Tales of The Bad Boyfriend
May. 17th, 2005 11:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxThis started off as a long delayed post about my re-viewing Sex and The City but -- as these things do-- it morphed into musing about things from BtVS, to Pretty in Pink, to Veronica Mars (which I don't even watch.)
First, the origin of the musings: Sex and the City.
I never watched the first run of this show because I'm too cheap for HBO. However, there was enough media about the show, that I knew quite well how the show ended. I knew that there was a bit of controversy about Carrie ending up with Big because... well... Big is an asshole (and he is) who broke her heart repeatedly over the run of the series. For Carrie to end up with him seemed a less than optimal ending. In fact I've read protests that all of the women on Sex ended up in committed relationships.
I don't worry much that Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha ended up in committed relationships because...well... they all ended up with the perfect guy, didn't they? I know that's oversimplifying but the fact is that the male counterpart that was created for each of these characters were specifically created to serve the female character, to be the supportive, loving, adoring, unthreatened mate. There is a line near the end of the series where Samantha is saying that she never asked whether her friends approved of her guy, Smith. I sort of laughed. Honestly, how could they possibly disapprove of Smith? He's gorgeous. He's supportive. He stays with her unconditionally even when she treats him badly... but they also make sure that he's not a doormat by having him stand up for himself at certain points.
Smith was the perfect boy toy boyfriend. Certainly Charlotte and Miranda's mates were not the stellar physical specimens that Smith was, but both of those men were also shown to adore their girls unconditionally and to be supportive to the point of unbelievable. These too were the "perfect boyfriends."
Of all the stories I tended to prefer Charlotte's relationship arc in that Charlotte was the most obsessed to get married so they paid off that obsession with "the perfect husband" in the form of Kyle Mclaughlin -- he was rich, he was handsome, he was sophisticated... and it all went to hell. The perfect husband and the perfect wedding led to a miserable, terrible marriage. This was then followed by her ending up with a guy who had none of the qualities that she had thought she wanted. Harry was short, fat, bald... and wonderful. He loved her. He was supportive. He was rather adorable in his way. Charlotte discovering that what she really wanted wasn't what she had thought she wanted worked.
I suppose there was some parallel with Miranda as she was the most anti-relationship. She was also so successful that they played on a lot of classism and had the white-collar girl end up with the blue-collar guy who was all about family.
And Samantha sort of worked as a female fantasy as the older woman got the hot young boy toy... who also believed in her, stood by her through breast cancer, and was in general hot.
The truth is, they ended up penning pretty good relationships together for Carrie's friends and they found men who fit with the respective female leads.
So... why is there something slightly off with Carrie who is the star of the show? It seems odd to screw up with her.
Part of it reminds me of Bungel. In fact, Carrie/Big is probably a bit of what Ducks had wanted for Buffy. Big was initially penned in the early seasons as something of a Mr. Wrong. Oh he was handsome, mysterious, and glamorous... he was also emotionally unavailable and he left her (sound like Bungel?) Then Carrie after having been hurt, proceeded to deeply hurt rebound guy, Aidan.
Actually it seems to me that the timing was off in many ways. Like Smith, Harry, Steve, Aidan was "the perfect guy." But, Carrie, kept screwing Aidan over for Big. Exit Aidan a bit too permanently as he married elsewhere and "had the perfect life." (I'm tempted to make a Riley comparison here... except that that would an extremely unfair comparison for poor Aidan who did nothing wrong compared to Riley who was threatened by Buffy's strength, who got suckjobs from hos, and who blamed Buffy for his own failings. Actually, though ME intended Riley as "the perfect boyfriend" ala Aidan. Riley was closer to Carrie's "Berger." Berger was cute and you could see why Carrie would fall for him. Only Berger was threatened by Carrie's success and easily offended. He also ran out on her when his ego couldn't take her success. Actually of all the "bad boyfriends" that I'm going to end up discussing, Berger is far and away the most realistic. Berger wasn't a bad guy. He was just the kind that would made the woman subjugate herself in order to hang onto him because he kept making clear that his ego just couldn't take her talent and her success. Other than the way he broke up with Carrie he never did anything really terrible. But he was the quite ordinary (read realistic) version of "The Bad Boyfriend" (and Riley really does share more ground with Berger the Bad Boyfriend than Aidan "the perfect guy"... so ME was really kind of blind to the fact that their "perfect boyfriend" wasn't by any means perfect.)
