It seems like their relationship was so definitive that subsequent sitcom “on again off again” relationships ultimately come back to this meme. For example, on Scrubs, JD and Elliot go through countless cycles of this and the term “Ross and Rachel” was referenced at least twice. Unlike the real Ross and Rachel though, their beginning was less sweet and their reconciliation was less dramatic.
Why “Ross and Rachel” to define this trope, though? Were there no sitcoms before Friends that tackled this issue of “Will they, won’t they?” I know towards the end of the series, everyone was sick of that storyline, but the last few weeks, I’ve been watching the early seasons where it builds up to Ross and Rachel getting together and it’s sweet like a doughnut sprinkled with funny bits. (He’s her lobster!)
Up until Ross became a real doofus, the relationship was very sweet. You have this twenty-something year old who has never had a real job in her life trying to make it in the city, and Ross, despite having a crush on her for the longest time recognized somewhere that she needed a friend more than she needed to dive right back into a relationship. In fact, right when they were arguing about Rachel discovering her feelings for him and him getting mad at her for telling him when he was dating Julie, he claimed that he never said anything in the past year they were hanging out because “It wasn’t the right time”. Of course, he was agonizingly emo about it the whole time, but he respected her choices until they got together and he became insanely jealous.
So, was the end of the series finally the “right time” for them? Is it possible to not let the annoying forced drama from the later seasons skew your view of how sweet it was when they first got together? Your thoughts and comments about how the term “Ross and Rachel” has stayed in popular culture despite the show having ended seven years ago?
To be honest, I’ve never heard of the phrase “Ross and Rachel” being used like that. I’ve always heard of that type of sitcom set-up as being a “Sam and Diane” couple.
Tell me more about this “Sam and Diane”. I assume this is from Cheers, (which I never watched). In the heyday of Friends, did anyone ever refer to Ross and Rachel as a “Sam and Diane”?
There are a couple different categories, too. Besides the Sam and Diane, there’s the Dave and Maddy. The latter is generally an example of ‘if they do put the characters together, that’s it for the show’. Don’t know if it was the first. I’d look into it on TVTropes, but I don’t have the next four hours to get lost in.
Ross and Rachel turned out a bit different than Sam and Diane. Both started out as a Will-They-Or-Won’t-They situation. But Sam and Diane got together, split up, and she left the show. Other WTOWT couples either got together or didn’t, then stayed together or didn’t.
R and R got together, split up, looked like they were getting back together but didn’t, got together for one episode and split up again, etc., etc. I can’t think of any TV couple with quite as complicated a history.
I think that’s the take-away. We’re supposed to believe that this time they’re staying together for good. I happen to think that Rachel’s was the most satisfying character arc of the series. By the end of the show she had finally come into her own as a mature adult and was ready for an adult relationship. (Even if Ross stayed as whiny as ever…)
For what it’s worth (I can’t find a cite), I recall David Schwimmer saying that he thought the series went on about two seasons too long, and the six characters continuing to hang out at the coffee shop for all those years just didn’t feel organic anymore at that stage in their lives. So you weren’t the only one who thought that.
Yes, Sam & Diane were the “Cheers” characters. I don’t know if they were the true original “will-they-or-won’t-they” sticom couple, but they definitely popularized the formula for TV shows. After “Cheers”, practically every other sitcom was built around a bickering, but hot for each other couple. And yes, I’d heard Ross & Rachel being referred to as "a “Sam & Diane” couple when “Friends” first aired. In fact, the first year or two, I think they were referred to as “yet another Sam & Diane”, because that formula had been such a staple for so long it had become a cliche.
While I did watch “Friends” in it’s heyday, I never cared too much about the Ross & Rachel storyline because Ross was always such a whiney girly boy. And after a few years, it became increasingly contrived. I actually liked the Monica & Chandler story better for several reasons:
It was’t something forced. It just occured to the writers after a while that Those two actors had a great chemistry together and decided “why the hell not?”
It was a genuine surprise. The Ross & Rachel story was hammered home from day one. Monica revealing herself in Chandler’s bed while they were in England was something I genuinely didn’t expect to see - but in watching reruns, you can see the seeds being planted a long time in advance.
Most important of all, it WASN’T a “will they or won’t they” story. The two got together, and gradually got their relationship evolved, but there weren’t a lot of contrived break-ups and reconciliations and stupid cliff-hangers like the time Ross said “I take thee, Rachel” during his wedding to someone else.
