|
Post by sandra on Feb 7, 2021 14:43:15 GMT -5
Right... *takes a deep breath* So here I am after sticking my head in the sand for a few days (so to speak) and I read all this. Where is that custard pie when you need it I suppose I need to get used to the less than happy endings again. Hahaha! Anyway, like Marlena, I might come across as somewhat passionate (thank you for your impassioned speech about my fiction, by the way!). Don't take it personally, just let me vent. Here we go. To say that David behaved exactly in tune with his personality in season 5 is like a slap in the face to me. I don't get him at all, especially during those final episodes. I basically want to flip him the bird and throw a few cuss words here and there. You can say what you want about David Addison, but whoever walked the floors of Blue Moon in season 5 was NOT him. Forget his feelings for Maddie or the baby for a second and think back to the episode 'To all creatures great.. and not so great' in season 3. I know it's not everyone's favorite, but you can clearly see how passionate David is about his religion and his morals. He vents to Maddie about the priest who wants to break up a marriage and he is very specific in how he feels about that. David, for all of his one-night-stands and fleeting contacts, would not get himself involved in a marriage and he is positively fuming at the thought. Therefore, the entire 'relationship' with Annie is a laughing stock. Sure, people can change, but their morals rarely do. His behavior was strange and cruel towards Maddie, like Notjuanjones said. And Annie was just... UGH! If she had been my cousin, she would have been out of my life immediately. You don't need people like that around. To complete this post: I really thought about Marta's way of looking at things and while the dance and ache obviously works during season 4, by the end of season 5, everything just fizzles out. Had the show continued beyond that, they would have lost me as a viewer. I'm just not interested in seeing Maddie with detective Donahue. The show was not about the detective work or Maddie and David's separate lives outside of Blue Moon (if it had been, wouldn't they have shown more about David's lost weekends or Maddie's dates? I'm sure it would have been a hoot!), it was about Maddie and David. They made it that way. Maddie and David over = show over. I don't need to see the rise and fall of a relationship in a comedy show (unless it's done in a really funny way). Save that stuff for the actual drama's, where I'm warned in advance and can have a good cry about it Rainbows and unicorns here, people. Hahahaha! Yes, I have issues. I'm well aware. Oh, I'm going to get it from Marta now...
|
|
marta
1st Level
Posts: 244
|
Post by marta on Feb 7, 2021 16:14:26 GMT -5
Annie HAD to be related to Maddie.
First, it makes David’s actions especially embarrassing for M and, as we have established, this is a constant cause for concern for M throughout the show.
Most of all it is NOT a stretch of imagination that Maddie cares for Annie’s wellbeing. This makes the viewers unsure why Maddie wants to break up the affair. Is it only Annie's wellbeing, is it jealousy, is it both, if both - in what proportion? Will keep us busy for years to come.
Hello Sandra, welcome back, unicorn...
|
|
essed
1st Level
Posts: 100
|
Post by essed on Feb 7, 2021 17:38:57 GMT -5
Unicorn for Sandra
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Feb 8, 2021 2:49:44 GMT -5
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, Anna. I haven't laughed this hard in days. Thank you for that. I don't know you, but I adore you.
|
|
essed
1st Level
Posts: 100
|
Post by essed on Feb 8, 2021 18:36:08 GMT -5
Happy Monday, everyone!
Yes, Marta, we all know we an Annie. Yuck. However, I disagree she was there to show us David could be sweet in a relationship; we already knew that from his devotion to Terri. Annie was never meant to be a real contender for David because of her relation to Maddie and the fact that she was married. Those are two huge red flags. Sandra and NotJuanJones brought up the points about David’s moral compass and his reaction to the priest in All Creatures. David’s marriage ended when his wife cheated on him, not when they lost the baby. Therefore, sleeping with a married woman and abandoning Maddie when they lost their baby is out of character.
I think it is more likely that he attempted and she pushed him away. How could he have provided support if she was unwilling to accept it from him? She has heavily leaned on her parents in the past and also she sees a therapist, maybe he assumed she was getting her emotional needs met in that way and did not need/want him. If I wrote for them (don’t worry, I’ll leave that to our qualified writers) I would have David deal with his grief and anger. As a callback to the above mentioned former priest, maybe he could act as a counselor to David. He has lost two babies now, I think he deserves some support as well.