Now, you have to understand. While watching the series I wasn't making these comparisons. It's just when I began analyzing the final season and "The Bad Boyfriend" plot that... well, let me explain.
I began this long musing with the admiration of Darren Star pulling off quite the hat trick in the "Sex and the City" finale. Big had been "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm}. Sure the die-hard Duckian-like romantics might go the whole "first love should be last love!" crap. But on so many ways, BIg was the worst guy for her to end up with. Really the timing was off. Rather than rebound guy, Aidan should have been the final guy, "The Perfect Boyfriend." But that door had been closed within the story. So as the series culminated they had to either have her end up with no one (which probably would have been the best choice in an intellectual sense) or try for a romantic ending to a romantic series. Clearly given the fact that the entire series revolved around romance, they wanted a romantic ending. With Aidan being out of the question the only big gun they could pull in was... Big. Except Big had been a terrible, terrible boyfriend. How do they pull of having HIM be the endgame guy?
Well, for all that Big shouldn't have worked out in the end, they penned the finale so that he worked. Of course they did that by making current boyfriend the one you wanted out of Carrie's life. Petrovsky was made "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm} so as to make Big look like the good boyfriend and true love.
Actually, the way they made Petrovsky "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm} was done quite well. Petrovsky was romantic. He gave Carrie what she wanted. He helped her escape from reality. And it was quite, quite clear that he was "The Bad Boyfriend" from the moment that he convinced Carrie to stick around for sex rather than have coffee with her friends. And... whoa.
That's what I was supposed to be getting from Season 6 BtVS, wasn't I? Spike was "The Bad Boyfriend" because he was distracting Buffy from her friends via sex. Huh. I mean, I knew that was what they were trying to do on BtVS... but it didn't work for me. It still doesn't work for me. And yet on "Sex and the City" the moment that Petrovsky convinced Carrie to stay and have sex thus standing up her friends, I knew he was doomed and "The Bad Boyfriend. Yet even as blatant as Spike's words about leaving Buffy's friends was in "Dead Things"... I don't have issues with Spike for it.
The pattern with Petrovsky as "The Bad Boyfriend" was that Carrie would sacrifice some part of herself to stay with Petrovsky in his fantasy bubble. Oh he was romantic and she had great sex. He bought her Oscar De la Renta and gave her carriage rides... but he disliked her friends and continually separated her from them, was rude to them, and looked down on them... and it made me hate him. And I can see where Marti and Joss were probably trying something similar to that with Spike. With Buffy looking to Spike for sex, for escape, etc. And Spike being with her instead of the friends who we were SUPPOSED to want with Buffy.
Except... huh. You know, I think part of where BtVS screwed up wasn't just that they made Buffy the one using Spike when you would expect "The Bad Boyfriend" to be using the girl. Petrovsky wasn't really using Carrie. He just... was a Bad Boyfriend {tm}. The thing is the realtionships were different. Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha weren't being excessively demanding. They weren't using Carrie themselves. And it wasn't some realtionship from years past that really didn't function. The female friends of Sex's friendships hadn't faded away. Their relationship (unlike the scoobs) was strong. Part of the problem with BtVS was that Scoobs had brought Buffy back for SELFISH reasons -- reasons that were never addressed, reasons that Buffy wouldn't even ADDRESS with the scoobs. In "After Life" the Scoobs were demanding of Buffy rather than supportive of Buffy. SPIKE was the one supportive of Buffy in "After Life" and in all the episodes up to "OMWF." More than that, Spike wasn't fracturing the Scooby/Buffy bond in "Dead Things." That bond was fractured. Buffy had walked away from her friends on her own and gravitated upstairs. In fact it was Spike who had urged Buffy to compassion where Willow was concerned in "Wrecked." So Spike really didn't come across as the guy separating Buffy from her friends... it came across as Spike being theonly one supportive of Buffy.
