at the TV. There have been several very good episodes this year...but they can't sustain.
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Mar 12, 2011 7:15:39 GMT -5
Hmmm... I agree with you, Diane, that maybe nowadays young viewers expect a (new) show to capture them with spectacular scenes, settings and so on (if I got your point right). That might be an obstacle; I think there are a few episodes that are more appropriate to catch a newbie's attention and keep him wanting more than others. Thinking of "Next murder" eg.
But I don't think it is an obstacle per se tgat ML is an 80's show. I remember the big success of a show like "Life on Mars" which IMO was brilliant, and that show owed a lot of its charm to the 70's setting. I personally think if a show has that certain something, it doesn't really age and remains interesting for younger generations. The many new and young fans who were just born when ML first aired are the best proof to that.
Only MHO of course.
|
|
goldilocks
3rd Level
You know he is perfect for me...but you and me...we...we..
Posts: 887
|
Post by goldilocks on Mar 12, 2011 8:32:06 GMT -5
A great discussion we are having here! It's a very nice topic and I love all these different points of view and approaches. I was born when Moonlighting first aired and I started watching the show when I was 8-9 years old. Moonlighting is the best thing that happened to me back there. And the fact that the show is an 80's show just makes it even more valuable and brilliant! Many friends of mine, who just discovered the show and began to love it, love the show especially because it depicts the 80s! I don't watch Bones or Castle, mostly because I can't watch that kind of shows, I mean the shows with "will-they-or-won't-they-relationships story line (as Sandra called it ). I've tried to start watching some of those shows, but they never came even close to Moonlighting. No competition here. That's why I prefer to watch shows of absolutely different from Moonlighting kind: LOST, Friends, Scrubs, etc. They are very different shows, nothing like Moonlighting: different styles, different plots, etc. And they are great in their categories. In my opinion Moonlighting is the best show of its kind, and a unique one. I know people will watch it and will still love it even 50 years later.
|
|
1987
1st Level
Learning something every day
Posts: 210
|
Post by 1987 on Mar 12, 2011 10:29:23 GMT -5
This is a good topic - and one I love to give my opinion on. I have very reluctantly started watching Castle. For 20+ years I just would not give my heart to another couples show. The first time around my aorta just got stomped on too bad. Then the curiosity got to be too much for me because of all the comparisons to Moonlighting. I had to find out if the lightening in a bottle had really been recaptured.
After about 10 episodes into Castle I can give a definitive 'NO'. It's fine. That's all. I don't think it's like Moonlighting at all. There are some similarities like Diane said that I think are more homages to our show (ex. Castle wearing X ray specs, the magician episode). But in no way do you get the same longing, angst, hilarity, or skyrocketing chemistry between the 2 leads. With that said, I am still watching mainly because I am so tired of not having a current show to keep up with. I'm like an old widow who lost her true love husband and met a widower and got together just for the convenience.
In all honesty, Nathan Fillion is just ok cute to me. I think I am more attracted to Stana Katis than him. One of the reasons Moonlighting was so successful was that Bruce & Cybill just oozed sexuality - both individually and together. You don't get that with Castle at all.
I tried Bones 1st but was terribly bored with it. I also can't stand to hear that Emily girl talk.
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Mar 12, 2011 10:51:55 GMT -5
In all honesty, Nathan Fillion is just ok cute to me. Exactly my opinion, 1987. He has sometimes that lost-puppy-look... cute, yes. Stana is beautiful, and they do have some kind of chemistry - very different than the ML chemistry, though. But, like Sinéad O'Connor said - Nothing compares 2 U (David & Maddie)
|
|
|
Post by diane on Mar 12, 2011 11:56:00 GMT -5
To me the difference between Castle and David Addison -- Castle in many instances behaves like a little boy....David Addison is all man!
I do however love Nathan in "Firefly" a quirky little sci-fi series that never really got a chance. You can watch the whole thing in a day if it piques your interest. I'm not a sci-fi fan, but this one gives clever a new definition!
|
|
|
Post by diane on Mar 12, 2011 12:13:24 GMT -5
But I don't think it is an obstacle per se tgat ML is an 80's show. I remember the big success of a show like "Life on Mars" which IMO was brilliant, and that show owed a lot of its charm to the 70's setting. I personally think if a show has that certain something, it doesn't really age and remains interesting for younger generations. The many new and young fans who were just born when ML first aired are the best proof to that. Only MHO of course. I don't think I made myself as clear as I would like.....or maybe it's just my experience with the kids in my family. They would laugh at some of the jokes, but really get distracted by the things they didn't understand......kind of like playing the 80s edition of trivial pursuit with people who weren't born in the 80s...some things they get and some things they don't. They politely watched, but didn't go back for more. (quite different when they were little and anything I did or said was gospel ). I keep trying....but I think their minds are too full of the garbage that passes for quality on TV now.
|
|
|
Post by diane on Mar 12, 2011 12:17:18 GMT -5
For anybody who is searching for some good TV......I really like "Parenthood". Great cast and realistic family situations. It is quietly hanging in there on Tuesdays at 10 against "The Good Wife".
Not surprising Kerry Ehrin is part of the venture!
|
|
|
Post by rose35 on Mar 12, 2011 13:34:33 GMT -5
To me the difference between Castle and David Addison -- Castle in many instances behaves like a little boy....David Addison is all man! I do however love Nathan in "Firefly" a quirky little sci-fi series that never really got a chance. You can watch the whole thing in a day if it piques your interest. I'm not a sci-fi fan, but this one gives clever a new definition! Oh i like that comparison Diane of Castle & Addison Yes Castle is all cute and Addison is all out Sexy! LOL I also agree with 1987 about Stana being gorgeous! I can't stop looking at her & her hair! Just LIke Cybill too LOL I did not watch FIREFLY and its surprising because i'm a Joss Whedon fan but he was doing Buffy at the same as Firefly and kinda left the show a bit to focus on that so we Buffy fans felt mad for him jumping ship and leaving it up to other wiriters to take over and the writing failed alittle but at least he did come back to show.
|
|