If Maddie was falling out of love with him and moving onto the Detective, fine. If David was regressing back to one night stands because Maddie rejected him, fine. The loss of the baby was already an effective end to the romance. Annie was not necessary to continue the story of an already estranged former couple. If she was not meant to bring about a change to the current state of their relationship, then there was no point to that arc.
Glad the unicorn made you laugh Sandra! Next, maybe we should analyze why Maddie had angels and unicorns by her bed?! Seriously, wtf?! Talk about out of character! It is always hard for me to focus on what they are saying in that scene because I’m either fantasizing about biting David’s thigh (blush) or staring at that damn unicorn! Ha!
|
|
marta
1st Level
Posts: 244
|
Post by marta on Feb 8, 2021 20:22:50 GMT -5
Hey! What a treat – two long posts full of meaty points! Thank you E and NJJ!
On David needing support
Yes, oh how I agree with you, Essed. David does need support.
I probably wrote ‘abandoned Maddie' too lightly. I did not mean it in the full force of the word. I agree that it is likely they had one of those infuriating conversations ping ponging ‘I am fine’ between each other. This is why I think the only hope would be if she changed her approach, but she has been doing ‘I am fine’ for so long that it is impossible. It is a part of her character. We know that David holds back, most of the time. It would be against his character to push support again and again and again.
On David being sweet
We did not see domestic and intimate side of David with anybody! Terri is a platonic relationship. But I think I did not make myself clear. The fact that he is so sweet with either woman let us know that he can be and how delightful he is. That is all. It does NOT mean that the relationship with Annie is serious and meant to last. Quite the opposite! I shall return to this point.
On sleeping with a married woman
There are months in the TV screening time and may be twice that long in the actual story time between losing the baby and WGC episode. David is likely tired of sadness and wishes for some uncomplicated (‘it will not get complicated. You like chilli dogs, I like chilli dogs…’) rest and recreation. He did not choose well, but I think, as I said, it is more that he did not resist. A is easy to read, fun to be with, takes care of him and is very quickly falling for him. He can get much validation from this relationship and I would not begrudge him such an experience. He did not know she was married when they started an affair and after he learns that she is, he takes a pragmatic approach that it is her business, not his. As we said (or I said and nobody contradicted), he is an opportunist.
On A arc
The story did bring the change to M and D relationship. D proves that he is as insensitive as always and embarrasses M in a more profound way than ever.
M learned that saying that she wants D to move on and date other people is a lot different from actually being sure that he does and says he is happy. Both had a chance to prove that, other people or not, they still care about each other in a very deep way.
On Donnigan story
I so would like to see what the producers were planning there. It is obvious some game is afoot in this ‘arc’! I do not think that anything long term and meaningful would eventuate there. The series must end as it did. Anybody’s guess.
|
|
essed
1st Level
Posts: 100
|
Post by essed on Feb 8, 2021 23:27:25 GMT -5
See, now most of that I can agree with. Ok, maybe not most of it! Ha!
I think Terri was presented as a potential viable love interest, not just a platonic friendship. She was an available single mom and David was so excited about fatherhood that he sought out Lamaze by himself. What I mean is, it could have been an easy transition, they alluded to feeling something more when she visited his apartment that one night, but after the wedding she said she wouldn’t make his life difficult in regard to Maddie, implying again that there was something more developing between them than just platonic friendship. I guess it could have been one sided on her part?
I don’t begrudge David any happiness, it is truly all I have ever wanted from this evil show! There are plenty of Annie’s willing to boost his ego: “4 billion people built for comfort.” But, by his own established standards he valued the institution of marriage, it was important to him and he respected it. He was disappointed in Maddie’s dad when he discovered his affair. He almost ruined his own father’s wedding because he couldn’t handle the guilt of boinking Stephanie in the past. He told Mr. Hayes he asked Maddie to marry him. (Side bar: just because we didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. He was spilling his guts, why would he lie to Mr. Hayes who could easily ask Maddie if it was true?) He wanted Maddie to wear her wedding ring even though it obviously caused him pain. An affair was absolutely out of character for David.