In Sex, Petrovsky convinces Carrie to quit her job, and again it was a sign that he was "The Bad Boyfriend." {Tm}
In DMP, Spike attempts to convince Buffy to quit her job... and we were supposed to see that as a sign that Spike was "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm}. But, again, ME was just so full of shit with all their mixed signals. The difference was that on "Sex" Carries job was her voice, her column, and it was JOYFUL. On BtVS the DMP was a soulsucking job (duh!) and while we were to see Spike telling her to quit as the actions of a "Bad Boyfriend" ... Riley telling Buffy virtually the same thing was supposed to be the work of a "Good Boyfriend"... huh?! That makes the kind of sense that doesn't!
It's the constant double standard.
Basically, Sex pulled off something in "The Bad Boyfriend" that BtVS tried to... and didn't.
It's just that "The Bad Boyfriend" is more than just the show telling us that he's "The Bad Boyfriend"... it's all about context. While the actions of Spike and Petrovsky were similar actions, the CONTEXT was so very different. Scoobs weren't a support system by mid-to-late Season 6... they were leaches. There was no friendship left to speak of, just the memory of one. So Spike appeared (to many of us) to be providing a support system that Giles and the Scoobs didn't. The Scoobs were no Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha. That's really one of the places where BtVS went terribly awry. If you want to make me feel bad about the girl abandonning her friends, try not making the friends total assholes.
And, while they THINK they're writing Spike as "The Bad Boyfriend" ala Petrovsky... Spike is actually far more closely along the lines of Smith (the hot, sexy boytoy who Samantha discovers is worth so much more than just sex. He's supportive, loving, and tolerant of all her shit. And Spike is actually Aidan, the guy who tried and tried and tried even though the girl is determined to unload all her old baggage onto him until she breaks him.) Marti Noxon (unsurprising) sucked as penning her "Bad Boyfriend" plot because... she didn't actually make Spike the bad boyfriend.
I mentioned Veronica Mars. Over on![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
ww1614's LJ yesterday was a protest of the use of the Garbage song about a "bad boyfriend" in conjunction with Veronica Mars and Logan. I don't watch the show but apparently Logan is the sexy asshole and Duncan was the "first love" (Is that right?) For some reason we're supposed to want "first love" to win... aren't we? I know that's what Ducks wanted. And considering (even though I don't watch VM it's all over my friends list) Logan wasn't intended to have as big a role as he has ended up having. Was Duncan supposed to be the intended object of ultimate desire boyfriend? The first love/last love thing?
Why exactly are we supposed to want that kind of symmetry? In some way it reminds me of "Pretty in Pink." I remember when that movie first came out I read a review and the review was bitching about Molly Ringwald's character ending up with the guy she had had the crush on in the beginning... because it was just following the cliche. The first guy had to be the last guy just 'cause. Because REALLY Molly Ringwald really, really should have ended up with Duckie, damnit! Every time I see that old movie on TV I remember that "She should have ended up with Duckie, damnit!" But Duckie (who wasn't a bad boyfriend at all) loses the girl because he wasn't the object of desire boyfriend. He wasn't the "first"... and why does the first get dibs? Even when they screw up royally?
And this brings me back to the Sex finale. Darren Star pulled off quite the hat trick. He made Big NOT! "The Bad Boyfriend" in the final two episodes even though he had been in every other ep of the series! And Star did this by turning Petrovsky into "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm} (aided of course by the fact that Barishnikov and Parker HAD NO CHEMISTRY WHATSOEVER!). In fact they took this slight of hand one step further than just making Big look good just in comparison to Petrovsky. They had Petrovsky give to Carrie all the things that Big didn't. Big told Carrie that she wasn't "The one" when he left... so Petrovsky called her "The one." Big didn't take Carrie to Paris. So Petrovsky took Carrie to Paris... and then of course they had Carrie be disatisfied with these things. This works in the sense of Charlotte's story where the preconcieved idea of what "happy ever after" should look like is shot to hell (and that's usually a very good device) but it also works to nullify Big's earlier transgressions (he wasn't really denying her anything if once she finally got it, she decided that she didn't want it anyway).
