Stop With Love Interest

[Lord]

Yeah it's pretty tiresome, but then they need to give female audiences something.

X-Men First Class got away with not having one. Well, they sort of had the romance between Magneto and Professor X, so there's that.

With X-Men First Class they also had decente female characters to make the female audience enjoy the film (Mystique), and Professor X x Magneto did bring the shippers t:

 

[BlackFox]

No, but often it is. The fact that it is basically mandatory, should tell us something.

Romance can easily make a 100 million dollar difference. Women are a key demographic.

Without a designated love interest, a some of these movies wouldn't even have female characters in them.

Oh I am not saying that its not done for that reason also but its not JUST that.

Lets be honest men watching super hero films want eye candy as well!!

There does need to be better written female characters in comic book movies. Black Widow was ok in Avengers but not a main player.

 

[spider-neil]

X-Men FC had Mystique relationship with Charles, Eric and Beast. The love interest isn't in your face but it's there.

 

[spider-neil]

I don't mind love interests in movies but it has to feel EARNT.

Spidey - Gwen/MJ
Superman -Lois
Batman - Sylina
Hulk - Betty
and so on.
These are the long term love interest for the heroes so they are going to end up together, we get that but it should be organic rather than felling in love purely because the script tells them to. But if the took out the love interest all together, sure the hero and villain would get more screen time but you'd lose the female audience. It's not worth it.

 

[Teelie]

No, but often it is. The fact that it is basically mandatory, should tell us something.

Romance can easily make a 100 million dollar difference. Women are a key demographic.

Without a designated love interest, a some of these movies wouldn't even have female characters in them.

This is part of the problem. The assumption women want or need romance to make a movie worth seeing.

Strong, independent and capable female characters could do the job better and not totally sideline the movie or force plots to focus on a damsel in distress, probably the most cliched storyline ever. I think most women would rather see that than their gender marginalized into a helpless plot device.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well to be fair, almost all comics already have a mandatory romance plot.

Now granted, some of them do actually have strong, independent and capable female characters. But it's much easier to focus on Peter Parker and Gwen or MJ, than it is to develop a character like Black Cat.

If it works, why fix it?

Women obviously go for damsels. Those godawful Twilight movies broke like every Box record.

 

[Green Goblin]

Gwen Stacy was is the best lol

 

[spider-neil]

Gwen Stacy was is the best lol

Yep, she is my favourite female love interest by miles and miles. Didn't need to be saved, was quick and clever to use the bunson burner to close the door and as a weapon against the Lizard, to cook up the antidote, get the people out of the building AND have the smarts to figure out her dad had made Peter promise not to see her. Which comic female love is as proactive and resourceful ever in the history comic book movies?

 

[Teelie]

Well to be fair, almost all comics already have a mandatory romance plot.

Now granted, some of them do actually have strong, independent and capable female characters. But it's much easier to focus on Peter Parker and Gwen or MJ, than it is to develop a character like Black Cat.

If it works, why fix it?

Women obviously go for damsels. Those godawful Twilight movies broke like every Box record.

As I pointed out, it's sometimes an integral part of the character's history but not always necessary. And Gwen Stacy despite being Parker's girlfriend was capable enough not to be helpless. And Catwoman is an excellent example of independence that doesn't need to be saved.

It doesn't need to be no interest although it would be nice for a hero to be a hero without his girlfriend being convienently captured.

Women aren't one collective idealogy either. They don't all flock to romantic comedies or fear action movies or super heroes. The Avengers was a mix of roughly 50/50 male and female without a heavy romantic subplot. Pepper Potts was anything but a damsel either. She ended up holding her own in the end.

I can't explain Twilight but then I don't know anyone who can.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

No, but often it is. The fact that it is basically mandatory, should tell us something.

I don't think that something being mandatory makes it immediately good or necessary. But I guess they're not taking the risk.

Romance can easily make a 100 million dollar difference. Women are a key demographic.

Sounds logic, but is it true? Women that go and see a superhero movie do it exactly because of that? And are they always/most of times satisfied by that?

Without a designated love interest, a some of these movies wouldn't even have female characters in them.

That's a different thing.

 

[weezerspider]

It really depends on the story your telling. The Man With No Name Trilogy, Stand By Me, There Will Be Blood, Saving Private Ryan, Easy Rider and One Flew Over The Cookoo's Nest don't really have love interests and the stories those films tell don't need one. However, some stories are better off with one. I don't think you can say all superhero films are better off with or without a love interest, it just depends on what story they are telling. So like you said, if it makes sense, by all means go for it, if not, don't do it.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I don't think that something being mandatory makes it immediately good or necessary. But I guess they're not taking the risk.