Reducing David to an insensitive a**hole man-slut denies his character growth. As for embarrassing Maddie, only the three of them knew what happened. Annie was gross but I doubt she would spill the beans about her indiscretion during the next big family gathering. Maddie had no reason to be embarrassed, but she did have reason to be jealous.
The detective story was going nowhere, he was a red herring to make us think maybe Maddie would move on. But, she won’t because she loooooves David and they will be together again! Ha!
|
|
marta
1st Level
Posts: 244
|
Post by marta on Feb 9, 2021 0:58:20 GMT -5
OK, one thing is certain, I have more time on my hands that the rest of you put together!
Sandra, it seems (above) that I have ignored your post. Not so! I simply chickened out, didn’t want to be taken too seriously, but now I have to say it. So off I go at my own peril.
On David's morals
You (all of my esteemed correspondents-posters) seem to underestimate catholics. They have the same capacity to be inconsistent as the next denomination. More seriously, David is very serious about his own marriage and his own vows, this is consistent and admirable. He is appalled at the thought of tempting a priest, yes. But he does ‘pick and choose’ as any non-fundamentalist in any religion does. He is all into pre-marital sex and even euthanasia (WFTE), where he has second thoughts but they do not seem to be doctrinal, rather humanistic. He is uncomfortable about Stephanie until it is clear that she does not remember him. I think his feelings there are not related to any particular religious morals.
On Terri
I agree with you, Essed, when you say that it was one-sided. But there is more there, I think. I will come back to that point, with your kind permission.
On embarrassment
Annie spilling the beans at the family gathering is not the type of embarrassment I mean. I suppose it depends what we define as embarrassment. He put her on the spot, in a difficult situation socially and emotionally. He embarrassed Maddie in front of Annie by his willingness to engage with Annie in full view of Maddie. I know you guys are suffering because he is more flawed than you want him to be. His flaws, including this, make him more multidimensional to me, make him less of a TV show character and more a real human being. And I still love him to bits.
On the speech to Mr Hayes
I already posted about that (page 3). David says “Had I asked her she would have said no”. BW does his magic here and slurs his words just so to allow us to grasp at straws if we want to. In that speech, David says other things that did not happen as he says they did, but we (Luzdeluna, Sandra and I) decided to cut him some slack.
On Donnigan story cont.
I agree, ML is about M and D in relation to each other. But not necessarily with each other, consequently a Donnigan subplot could still be very interesting. I note how unwilling all of you are to even call Donnigan by his proper name...Donnigan, repeat after me: Donnigan...
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Feb 9, 2021 10:04:58 GMT -5
Marta, I suppose you're right when it comes to me sticking my head in the sand (I seem to be doing that a lot lately. Hahahaha!) when it comes to David Addison's faults. I begrudgingly admit to this. I'm afraid that, because he was my childhood crush, I've put him up on some kind of pedestal. Especially because I didn't see season 5 until much later in life.. like when I was in my mid-twenties... and was like: WTF?! There was a huge gap between me seeing the end of season 4 (which ends with hope) and me seeing the wreckage that was season 5. Perhaps I've colored my own views on the show because of this. But, like with everything you put on a pedestal, David must come down at some point. I wholeheartedly agree with both of you, Marta and Essed, that David needed some support from someone after losing two babies and being betrayed by several women (no worries, I'm not including Maddie in this department). He needed to see that things could also work out differently. I'm just sad that it couldn't be Maddie. Something else entirely: I hear you, Anna, when I look at that scene in IACM when they are talking in the bedroom, all I can see is those thighs... or those boxershorts riding up on his legs between shots. Hahahaha! I never even noticed the unicorns and angels. Yes, I know. This post wasn't the most substantial contribution... but a contribution none the less
|
|
marta
1st Level
Posts: 244
|
Post by marta on Feb 9, 2021 19:26:10 GMT -5
Recently, I have read an article in which a woman described an influence that the TV show Remington Steel had on her life. She says that she would not know from the circumstances of her early life that a woman can do anything and that it is OK if it requires a lot of trial and error. She also says that it took her years – up to the point of the article - to be brave enough to admit that she, a refined intellectual, owes so much to a TV show. Years ago, a very young person told me that she watched certain TV shows and discussed them with her friends (LA Law I think was the main one, this was years after the first run, btw) and I was half listening and smiled in a patronising way thinking – well, yes you would being so young and naïve. And then she said: ‘as you know, we haven’t had a chance to come across all those issues in our lives yet, so it is good that we can discuss all those problems and moral dilemmas’. I am grateful for that moment when it hit me that she was wiser than I was (and I was more than twice her age), that I was smug and self-important and that I did not know something so simple and in front of me. Hopefully, I am much less arrogant these days. How it relates to the now and discussing ML. Discussing ML with you guys helps me to examine and hone my own perspective, be brave and post knowing that I think differently to most of you and examine my own relationships. I think I know what you are saying, Sandra, about your youthful crush. We crush on an ideal but we love a person and this is, to me, a take home message from ML, among many other.