The final slight of hand that Sex employed was that they made Big the voice of the audience in the finale. Petrovsky took Carrie away from her friends... Big sought out the girls to ask their advice and Miranda told him "Go get our girl." That was a masterful stroke. That makes it not Big going to get Carrie... that makes it the GIRLS going to get Carrie... by proxy. And of course we want Carrie back with her friends. So even if we don't want Carrie with Big because he was-- after all the ORIGINAL "Bad Boyfriend"...we are on Big's side in the finale because he is "the girls" by proxy. You root for him... even when you shouldn't because it's not him... he's representing the girls. And of course, at the end, the girls have to get together.
What's curious is that the finale works because of this... until you give it thought. Because Big reunites the girls we're happy. But am I happy she ended up with Big? Eh.
And, I believe we're supposed to be happy that Buffy is reunited with Scoobs at the end of BtVS. Except of course... it all rang hollow. The Scoobs "Friendship" was habit, not friendship. And (and AR aside, I will ALWAYS insist this) Spike was not "The Bad Boyfriend." {tm}
And, frankly, if you can't even work up the ability to use "The Bad Boyfriend" with the same skill as a frivolous piece of fluff like sex (where even though I have plenty of quibbles they at least knew how to write a "Bad Boyfriend" plot that didn't have to whack you over the head... and DIDN'T have to be explained in outside interviews. You could pick up on the clues because they were executed in a way that they came across) then you have no business using a "The Bad Boyfriend" crutch.
It's sad to say but all those who claim Joss is genius... yeah, not so much. "The Bad Boyfriend" cliche may be a tiresome one, but it wasn't so difficult that a dramedy like Sex couldn't pull it off. So if BtVS couldn't pull it off (or if VM couldn't pull it off) then question the genius of the writer because it's not that hard. And it's not so confusing that it takes a board war to figure out.
And I probably went on way too long about seven paragraphs ago. I'm groggy now. Night.
First, the origin of the musings: Sex and the City.
I never watched the first run of this show because I'm too cheap for HBO. However, there was enough media about the show, that I knew quite well how the show ended. I knew that there was a bit of controversy about Carrie ending up with Big because... well... Big is an asshole (and he is) who broke her heart repeatedly over the run of the series. For Carrie to end up with him seemed a less than optimal ending. In fact I've read protests that all of the women on Sex ended up in committed relationships.
I don't worry much that Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha ended up in committed relationships because...well... they all ended up with the perfect guy, didn't they? I know that's oversimplifying but the fact is that the male counterpart that was created for each of these characters were specifically created to serve the female character, to be the supportive, loving, adoring, unthreatened mate. There is a line near the end of the series where Samantha is saying that she never asked whether her friends approved of her guy, Smith. I sort of laughed. Honestly, how could they possibly disapprove of Smith? He's gorgeous. He's supportive. He stays with her unconditionally even when she treats him badly... but they also make sure that he's not a doormat by having him stand up for himself at certain points.
Smith was the perfect boy toy boyfriend. Certainly Charlotte and Miranda's mates were not the stellar physical specimens that Smith was, but both of those men were also shown to adore their girls unconditionally and to be supportive to the point of unbelievable. These too were the "perfect boyfriends."
Of all the stories I tended to prefer Charlotte's relationship arc in that Charlotte was the most obsessed to get married so they paid off that obsession with "the perfect husband" in the form of Kyle Mclaughlin -- he was rich, he was handsome, he was sophisticated... and it all went to hell. The perfect husband and the perfect wedding led to a miserable, terrible marriage. This was then followed by her ending up with a guy who had none of the qualities that she had thought she wanted. Harry was short, fat, bald... and wonderful. He loved her. He was supportive. He was rather adorable in his way. Charlotte discovering that what she really wanted wasn't what she had thought she wanted worked.
