|
I searched this forum for a thread about romcoms using SA's built in search function and none turned up so if there is already a thread for them I'm sorry. But, assuming there isn't and acting on good faith here's a thread about romantic comedies and their sub genres. I never particularly liked romantic comedies. They are largely super formulaic and so once you've seen one you've basically seen them all. But for the past year and a half three friends and I have been getting together once a month to watch a romantic comedy or two. We sometimes do stuff like play a drinking game or make bingo cards. I've probably watched about 50ish of them? I was originally going to post this thread in Blockbuster Video but since I would actually seriously like some in depth discussion all about romantic comedies and all their sub genres (regardless of quality) it's probably better off here in the serious discussion forum. I'd specifically like to discuss about the messages in romcoms and their sub genres. Their effects on society (there's some interesting studies on their effects on perceptions of love and romance.) The influence of feminism on the genres and the genres influence on feminism, and whatever else you can contrive with even the flimsiest connection to romcoms and their sub genres. And just a heads up, I don't mind longish posts (especially if they're good) but do try to be reasonable. Some of the Romantic Comedies I've Seen (in no particular order): Romancing the Stone Pretty in Pink Mannequin The Princess Bride* Pretty Woman Breakfast at Tiffany's My Big Fat Greek Wedding The Awful Truth Sleepless in Seattle Does the version of Romeo and Juliet where they dress modern and use guns but all the dialog is straight from the play count because that movie is loving awesome.* Adam's Rib You've Got Mail^ She's All That Kate and Leopold* The one where Janeane Garofalo falls in love with an Irish guy because of a dog. 50 First Dates The 40 Year Old Virgin Is Mr and Mrs Smith a romantic comedy because holy gently caress it's the best.* There's more but that's long enough. *Indicates a movie that is good. ^Indicates a movie that I think is good but it's complicated. Even after watching so many I'm still not sure I like romantic comedies and their ilk but I've learned to appreciate them and there's definitely some diamonds in the rough. Tangentially related: I gave this thread the most appropriate thread icon available in this subforum but I'm open to suggestions. (Perhaps the Dad post icon from LP or the Feminism post icon from E/N (I think) would be better?) Jenner fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Jan 12, 2017 |
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
ElectricSheep posted:I think by the traditional definition this would possibly be a tragedy True enough. It is definitely not a romantic comedy. It still rules though. sean10mm posted:Hitch When my group watched Hitch we spent a long time wondering what was so bad about him. "Is he going to be a Nice Guy?" I asked. We knew women who would be fine with the level of jerk Hitch displayed. It never really objectionable, right? I didn't really like it either for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned. The fact that the woman is just so petty and spiteful really did not sit well with me. tanglewood1420 posted:When Harry Met Sally is a masterpiece and one of the greatest screenplays ever written. If you haven't seen it you should OP. It's on our list! We're going to watch City of Angels starring Nick Cage and Meg Ryan this month (:frogin:) and then it's my turn to pick the movie. I'll definitely post about both here. blue squares posted:Love Actually is such a wonderful film. When my friends propositioned me with the idea of romcoms and movies like them day I was hesitant but I gave it a shot. They got my feet wet with this movie and I love, love, loved it. At the time I was still of the opinion that romcoms were dumb and that this was going to be an MST 3K/Rifftracks kind of thing but no. And now that I've seen some good ones it actually makes the less good ones and bad ones better because I can compare them to Love Actually and really discuss why they are so bad. I'm really looking forward to City of Angels this month, I am expecting a "so bad it's good" experience. Don't spoil it! So oh man, can I talk about You've Got Mail? Because I liked it and thought it was good and I feel bad about it because maybe I shouldn't considering what happens in it? Good things about You've Got Mail: -First media depiction of online dating? -Features the original staticy howling scream of the early internet  (One of the crew is in her late 20s and asked, "What is that noise?" And we told her it was what the internet sounded like and felt so old.)