Yes, Sam & Diane were the “Cheers” characters. I don’t know if they were the true original “will-they-or-won’t-they” sticom couple, but they definitely popularized the formula for TV shows. After “Cheers”, practically every other sitcom was built around a bickering, but hot for each other couple. And yes, I’d heard Ross & Rachel being referred to as "a “Sam & Diane” couple when “Friends” first aired. In fact, the first year or two, I think they were referred to as “yet another Sam & Diane”, because that formula had been such a staple for so long it had become a cliche.
While I did watch “Friends” in it’s heyday, I never cared too much about the Ross & Rachel storyline because Ross was always such a whiney girly boy. And after a few years, it became increasingly contrived. I actually liked the Monica & Chandler story better for several reasons:
It was’t something forced. It just occured to the writers after a while that Those two actors had a great chemistry together and decided “why the hell not?” I never could suspend my disbelief over the notion that a girl as hot as Jennifer Aniston would go for Ross.
It was a genuine surprise. The Ross & Rachel story was hammered home from day one. Monica revealing herself in Chandler’s bed while they were in England was something I genuinely didn’t expect to see - but in watching reruns, you can see the seeds being planted a long time in advance.
Most important of all, it WASN’T a “will they or won’t they” story. The two got together, and gradually got their relationship evolved, but there weren’t a lot of contrived break-ups and reconciliations and stupid cliff-hangers like the time Ross said “I take thee, Rachel” during his wedding to someone else.
The Sam & Diane relationship was also less ambiguous than Ross & Rachel. In the latter case there was bad behavior on both sides, while in the former it was pretty clear that Diane was a blight on straight men, if not humanity in general.
In the early episodes, the characters were pretty evenly matched in terms of good / bad personality traits. Diane was certainly full of herself, but to be fair, so was Sam. It was only in the Diane’s last year that she became insufferable. And that was deliberate - when actress Shelley Long made it clear that she wouldn’t continue with the show after five years, the writers intentionally wrote her character as less likeable so that the audience wouldn’t miss her when she left.
I found the TV Trope page. Obviously the trope goes far back, but I’ve never heard anyone say “That was such a Jane and Mr. Rochester relationship”
Btw, I’ve never even heard of “Moonlighting”, let alone Dave and Maddy. :dubious:
So not only were they “Will they, won’t they”, they were the epitome of “On again, off again”. Were there no other sitcom couples that went through these cycles? I guess if it came down to it, Ross and Rachel would be defined as “On again, off again”?
That happens with a lot of TV shows, but I think what made it drag was how much less self aware (via Chandler’s sarcastic quips) they were near the end. In the beginning, at the very least, they would have Chandler compare their dramatic miscommunication to a Three’s Company episode. But yeah, what kind of people who have babies and careers hang out at coffee houses all the time?
Cheers has long been in heavy rotation in syndication. Moonlighting has not. I think there’s an issue with music rights, but I could be wrong. Anyway, I can understand why a young person might not recognize the name. The real point is to blame the cursed Welsh.
Sam and Diane were the first couple I thought of when I read the OP, as well. They were a different kind of couple than Ross & Rachel though…they were more of the Dave & Maddie school of a couple who had a love/hate relationship, whereas R & R just had an on-again-off-again relationship.
How about Miss Brooks and Mr. Boynton from Our Miss Brooks (1952-56)? It was more of a “man-hungry spinster chases mama’s boy” relationship, but it was definitely on again/off again and did have a certain amount of “will they or won’t they?” built in.
(By the way, Grapefruit, rush out and get Moonlighting, you are in for a treat! Start with season one; you really have to follow it chronologically).
…and end as soon as it starts going down hill. It doesn’t get better. It just keeps plummeting. That’s another reason why it’s in a different category. Cheers carried on; Moonlighting did not. It got sappy, melodramatic, and the comedy/plot all took a back seat.[sup]*[/sup]
But when it was good, it was great. Very over the top and very subtle. It pretty much launched Bruce Willis.
[sup]*Not that if you never notice it going downhill you won’t enjoy it. [/sup]
Even at the time, I thought Moonlighting’s problem was that it had an built-in expiration date, but didn’t acknowledge that. That is, if it had had a set number of episodes – 75, say, three seasons worth – and a pre-planned story arc, it would have been more artistically successful. But the economics of American television required planning for an indefinite number of seasons with a large number of episodes in each, which the show was not suited for.
Cheers actually benefited from Shelly Long’s departure. Not that I didn’t like her, but her leaving forced the change in emphasis from the Sam-Diane relationship to Sam and his bar, and that didn’t have a built-in time bomb. It let the show end when the creators felt like it.