I suppose there was some parallel with Miranda as she was the most anti-relationship. She was also so successful that they played on a lot of classism and had the white-collar girl end up with the blue-collar guy who was all about family.
And Samantha sort of worked as a female fantasy as the older woman got the hot young boy toy... who also believed in her, stood by her through breast cancer, and was in general hot.
The truth is, they ended up penning pretty good relationships together for Carrie's friends and they found men who fit with the respective female leads.
So... why is there something slightly off with Carrie who is the star of the show? It seems odd to screw up with her.
Part of it reminds me of Bungel. In fact, Carrie/Big is probably a bit of what Ducks had wanted for Buffy. Big was initially penned in the early seasons as something of a Mr. Wrong. Oh he was handsome, mysterious, and glamorous... he was also emotionally unavailable and he left her (sound like Bungel?) Then Carrie after having been hurt, proceeded to deeply hurt rebound guy, Aidan.
Actually it seems to me that the timing was off in many ways. Like Smith, Harry, Steve, Aidan was "the perfect guy." But, Carrie, kept screwing Aidan over for Big. Exit Aidan a bit too permanently as he married elsewhere and "had the perfect life." (I'm tempted to make a Riley comparison here... except that that would an extremely unfair comparison for poor Aidan who did nothing wrong compared to Riley who was threatened by Buffy's strength, who got suckjobs from hos, and who blamed Buffy for his own failings. Actually, though ME intended Riley as "the perfect boyfriend" ala Aidan. Riley was closer to Carrie's "Berger." Berger was cute and you could see why Carrie would fall for him. Only Berger was threatened by Carrie's success and easily offended. He also ran out on her when his ego couldn't take her success. Actually of all the "bad boyfriends" that I'm going to end up discussing, Berger is far and away the most realistic. Berger wasn't a bad guy. He was just the kind that would made the woman subjugate herself in order to hang onto him because he kept making clear that his ego just couldn't take her talent and her success. Other than the way he broke up with Carrie he never did anything really terrible. But he was the quite ordinary (read realistic) version of "The Bad Boyfriend" (and Riley really does share more ground with Berger the Bad Boyfriend than Aidan "the perfect guy"... so ME was really kind of blind to the fact that their "perfect boyfriend" wasn't by any means perfect.)
Now, you have to understand. While watching the series I wasn't making these comparisons. It's just when I began analyzing the final season and "The Bad Boyfriend" plot that... well, let me explain.
I began this long musing with the admiration of Darren Star pulling off quite the hat trick in the "Sex and the City" finale. Big had been "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm}. Sure the die-hard Duckian-like romantics might go the whole "first love should be last love!" crap. But on so many ways, BIg was the worst guy for her to end up with. Really the timing was off. Rather than rebound guy, Aidan should have been the final guy, "The Perfect Boyfriend." But that door had been closed within the story. So as the series culminated they had to either have her end up with no one (which probably would have been the best choice in an intellectual sense) or try for a romantic ending to a romantic series. Clearly given the fact that the entire series revolved around romance, they wanted a romantic ending. With Aidan being out of the question the only big gun they could pull in was... Big. Except Big had been a terrible, terrible boyfriend. How do they pull of having HIM be the endgame guy?
Well, for all that Big shouldn't have worked out in the end, they penned the finale so that he worked. Of course they did that by making current boyfriend the one you wanted out of Carrie's life. Petrovsky was made "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm} so as to make Big look like the good boyfriend and true love.
Actually, the way they made Petrovsky "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm} was done quite well. Petrovsky was romantic. He gave Carrie what she wanted. He helped her escape from reality. And it was quite, quite clear that he was "The Bad Boyfriend" from the moment that he convinced Carrie to stick around for sex rather than have coffee with her friends. And... whoa.
That's what I was supposed to be getting from Season 6 BtVS, wasn't I? Spike was "The Bad Boyfriend" because he was distracting Buffy from her friends via sex. Huh. I mean, I knew that was what they were trying to do on BtVS... but it didn't work for me. It still doesn't work for me. And yet on "Sex and the City" the moment that Petrovsky convinced Carrie to stay and have sex thus standing up her friends, I knew he was doomed and "The Bad Boyfriend. Yet even as blatant as Spike's words about leaving Buffy's friends was in "Dead Things"... I don't have issues with Spike for it.