-The people Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks' characters are dating in the movie are not complete monsters so much as just people they're not compatible with. (However, see bad things below.) -Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks' characters had genuine chemistry and their interactions were cute. Scratch that, they were adorable. Bad things: -Tom Hanks' character's not-Meg Ryan GF is "bad" because she's a working woman who is ambitious and focused on her career. lovely message. -Tom Hanks' character destroys Meg Ryan's character's way of life and supporting herself. Running a store that had been in her family for at least a generation out of business and devastating her. He has no regrets until he realizes she's the woman he's fallen in love with on the internet then he feels terrible. -Tom Hanks' character spends a lot of time trying to befriend Meg Ryan's character after learning who she is. Is it creepy? Manipulative? Not exactly and kinda (it's complicated.) But he's being genuine about it because he likes her. Aside, This is the thing in the movie I struggle with the most. Because guys who try to befriend girls because they like them in the dating sense and not because they just like them as people are one of the worst. These guys are really only your friends in the hopes that they can maneuver themselves into becoming your boyfriend. Their friendship is not genuine because they have ulterior motives and it is just poo poo. But Tom Hanks didn't come off as That Guy. He seemed to just want friendship with Meg Ryan because he liked her as a person (disclaimer, this is what it seemed like to me, one of the crew is not so sure about this.) Still... what did you guys think? Things I liked about this movie: -The usual romcom formula is meet -> fall in love -> a misunderstanding/disagreement and a break up -> a reconciling and a getting back together -> happily ever after. This movie kind of plays with the formula because they meet -> dislike each other because they are competitors -> meet in a different context and like each other as people -> don't so much have a misunderstanding or disagreement but rather Tom Hanks' character genuinely hurts Meg Ryan's character (it's not malicious, it's just business  ) -> The whole thing where Tom Hanks tries to befriend her happens -> Tom Hanks reveals his true identity to Meg Ryan and it's okay because she started to like him too. -> happily ever after.-Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks characters really seemed to like each other and they played off each other well. It was cute. This post is long, so long. I'm sorry. You've Got Mail is good and really complicated!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
WENTZ WAGON NUI posted:Well it has romance and comedy in it but where's the.... oh.... when Buttercup thinks Wesley's dead is that the.... ohhhh. This thread is about Romcoms and their sub genres (and probably also extends to talking about romcom influences in movies.) It's a broad brush but The Princess Bride falls under this umbrella. It really does have a lot of romcom elements. It's okay to like these things.  Samuel Clemens posted:Hey, if Annie Hall counts, so does The Princess Bride.  Purple Monkey posted:Also echoing that you definitely need to watch When Harry Met Sally and would also say you need to see Annie Hall unless you're morally opposed to watching a Woody Allen film. They're those rare creatures in being Rom Coms that actually understand the complications in being in a relationship and are actually genuinely funny where as mostly other Rom Coms seem to be written by people who I'm not sure have interacted with another human being yet alone been in a romantic relationship I really really really don't like Wood Allen. He is just a disgusting human being. But I don't want to derail this thread into talking about that. I will watch both these movies. HP Hovercraft posted:Some Like It Hot certainly counts, but be sure to check out other Billy Wilder like Sabrina, The Seven Year Itch, and the masterpiece The Apartment. You appear to know your stuff and none of these movies are on our list so I just added them. Thank you. However. quote:The best post-1990 romcom is Trust by Hal Hartley. You are incorrect because Mr. And Mrs. Smith exists.  This Friday is movie day! I'm so hyped to watch City of Angels! We've been discussing hosting a podcast about this thing we do monthly. I'll let you know if we go through with it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2016 07:03
|
|
|
