They Love Me, They Love Me Not: A Retrospective on the Will They/Won’t They Trope
Staff writer Rachel Goh examines the will they/won’t they trope, its addictive pull, and the complexities of villainising side characters in sitcoms.
What compelled you to finish the last TV series you watched?
If it wasn’t because of the writing, maybe it was because of how invested you got in the characters. After all, you were privy to every intimate detail of their lives, watching them struggle with personal issues similar to your own, celebrating their achievements together with them.
When you finally finish watching all seasons of a show, you probably feel a little empty. Personally, I always feel this way following the end of a series. What am I supposed to do now? It feels immensely weird to leave the characters we know and love behind.
One trope that gets fans invested is the will they/won’t they trope, which involves two characters portrayed to have romantic tension with one another, but resist getting into a long-term relationship for a very long time. Sometimes, they only get together in the final few minutes of the show’s finale. Will they/won’t they adds the drama needed to compel viewers to continue watching a show, making them sit at the edge of their seats as they wonder if the two characters in question will get together. The writers dangle the prospect like a carrot on a stick, teasing fans with intimate moments between the characters before taking it all away, only for the cycle to begin again in the next season.
The trope’s power to keep audiences coming back is precisely what drives writers to use it in TV shows. From Cheers (1982-1993) to Grey’s Anatomy (2005-present) to The Office (2005-2013), many shows have at least one pair of characters who follow this trope, all in hopes of hooking the viewer’s attention.
That said, I’ve never been a fan of this trope. It has tricked me into finishing all 10 seasons of Friends (1994-2004), a show where the question of will they/won’t they is a main plot line when it comes to main characters Ross (David Schwimmer) and Rachel (Jennifer Aniston). However, I found myself getting tired of the misunderstandings and unfortunate circumstances that kept the two characters from their happily ever after. Moreover, I found myself hating certain characters even when they didn’t do anything wrong.
There lies the big question: Has the will they/won’t they trope outstayed its welcome on television? Let’s take a look and find out!
The Villainisation of The Not So ‘Other’ Woman
When we think of the homewrecker of a relationship, we often think of a third party. In the cases of Friends and The Big Bang Theory (2007-2019), however, things aren’t as simple as they seem. In both cases, the character who is villainised and treated as the homewrecker is the one who is already in a happy relationship with the male lead.
Let me explain.
In the fourth season of Friends, Ross meets Emily (Helen Baxendale), a British woman in the United States to visit her uncle. They begin dating and mutually inspire positive character growth: Emily encourages Ross, a stereotypical nerd, to be more adventurous and expand his horizons through daring activities he was too afraid to try before. As for Ross, he makes arrangements to travel to London to make their long-distance relationship work. They get engaged… only for Ross to say Rachel’s name at the altar. This is a BIG deal, considering that she is her ex. Unbeknownst to Ross, Rachel develops feelings for him again and wants to voice her objection at the wedding she wasn’t even invited to, only to stop herself when she sees Ross happy.
Fans often complain about Emily’s actions in the aftermath of the kerfuffle. She tells Ross she is willing to work on the relationship… only if he never talks to Rachel again. She also wants to throw out all of Ross’ furniture, saying she doesn’t want them to have anything that Rachel previously touched.
Image: Screenshot from Friends
As a viewer also rooting for Ross and Rachel, I immediately felt annoyed that Ross and Emily had gotten engaged. And yet, I also felt so much sympathy for the forgotten bride. If we ignore the fact that this is a sitcom designed to make you invested in the main characters, Emily is simply a bride humiliated at the one life event she had been looking forward to since she was a little girl.
In addition, while Rachel’s character is elevated as she urges Ross to do anything in his power to mend his relationship with Emily, the latter is villainised by the show’s writing. The other friends in the group take the perspective that Emily is overreacting, posing the following question to the audience: How could Ross stop hanging out with Rachel? The entire situation was framed with an air of incredulity, appearing to be out of the question.
Yet, the incident at the altar is a betrayal on the sanctity of marriage. To add fuel to the fire, Ross nearly takes Rachel on what was supposed to be his honeymoon with Emily. Any rational person would probably have broken out in paranoia. After all, any semblance of trust between husband and wife is already shattered at the altar. Even if Emily’s actions feel controlling, I can’t really blame her for reacting that way. I just hope she got the therapy she needed when she was written out of the show.
A similar scenario plays out in The Big Bang Theory’s fourth season. For half of the show, main characters Penny (Kaley Cuoco), an attractive girl, and Leonard (Johnny Galecki), a scientist, also play into the will they/won’t they trope. They break up in the third season and aren’t together in the fourth, allowing the entry of Priya (Aarti Mann) into Leonard’s love life. Priya and Leonard have a pretty normal relationship until she cheats on him when she moves back to India in the fifth season. Priya, however, faces the same problem as Emily: though she isn’t written to be unlikable, she is villainised through the lens of the central female character of the show. In this case, that person is Penny.