The pattern with Petrovsky as "The Bad Boyfriend" was that Carrie would sacrifice some part of herself to stay with Petrovsky in his fantasy bubble. Oh he was romantic and she had great sex. He bought her Oscar De la Renta and gave her carriage rides... but he disliked her friends and continually separated her from them, was rude to them, and looked down on them... and it made me hate him. And I can see where Marti and Joss were probably trying something similar to that with Spike. With Buffy looking to Spike for sex, for escape, etc. And Spike being with her instead of the friends who we were SUPPOSED to want with Buffy.
Except... huh. You know, I think part of where BtVS screwed up wasn't just that they made Buffy the one using Spike when you would expect "The Bad Boyfriend" to be using the girl. Petrovsky wasn't really using Carrie. He just... was a Bad Boyfriend {tm}. The thing is the realtionships were different. Miranda, Charlotte, Samantha weren't being excessively demanding. They weren't using Carrie themselves. And it wasn't some realtionship from years past that really didn't function. The female friends of Sex's friendships hadn't faded away. Their relationship (unlike the scoobs) was strong. Part of the problem with BtVS was that Scoobs had brought Buffy back for SELFISH reasons -- reasons that were never addressed, reasons that Buffy wouldn't even ADDRESS with the scoobs. In "After Life" the Scoobs were demanding of Buffy rather than supportive of Buffy. SPIKE was the one supportive of Buffy in "After Life" and in all the episodes up to "OMWF." More than that, Spike wasn't fracturing the Scooby/Buffy bond in "Dead Things." That bond was fractured. Buffy had walked away from her friends on her own and gravitated upstairs. In fact it was Spike who had urged Buffy to compassion where Willow was concerned in "Wrecked." So Spike really didn't come across as the guy separating Buffy from her friends... it came across as Spike being theonly one supportive of Buffy.
In Sex, Petrovsky convinces Carrie to quit her job, and again it was a sign that he was "The Bad Boyfriend." {Tm}
In DMP, Spike attempts to convince Buffy to quit her job... and we were supposed to see that as a sign that Spike was "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm}. But, again, ME was just so full of shit with all their mixed signals. The difference was that on "Sex" Carries job was her voice, her column, and it was JOYFUL. On BtVS the DMP was a soulsucking job (duh!) and while we were to see Spike telling her to quit as the actions of a "Bad Boyfriend" ... Riley telling Buffy virtually the same thing was supposed to be the work of a "Good Boyfriend"... huh?! That makes the kind of sense that doesn't!
It's the constant double standard.
Basically, Sex pulled off something in "The Bad Boyfriend" that BtVS tried to... and didn't.
It's just that "The Bad Boyfriend" is more than just the show telling us that he's "The Bad Boyfriend"... it's all about context. While the actions of Spike and Petrovsky were similar actions, the CONTEXT was so very different. Scoobs weren't a support system by mid-to-late Season 6... they were leaches. There was no friendship left to speak of, just the memory of one. So Spike appeared (to many of us) to be providing a support system that Giles and the Scoobs didn't. The Scoobs were no Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha. That's really one of the places where BtVS went terribly awry. If you want to make me feel bad about the girl abandonning her friends, try not making the friends total assholes.
And, while they THINK they're writing Spike as "The Bad Boyfriend" ala Petrovsky... Spike is actually far more closely along the lines of Smith (the hot, sexy boytoy who Samantha discovers is worth so much more than just sex. He's supportive, loving, and tolerant of all her shit. And Spike is actually Aidan, the guy who tried and tried and tried even though the girl is determined to unload all her old baggage onto him until she breaks him.) Marti Noxon (unsurprising) sucked as penning her "Bad Boyfriend" plot because... she didn't actually make Spike the bad boyfriend.