Oh my gosh I'm so sorry it took me so long to come back to this thread I was busy being utterly terrible. City of Angels was really interesting. I was surprised by how sad it was. I was not expecting the sad SPCA Commercial song but I should have. I didn't like it but I didn't dislike it. It's my turn to pick the movie for next month. So it's When Harry Met Sally time. Were there remakes? Is there a version that is the best? Let me know. In another thread, where I waged a brief war over a general misunderstanding/misconception of consent and sexual assault that just seems ripe throughout our country, I had the realization that a lot of this is because of the conflicting messages society sends via media. (Primary culprits: Action movies and romantic comedies.) Basically our entertainment feeds us this idea of what is and isn't appropriate or successful romantically and these protips do not work in practice in reality. Example: If you actually stood outside a woman's house holding a beat box blaring the song In Your Eyes what would be the realistic reaction and results? You would probably get the police called on you. (Especially since you're wearing a trench coat, the 90s are dead!) The person you are attempting to woo would not change their mind and come around. Cracked did this article and I think it's a good read. These movies tell men that consent is lame and chicks totally dig it when you disregard their personal space and poo poo. Guh. People get rightfully frustrated when things they've been told will work don't. They don't/rarely think to question what they know. And romantic comedies are no less innocent of loving things up! Sometimes the male lead is just the worst but he still gets the girl! And they present this idea of love and romance that is often just so unrealistic and idealized. Our entire notion of how to date and court someone is based on what movies and television has told us. We begin to form beliefs from these messages that might not be reflected in reality. For example, guys complain that asking for consent totally ruins the mood but but how do they know that? Have they ever tried it? Or is that just something they've been told/lead to believe? I personally can't think of a woman who would dry up like a desert upon being asked for permission to be touched/kissed. Why is the media sending these false messages and ideas? Why aren't more movies more realistic? Is it boring? It isn't enough to just talk about this and educate because we are fighting back against what is effectively propaganda. I think it's been getting better though? I'm honestly not sure. The last handful of "current" movies I watched were: 1. Mad Max: Fury Road which had an amazing feminist agenda and no real romance plot. Then I spent a long time not going to movie theaters before seeing 2. Kubo and the Two Strings where some guy goes on a quest to win over a woman and does so by telling her she's what he's looking for while they are fighting to the death. (The same couple is also traveling together in a reincarnated form and cursed and with memory loss and they seem fond enough of each other. Once they learn who they are they seem chill with each other.) 3. Arrival where they flirt a bit and we are informed they ultimately get married, have a kid, then get divorced. 4. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them where two characters have a mutual attraction and fall for each other and two different characters just work together and then have an awkward romantically charged splitting with no real relationship or attraction established prior. 3. Moana which had no romance whatsoever. (Unless you count me falling madly in love with the crab. He's just so shiny.) So yeah... I'm really not sure it's getting better. Jenner fucked around with this message at 13:15 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
/\/\ Agreed. Many romantic comedies have the message of "Change who you are. Be who he wants to win him." Most romcoms are written by men. I'm gonna have to look into more recent romcoms to see if they've improved in the same way Disney Princess movies have become less ripe with terrible messages and feature women with actual agency who make choices now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:So apparently Passengers joins the list of romantic comedies that are actually deeply hosed up. Chris Pratt wakes up in a colony ship after a malfunction. He's gonna be stuck there until it lands alone so he "falls in love" with one of the other sleeping passengers through her journalism and wakes her up early to be with him. She was gonna make her name chronicling the foundation of the colony but no, you gotta be this guys girlfriend for the next 100 years. It's not creepy and manipulative if :puke: I guess we haven't gotten better. Disney's live action remake of Sleeping Beauty so much darker and edgier. Anonymous John posted:Could be worse I guess. At least Chris Pratt doesn't have space intercourse with her while she's still asleep! It's the small victories really. Something told me I wasn't going to like it. A bunch of my sci-fi loving friends suggested we see it together (this group is different from my romcoms watching crew though there is some overlap.) I told them they'd have to watch it without me and tell me how it goes because I wasn't sold on the artificial creepiness that was shown on the trailers. Now I know it's legit creepy. Thanks 7c Nickel. In other news I managed to catch Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants on TV today. It is not a romcom but it's a genre that split off from romcoms (women's empowerment/women's journey movies. Other example: Eat, Pray, Love) and it borrows some romcom tropes and has some romance elements. It was... alright. The women's relationships and friendship was believable and I liked how they all got along. It had the usual image issues and such though. But I have to admit I kind of like these kinds of movies (I feel terrible about it.) I like the sassy girlfriends just hanging out and having a good time. They have their own character and they aren't defined by their relationship with a man but by their relationship with themselves and their fellow women. (These movies still almost always feature a scene where they fail the Bechtel Test but  )A lot of these movies seem to be inspired by Sex in the City. Most of the women follow the same archetypes that were established in that show.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
_aaron posted:I watched They Came Together recently and really liked it despite how dumb it was. I think Paul Rudd can sell just about anything. It pokes fun at a lot of genre conventions and common storylines. I like Paul Rudd a lot and think he is a great actor. He's in this movie with Jennifer Anniston. (Object of My Affection I think?) Where he plays a gay man that she's smitten with and I thought it was quite good. Two things: 1. Our list of "romcoms and their ilk to watch" continues to grow with all your recommendations. Thank you so much. I fully intend to watch all these movies. Not sure when we're gonna do the watch in January, everyone's busy with family.  I'm really worried about our chick movie watching ritual falling by the wayside and never being picked back up again.Regardless, I'll keep watching this stuff without them. (It's just better with friends.) 2. Most of the movies we've been mentioning have featured heterosexual relationships. Are there any good gay ones? Who's the poster talking about hate watching? We need those too. We should talk about bad ones and good ones (and all the ones in between!) I'd also like to branch beyond just recommending good/bad movies and talking about them on a surface level (though please keep doing that) and really start delving deeper by talking about their tropes, themes, and messages and stuff. If you guys are okay with that? Because that insight on You've Got Mail is very sad and totally ruins it for me. Gosh! (No sarcasm, thanks for the insight. gently caress that movie forever.) To do my part: You know what I think are just loving awful terrible movies? Not in like, quality, but in content. Those loving Lifetime Movies of teen girls who get accidentally pregnant and make the best of it! So Gung Ho and such fierce moms! Surviving on pure gumption and a can-do attitude. Spunky Heroes! Do you know how rare this is? It's really sad how rare this is even for middle class girls with a lot of support. Poor girls who get pregnant almost never finish high school or get a GED. Their lives are ruined. These movies are lying to girls and painting a very romantic idea of teen pregnancy and it is evil. Very mad about it. Strong feelings and opinions. Could go on for paragraphs but made my point. I'm gonna talk about movies depicting families in poverty next. It's gonna be big.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
FiftySeven posted:A straight played Paul Rudd...the brilliant Paul Rudd cameo. What could it possibly be that makes these movies so good... 🤔 (I'm only mostly joking. Paul Rudd is magical.) Of all the movies you've listed in this post I've only seen Enchanted and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. I liked and appreciated them both. I think Mila Kunis is largely the reason why Forgetting Sarah Marshall is so good. She's just amazing. (Also that Paul Rudd cameo but c'mon.) I'm really glad she is escaping the Seth MacFarlane vacuum because I thought she was fantastic in Black Swan. What is it with Natalie Portman and her characters always falling in love with unhinged people? She has so much more potential! precision posted:"You know when I said I knew little about love? That wasn't true. I know a lot about love. I've seen it, centuries and centuries of it, and it was the only thing that made watching your world bearable. All those wars. Pain, lies, hate... It made me want to turn away and never look down again. But when I see the way that mankind loves... You could search to the furthest reaches of the universe and never find anything more beautiful. So yes, I know that love is unconditional. But I also know that it can be unpredictable, unexpected, uncontrollable, unbearable and strangely easy to mistake for loathing, and... What I'm trying to say, Tristan is... I think I love you. Is this love, Tristan? I never imagined I'd know it for myself. My heart... It feels like my chest can barely contain it. Like it's trying to escape because it doesn't belong to me any more. It belongs to you. And if you wanted it, I'd wish for nothing in exchange - no gifts. No goods. No demonstrations of devotion. Nothing but knowing you loved me too. Just your