Oops, I got very deep here. I shall very quickly post something superficial and amusing.
Have you noticed how the priest in LE, the one that refuses to marry M and D, looks like John Paul II who was the pope at that time?
|
|
|
Ramblings
Feb 9, 2021 23:56:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Marlena on Feb 9, 2021 23:56:09 GMT -5
Aside from laughing about the unicorn and admiring David's bare thigh, I've been a little down today. All this talk of David's faults...Maddie falling out of love...ugh. Makes me wonder why the creative powers that be behind a TV show would choose to leave us with such an unsatisfying ending. M & D had so much chemistry. Their love story...this dance wasn't perfect. It had it's ups and downs, but it was a wonderful dance that should have gone on and on.
I remember watching the finale when it first aired. I was on the edge of my seat because I believed wholeheartedly that there was NO POSSIBLE WAY the show would end with M & D not together. I didn't know how they were going to get rid of Annie and bring M & D back together in just one hour, but I had every confidence they were going to do it. And then...total let down. I don't even know who to blame. I don't blame Glenn because I don't think he had any say at that point. I just don't understand it. The viewers wanted Maddie & David to be together romantically. We know the studio execs knew that because it's all Cy talks about in that scene in the movie theater in LE. It's so upsetting to me that the last time we see "sexy David" is in that awful bedroom scene with Annie, and the last time he shows any real emotion is when he looks at Annie as she's waiting to go home with her husband. As for Maddie's emotions and feelings for David, we hardly see that in this episode at all.
I do think that the show's finale was done in a clever, very creative, very "Moonlighting" way. I just don't know why the choice was made to leave us all feeling, as Maddie would say, "empty inside". Feeling "empty inside" is great for a season cliffhanger, but not for a show about two people who we've grown to love as they've grown to love each other.
I've only ever loved one other show the way I love Moonlighting, and that was The X-Files. And there too, IMHO, was a very disappointing ending to a wonderful show. I mean, seriously, William being the Cigarette Smoking Man's baby with Scully when we all thought he was Mulder's son. And then, at the last moment, Scully reveals she is pregnant with Mulder's child and we never get to meet that baby. In the case of The X-Files, I was left feeling shocked, disappointed, and yes, "empty inside".
Why do these show creators make these upsetting decisions? What on Earth do they think they are doing? Thoughts?
|
|
marta
1st Level
Posts: 244
|
Post by marta on Feb 10, 2021 6:39:59 GMT -5
I can see that you have been traumatised, Moonligtingml! I read that the audiences seeing Psycho (Hitchcock, 1960) were doubly surprised by the shower murder in the middle of the movie, because Janet Leigh was a major star and nobody expected that she would not be acting throughout the whole movie.
I think something similar happened to you with both these shows. You were so strongly conditioned to expect a certain type of an ending that not being given such an ending resulted in trauma.
I do not know why the makers decided to handle things differently than usual, most probably they do not like ‘usual’ things, seeing them as below their ambitions. This is very likely with ML where, from the beginning, you were offered a very unusual TV show.
Consequently, from the beginning you should not have been expecting a usual ‘emotionally satisfying’ resolution of the plot. Above all, a resolution appropriate for the show is in the eye of the beholder. I am happy with what has been offered and do not feel ‘cheated’. Quite the opposite, anything less ambiguous and, god forbid, strongly suggesting that M and D are to be together in the future would feel to me as ‘selling out to a Hollywood’s cliche’. I understand that the decision that the LE is to be the last episode came quite suddenly, it is impossible to guess what they would have done if they had more time to prepare. Maybe the same thing?