I mentioned Veronica Mars. Over on
ww1614's LJ yesterday was a protest of the use of the Garbage song about a "bad boyfriend" in conjunction with Veronica Mars and Logan. I don't watch the show but apparently Logan is the sexy asshole and Duncan was the "first love" (Is that right?) For some reason we're supposed to want "first love" to win... aren't we? I know that's what Ducks wanted. And considering (even though I don't watch VM it's all over my friends list) Logan wasn't intended to have as big a role as he has ended up having. Was Duncan supposed to be the intended object of ultimate desire boyfriend? The first love/last love thing?Why exactly are we supposed to want that kind of symmetry? In some way it reminds me of "Pretty in Pink." I remember when that movie first came out I read a review and the review was bitching about Molly Ringwald's character ending up with the guy she had had the crush on in the beginning... because it was just following the cliche. The first guy had to be the last guy just 'cause. Because REALLY Molly Ringwald really, really should have ended up with Duckie, damnit! Every time I see that old movie on TV I remember that "She should have ended up with Duckie, damnit!" But Duckie (who wasn't a bad boyfriend at all) loses the girl because he wasn't the object of desire boyfriend. He wasn't the "first"... and why does the first get dibs? Even when they screw up royally?
And this brings me back to the Sex finale. Darren Star pulled off quite the hat trick. He made Big NOT! "The Bad Boyfriend" in the final two episodes even though he had been in every other ep of the series! And Star did this by turning Petrovsky into "The Bad Boyfriend" {tm} (aided of course by the fact that Barishnikov and Parker HAD NO CHEMISTRY WHATSOEVER!). In fact they took this slight of hand one step further than just making Big look good just in comparison to Petrovsky. They had Petrovsky give to Carrie all the things that Big didn't. Big told Carrie that she wasn't "The one" when he left... so Petrovsky called her "The one." Big didn't take Carrie to Paris. So Petrovsky took Carrie to Paris... and then of course they had Carrie be disatisfied with these things. This works in the sense of Charlotte's story where the preconcieved idea of what "happy ever after" should look like is shot to hell (and that's usually a very good device) but it also works to nullify Big's earlier transgressions (he wasn't really denying her anything if once she finally got it, she decided that she didn't want it anyway).
The final slight of hand that Sex employed was that they made Big the voice of the audience in the finale. Petrovsky took Carrie away from her friends... Big sought out the girls to ask their advice and Miranda told him "Go get our girl." That was a masterful stroke. That makes it not Big going to get Carrie... that makes it the GIRLS going to get Carrie... by proxy. And of course we want Carrie back with her friends. So even if we don't want Carrie with Big because he was-- after all the ORIGINAL "Bad Boyfriend"...we are on Big's side in the finale because he is "the girls" by proxy. You root for him... even when you shouldn't because it's not him... he's representing the girls. And of course, at the end, the girls have to get together.
What's curious is that the finale works because of this... until you give it thought. Because Big reunites the girls we're happy. But am I happy she ended up with Big? Eh.
And, I believe we're supposed to be happy that Buffy is reunited with Scoobs at the end of BtVS. Except of course... it all rang hollow. The Scoobs "Friendship" was habit, not friendship. And (and AR aside, I will ALWAYS insist this) Spike was not "The Bad Boyfriend." {tm}
And, frankly, if you can't even work up the ability to use "The Bad Boyfriend" with the same skill as a frivolous piece of fluff like sex (where even though I have plenty of quibbles they at least knew how to write a "Bad Boyfriend" plot that didn't have to whack you over the head... and DIDN'T have to be explained in outside interviews. You could pick up on the clues because they were executed in a way that they came across) then you have no business using a "The Bad Boyfriend" crutch.
It's sad to say but all those who claim Joss is genius... yeah, not so much. "The Bad Boyfriend" cliche may be a tiresome one, but it wasn't so difficult that a dramedy like Sex couldn't pull it off. So if BtVS couldn't pull it off (or if VM couldn't pull it off) then question the genius of the writer because it's not that hard. And it's not so confusing that it takes a board war to figure out.
And I probably went on way too long about seven paragraphs ago. I'm groggy now. Night.