heart, in exchange for mine." OKAY. BRB I am getting two boxes of tissues and some Lindt chocolate and watching the gently caress out of Stardust now. Samuel Clemens posted:I Love You Phillip Morris Seen it. Loved it. Recommend it to any who haven't seen it yet. I should watch it again. I was gonna make a big rear end post about depictions of poverty and families in poverty in movies but I think it is just too loosely connected to Romantic Comedies and there Ilk to be posted in this thread. I'll try to find a thread to post about it in and link to it here for those that are interested. (Or maybe just make a more general "Jenner talks about poo poo" thread in Ask/Tell or Debate and Discussion or something.) On gay romantic comedies: Why do I love But I'm a Cheerleader and Clea DuVall so much?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Radio Spiricom posted:virtually every pre-50s romantic comedy is about class and family Is that so? Well good because I could not find any other thread for this post! I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet. I am notorious for posting long rear end  diatribes.So, I grew up in poverty. I am the first person on my father's side of the family to ever go to college and only the second on my mother's side. I grew up in a community that was largely black and Latino. There were no parks or green spaces, the nearest grocery store was 50 minutes away and the education system was terrible. Teachers spent more time trying to calm the class down and maintain order than teach. In most media where families in poverty are featured they are depicted several ways: 1. As toxic hateful parasites mooching off the system. (Million Dollar Baby) 2. As a strong close knit family banding together to overcome adversity. (Everybody Hates Chris, Good Times) 3. Drunk, homeless, drug abusers. These characters are almost exclusively white men and often elderly. (With Honors) 4. Bright, promising youths from troubled backgrounds who triumph on their wits and brilliance. These characters are also almost exclusively white men. (Good Will Hunting) Poverty-stricken communities are often depicted as being run down, boarded up, crawling with criminal activity and rife with gangs and gang violence. What I have found from my experiences in poverty, and as someone who personally relied upon the social support system in America, is this: 1. I have never once met a Welfare Queen and I'm not sure they exist. There are toxic and hostile people but they are just assholes, not moochers. Everyone I encountered on the system was either working 1-2 jobs or genuinely unable to work. In my experience, your cousin's friend who knows a guy is a loving liar who doesn't know what he's talking about. 2. Most families in poverty are consumed by infighting and wrought with physical and emotional abuse. (As well as substance abuse.) They do not band together and triumph against adversity. They drag each other down and cannibalize each other to try to survive. Families that tough it out and stick together were rare, I only met one. It was much more common for children to steal from each other and their parents and predate on one another. Relationships were strained. I, personally, haven't spoken to my family in years. 3. Alcoholism was not uncommon but drug use was largely rare. This may have changed. I managed to escape poverty in the mid oughts before the opioid epidemic really escalated. We did have a bit of a crack problem (it was the 80s and 90s after all) but it was not a major blow to my community. (I have heard it devastated other communities however and I believe it.) 4. There were a lot of kids in my community that I thought were exceptionally bright and clever. The poor schools and shoddy education system failed them. They were not prepared for college and largely fell through the cracks. Of the kids I grew up with? Almost half of the girls got pregnant and quietly disappeared. Others dropped out. Of my class of 600 I think only 75 of us managed to graduate. They bullied me viciously so I didn't really follow up on any of them or keep in touch. I only know of one of them that went to college (because he friended me on Facebook.) As cruel as they were, none of them deserved that life. In regards to gang and criminal activity? There were a couple of gangs and they kind of laid claim to an area. If you were born in that area you "belonged" to that gang and you really didn't have much say in the matter. But there weren't a lot of shootings or killings (though some stabbings and beatings.) They largely just sassed each other and vandalized each other's turfs. I largely avoided it and wasn't really harassed for that (I feel like this was because I was white as the black and Latino kids were hassled to get involved.) Crimes like muggings and robberies were uncommon but vandalism was pretty rampant. I heard varying reports of shoplifting but I didn't notice it happening with a troubling frequency. There was a lot of loitering and police