I recently went back to the earlier episodes and was struck how charming they were, but I must admit I would not be able to watch them frequently as I find the premise of Hawksian comedy in large doses very tiring. (At least there is no KH’s screeching.)
I think they dealt with CS pregnancy very well but the show changed character and had so much more seriousness injected that it became impossible to juggle all elements with the same irreverence in a satisfactory way. If you add to it the necessary plot progress of an episode, which has to take into account commercial breaks, the show is a masterpiece.
The serious elements had likely influenced character development, or rather the attitude to David’s character flaws and it became impossible to have M and D having a ‘real relationship’ in the show as it would look like condoning his behaviour. Note all the sordid sleaze in the office in ISEISFISMN, still in 60th episode out of 66. Unthinkable these days in a workplace and so late in the show. This to me makes David character unredeemable. In the broadest terms of telling a story and getting your morals and conclusions right, he cannot be rewarded with getting the girl at the end of the show. I hope this will make you feel better about the whole thing. You may get some distance by looking at it as an example of a story telling: Beauty and the Beast, where the Beauty changes more than the Beast.
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Feb 10, 2021 7:12:30 GMT -5
Maybe I can attempt to cheer you up as well, Marlena. Yes, me, the half glass empty type of woman. Haha! Have I mentioned that I'm all sunshine and rainbows lately (and unicorns)? When I look back at the posts that we've all written and discussed here, there are a few things that I take from that. I've managed to let go of the childhood version of Moonlighting that I had created in my head. I see Maddie in a different light and yes, David as well. Seeing his faults isn't necessarily a bad thing... it's a good thing! I see him through the eyes of a woman now, rather than through the eyes of a 12-year-old girl with butterflies in her stomach (all though it was cute). And yes, I still love him for it. Nobody's perfect and I really don't want anyone to be. Look, Marta and I are probably never going to see eye to eye about the age old question on whether Maddie and David belonged together or not. That's okay. However, you raise a good point about why the creators had it end like this. I thought about it and came up with a solution that actually makes sense... well, to myself at least. If we're really being fair; had Moonlighting ended with David and Maddie on the cusp of a happily ever after, I doubt that we would be here talking about it to this day... 32 years after the show ended. Maybe the creators wanted to ensure that the show would go out in such a way that would have everyone reeling for years to come. They wanted to go down in history... and boy, did they ever... Moonlighting became the granddaddy to a whole lot of other tv shows; it was an inspiration. So yeah, that's my positive take on it. But if I sound too patronizing, you can slap me And hey, perhaps I wouldn't have written fan fiction, had the show ended in a different way (gasp!) Because what would be the point if we had already gotten that happy ending? Hahaha! Side note: yes, the priest did look like the pope at that time, Marta.
|
|
|
Post by sandra on Feb 10, 2021 13:21:36 GMT -5
I'm just now seeing the bit that you wrote about David not deserving to get the girl in the end, Marta. So I had to come back on and ask what you meant by that. We've agreed that he has his faults and makes his share of mistakes, but didn't he at least deserve a little bit of happiness? Even if it wasn't Maddie? Sorry, twice poster here, but I'm just curious.
|
|
Boink
1st Level
Posts: 174
|
Post by Boink on Feb 10, 2021 17:53:37 GMT -5
On the speech to Mr Hayes David says “Had I asked her she would have said no”. BW does his magic here and slurs his words just so to allow us to grasp at straws if we want to. David clearly says, "Hell yes, I'd marry her. I asked her. She said no." Listen here at 2:54 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o2ktuaBL70But wait! Isn’t she saying: 'I can imagine not seeing you tomorrow...’ that’s something isn’t it?! (Breaks my heart, actually)
Let not your heart be broken. She actually said, "I can't imagine not seeing you tomorrow." Listen here at 0:25 - www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFbmMCIO3McNote all the sordid sleaze in the office in ISEISFISMN, still in 60th episode out of 66. Unthinkable these days in a workplace and so late in the show. This to me makes David character unredeemable.
Like the tired re-hashes of earlier moments and even entire episodes, David's character "regression" in season 5 was nothing more than a lazy attempt to reset the series back to simpler times. Sure, it's "official" Moonlighting, but it's still BS in my book. There's no way to truly go back without time travel, I'm afraid. #NotMyDavid
|
|