Image: Screenshot from The Big Bang Theory
Priya and Emily face similar issues of being excluded by the main cast of characters. Similarly to Rachel, Penny feels threatened by Priya, because she sees her as Leonard’s most feasible alternative girlfriend. While not vocal about her dislike of Priya to her face, Penny talks about it to her girl friends and, by extension, the audience.
Like Emily, Priya is disliked by fans as she presents an obvious threat to the will they/won’t they plot line of the story. When expressing their disdain of Priya, fans often talk about the fact that she eventually cheats on Leonard, ignoring the fact that she is a normal girlfriend throughout most of the relationship. Notably, making Priya go to India and cheat on him is a convenient way to write her out of the show.
The True Masterminds: Show Writers
There are a few reasons why Emily and Priya were written in this way.
Baxendale quit the show because she was pregnant with her first child and did not like the fame that came with the show, requiring the character to have a quick exit. A memoir written by director James Burrows revealed, however, that he found Baxendale nice but “not particularly funny”, citing her lack of chemistry with Schwimmer, especially when compared to the dynamic between Schwimmer and Aniston. While this is just Burrows’ opinion, I find it a little unfair for him to think this way when Aniston and Schwimmer had already spent four years together on set. His opinion of Baxendale could have added to the intended villainisation of her character.
As for Mann, the eventual Priya we saw in the show was completely different to what she had agreed to when she auditioned for the role.
Speaking to Deseret News, she revealed that the original Priya was engaged and wanted to make one last booty call, thus contacting Leonard. The eventual storyline was way longer than initially expected. Known for being a straight-to-the-point lawyer in the show, Mann revealed that executive producer Chuck Lorre had instructed her to play the straight woman of the show. Perhaps, this depiction of Priya as a straight woman may have contributed to the impression that she was a hard-hearted lawyer, unintentionally villainising her compared to the sweet Penny.
Should They/Shouldn’t They Continue Will They/Won’t They?
The trope is definitely annoying. But it’s also incredibly addicting. It’s a well-established trope that rakes in the cash. No matter how much we criticise the trope, we’re also the same people with our eyes glued to the screen, desperate for the two characters to get together. The anticipation is just so enticing. Just take Miraculous Ladybug, which takes the trope to its extremes through the use of a love square. Its premise focuses on Adrien and Marinette, who are also secretly a superhero duo. The problem is that both of them are unaware of each other’s secret identities. The show begins with Cat Noir (Adrien) liking Marinette (Miraculous Ladybug). Five seasons later, Adrien and Marinette are together, but still don’t know each other’s secret identities, with Adrien thinking that he has already gotten over his crush on Ladybug. It’s so frustrating to watch, not to mention that it's a kids show with writing targeted towards kids. Yet, despite its controversies, it draws in viewers of all ages because of how addictive the trope is.
Poster for Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug & Cat Noir
Perhaps the popularity of this trope lies in the notion that authentic love doesn’t sell. The thrill of the chase does. Through the messy will they/won’t they trope, viewers see themselves in aspects of these characters, empathising and relating to their fears, crushes, and other insecurities when it comes to dating. In other words, the anticipation is spicy.
No matter how interesting these relationships are, we as the audience need to be cautious that the unnaturally long will they/won’t they plot lines we see on television are not a reflection of real life. In reality, getting together is just the beginning of the relationship. In a world where dating and relationships have been complicated by our hypersexual modern culture, situationships, friends with benefits, do we want to subject ourselves to the same uncertainty that plays out on television?
In Friends, Monica and Chandler seem to have a normal relationship because Ross and Rachel’s relationship is the central focus. However, I argue otherwise: It is possible for “boring” relationships to be made interesting. In addition, potential threats to the central relationship do not necessarily have to be villainised in order to justify the main characters getting together.
Take Brooklyn Nine-Nine’s Jake and Amy for instance. While the show writers do experiment with will they/won’t they in the first two seasons, they resolve it by the third season, with the focus shifting to how the couple continue through life together in a loving and supportive relationship. Though alternative partners were presented in the first two seasons, the show gives us reasons why these partners are not compatible with Jake or Amy without portraying them as “bad” people. Instead, they are presented as decent people with their own unique personalities.
Image: Brooklyn Nine-Nine
In conclusion, the will they/won’t they trope is a great hook for audiences. However, a disregard for side characters may result in unintentional and undeserved hate for perceived threats to the central love story, even if these characters never do anything to warrant this hate. Ultimately, a traditional depiction of the trope may cause the normalisation of extreme drama and immoral actions through infidelity and the inability of characters to communicate properly. However, that doesn’t completely mean that the trope should cease to exist – it is also possible to write a will they/won’t they story with nuance and sophistication. At the end of the day, one thing is certain: whether you hate it or love it, the will they/won’t they trope definitely adds spice to any show you watch.