liked to roll through our community and harass us. TL;DR: The media does not really depict poverty in a realistic way. Those heartwarming stories of a kid breaking the cycle are tragically rare and it's only becoming more risky and dangerous to try. In general the community largely keeps to itself. Families are often depicted always being present and involved and having enough food and scraping by but that's just not the case. Mothers/parents often went without food so their kids could eat and they worked long hours into the night, leaving their children to fend for themselves. This is just my experience and perception of poverty and life in poverty. I cannot speak for all people in poverty. But the media depiction is either too ideal/romantic or too condemning. Real poverty is soul crushing and devastating and no amount of hard work and gumption can get you out of it. You have to get lucky. This post was still real long. I am terrible at this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
Radio Spiricom posted:i was gonna make a longer post but short answer is yes, the romantic comedy in the sound era began during the great depression and acted as escapism from the economic hardship of the time through depicting lavish lifestyles aspirationally while simultaneously mocking them by depicting the idle rich as eccentrics, hapless idiots, alcoholics, or just generally morally callous and the poor as noble and levelheaded, and arguing that love is the great class equalizer. they aren't without their issues though, obviously -- they're hollywood studio product and not the rules of the game. Hmm. That whole, "Only the poor get love" message seems to be pretty common in class dynamics. The same message is attributed to nobility, the young countess (or whatever) renounces her noble lineage and vast inheritance to wed the cobbler's son because ~love~ That whole, "Money can't buy you happiness" message too! With miserable over achieving businessmen suffering from a lack of love. Money might not be able to buy you happiness but it buys you security, stability, and comfort which is like happiness but better. (And you sure as gently caress don't have any of that in poverty.) I don't want to imply when I say families in poverty steal from and cannibalize each other and are thick with abuse that people in poverty are terrible people. I think the stressful environment breeds these hostile conditions. When you have such precious few resources and are all competing for them it's gonna cause strained and fractured relationships at best. I remember a point in Little House on the Prarie where the family was discussing which of their brilliant and gifted daughters they would send to school and which they would keep at home to run the farm. With the understanding that they could only afford to do so for one of them and that it was her sole chance for a better life. They were deciding which of their children had the most promise and potential and were worth investing in. They vocalized how unlikely it was to work regardless, that they were taking a chance, and knew full well they were condemning every other child to a life of hardship. Little House on the Prairie was about Frontier Life but that's some loving poverty poo poo right there. I know families that had that same conversation and had to make that decision. Grim. Anyway, romantic comedies!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2017 10:51
|
|
|
This thread is real good. All the posts (except mine) are amazing. I'm very proud. I think a real depiction of poverty, where a subpar education and dying community become your cage and you can never escape, would be really tragic. People watch movies for escapism or something. A movie where a lone impoverished person in a struggling and cannibalizing family watches as all their class mates drop out, get arrested, get pregnant and disappear, or otherwise crash and burn and then when they try to get into college they don't even know enough math to pass the entry exam would probably make some people really depressed. Moving on. Should I watch Passengers? Because I have watched so many suspense movies and romantic comedies (and just movies in general) I am predicting that Chris Pratt is the actual creepy villain because there is no other human antagonist and the woman is always the survivor. Forgive me if that prediction is correct. I don't mean to be right and spoil a movie I haven't seen and have only watched one trailer for. The thing is, I don't really wanna see a movie about how a creepy man obsesses over a hot girl and sabotages a space ship before waking her up so they can bond over survival before being too suspicious and getting found out then going completely psycho. So um, without spoiling. Am I wrong? Am I right or rightish but trust me Jenner it's worth it? Should I see it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 11, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
Shirec posted:I think it's more possible to show and do those sorts of things in books because it doesn't have to do it all visually. Like reading Vanity Fair, there is no way a movie can capture the whole scope of that book. Please continue to talk about Bee Movie in this thread. Bee Movie is a romantic comedy. It has the nice boyfriend, the crazy woman, the nerdy I'm gonna link Pick's review of Bee Movie here when I find it. quote:
 I got the movie and the tissues and the chocolate* but my spouse wants to watch it with me and they are working too late and being too busy. I told them if we don't get around to it this weekend I'm watching it without them!*I ate most of the chocolate already. Excellent folks talking about Passengers posted:Good stuff. Hmm. I clicked on the spoilers because I decided I didn't want to see it and I'm really glad I was wrong but ick, mansplaining movie. No thanks. On one hand a realistic depiction of creepy guy obsessed with woman doing outrageous poo poo that we could point at and be like, "Look, see! You do this! You do this all the time and it is gross! Please stop!" Would be really good. On the other hand, it's a realistic depiction of creepy guy obsessed with woman doing outrageous poo poo. 💩 By the way, I believe a romantic comedy starring Sandra Bullock and Paul Rudd would be the Ultimate Romantic Comedy. Just pure, transcendent RomCom. The RomCom singularity. The only reason there hasn't been one (please tell me if there has been one I looked and did not find one) is because they would have to stop making romantic comedies forever after because nothing could surpass it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Also, what the gently caress is up with that weirdly racist part where Chris Rock's mosquito character rants about how all the mosquito women only go for non-mosquito men? It was so very racist. Chris Rock really needed that paycheck. Mosquito women also date non-mosquito women.  I found Pick's review of Bee Movie. It's a thing of beauty. While we haven't been able to schedule a time to watch When Harry Met Sally this month because we've all been so busy one of the Movie Watching Crew linked me to this hilarious podcast about romantic comedies today and I figured I'd share it. They talk about all the hosed up poo poo in romcoms and how creepy they are. They completely point out how seriously not okay Love Actually was and my gosh how did I miss it? Now I feel bad for liking it so much! Jenner fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jan 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Shirec posted:In my head, Grease ends with the makeover but she is like "Nah boy" and runs off with Rizzo I'm just gonna make this canon. I have that power. Hello friends, I'm back and I still haven't watched Stardust because I got sucked into a vortex of activism. Sorry for neglecting my own awesome thread. But I come with content because I just saw Bend It Like Beckham on TV and I have opinions! First, depiction of religious minorities in a movie. Wow. And real cultural headbutting depicted without making them seem primitive or backwards. This is landmark. I loved Jess' family. Second, queerbaited again! I'll never learn!  But you know, that's way too harsh. It's not queerbaiting at all. The fact that they are mistaken to be lesbians is crucial to the plot. The fact that it's not treated like, "Wow, two chicks so hot" and instead really shows the stigma is really good.Third, their friendship is just so good and so precious and I love them. Kiera Knightley still too twiggy, frail, and thin-looking to be a real woman's soccer player. (Have you seen the US women's team? Gosh!) But it's fine, I'll suspend my disbelief because it's so good! Fourth, you fuckers! Why did you have to put in the crush on the coach storyline?! YOU WERE DOING SO GOOD. So gross! Ick! And those men they hook up with were garbage! I don't care that they're not gay together but they should have taste, drat it! Overall a really enjoyable movie! Really glad I watched it. And I swear, I am going to watch When Harry Met Sally with the crew and Stardust as soon as I can. I'm also in talks with someone and learning how to run a podcast so maybe I can make this a thing. If I do, I'll let you all know and probably try to recruit every last one of you to talk with me about romantic comedies and their ilk.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Shageletic posted:Which is infinitely more problematic. The whole idea that queer relationships are inherently more "adult" is extremely homophobic. The fact that a perfectly fine gay romance was replaced with a really uncomfortable power imbalance relationship is just the worst. I still haven't seen Stardust and I haven't watched anything that I could argue was somewhat of a romantic comedy lately. My apologies. I've been so caught up and my crew of romcom watchers appears to have dissolved. RIP. I'll just watch some on my own soon because this thread is really good.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 23:46
|
|