Why take it? My point is simply that most comics do the work for them. Except maybe Batman, where they felt the need to tack on a childhood romance subplot, which was in my opinion, the weakest part of the film. But the ladies dug it.

Sounds logic, but is it true? Women that go and see a superhero movie do it exactly because of that? And are they always/most of times satisfied by that?

I think it is. That's not to say women won't go see a superhero movie anyway, but romance, no matter how shallow, appeals to millions of them. Why not include it? It obviously works, since people have made a fortune off of it.

 

[KenK]

I don't know what you're complaining about. Most of these examples of love interests are character who were love interests in the comics anyway. If they didn't show up in the first films, they'd be in the sequels eventually.

 

[Visualiza]

I only agree with this in the sense of poorly executed romance. As with anything else, there's a right way to do it, and then there's the wrong way.

If it can't(or in the case of many film makers, won't) be done correctly, then I say don't do it at all, but if there's a sincere, worthwhile romance that serves the plot and characters, I'm all for it. I don't believe in doing things in movies 'just because', whether it's romance, action, humor, or the current flavor of the day - 'angsty, dark, gritty, grounded, serious realism'.

There's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to fiction, but audiences are falling for these tricks & tropes(and worse yet, clamoring for them) more often with every new release.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Why take it?

I'm not saying they should.

But if you ask: to make better movies when the love interest is not necessary.

My point is simply that most comics do the work for them. Except maybe Batman, where they felt the need to tack on a childhood romance subplot, which was in my opinion, the weakest part of the film.

It was the very worst part. And like in that case, in many others.

But the ladies dug it.

You sure, or is it just something that sounds plausible?

I think it is. That's not to say women won't go see a superhero movie anyway, but romance, no matter how shallow, appeals to millions of them. Why not include it? It obviously works, since people have made a fortune off of it.

Thing is this is just speculation.

 

[Teelie]

I don't know what you're complaining about. Most of these examples of love interests are character who were love interests in the comics anyway. If they didn't show up in the first films, they'd be in the sequels eventually.

Eventually is fine. If they serve a purpose beyond being a plot device to force a showdown with the bad guy or make the hero choose between the love interest or doing their job. Just because it was in the comics doesn't mean it isn't lazy or that it's always necessary to propel the character.

 

[Steamteck]

I understand that. But the man of steel was so forced. That movie should have focused on their relationship meeting as friends/partners whatever but their romance moved way too fast. Same deal with Thor, Blade 2, and most movies in general.

I guess its all in what you get out of things but this was the first Lois I actually got where it came from. Not forced or the result of some strange Kryptonian insanity like most of the earlier ones.

Thor forced? not as smooth and only an idiot would choose jane Foster over Sif but it was very well integrated and helped give him is human connection

I'll give you Blade 2.

Seriously I think you would only be satisfied if it was just a romance plot

 

[cherokeesam]

X-Men FC had Mystique relationship with Charles, Eric and Beast. The love interest isn't in your face but it's there.

Mystique and Beast were "in your face," and Xavier/Moira was there, but more subtle.

Love interests don't *always* have to be there, but they are as natural to storytelling as the three-act structure, and as ancient. Good luck getting any kind of reasonable Box office without at least the hint of a love story somewhere.

 

[Teelie]

It's not all that hard to make a movie without it. It's just so expected now that it is thrown in whether it's needed or not, even when it's a detriment to the story. That's when it becomes a problem. Forcing a love angle into a story without the need for one just detracts.

 

[cherokeesam]

It's not all that hard to make a movie without it. It's just so expected now that it is thrown in whether it's needed or not, even when it's a detriment to the story. That's when it becomes a problem. Forcing a love angle into a story without the need for one just detracts.

Sure it does. But forcing a boom-boom-pow climax without the need for one detracts, too. Forcing an eee-vil villain into a story without the need for one detracts, too. It's just a structural necessity, and that's not anything new. Like I said, that's been the case for literally thousands of years of storytelling. Three-act structure; villain; climax; love interest. Joseph Campbell 101. Doesn't always work, just like any other part of the story structure. But it's par for the course.

 

[Teelie]

So no evil villian, what is the hero fighting against? Stories need the protagonist and antagonist, they don't need the love interest. I don't recall love interest being part of it unless you reference one of the 7 original stories in which love is only part one I can think of off hand. Pretty sure you're conflating Campbell with Three act structure which clearly doesn't not state "hero must have love interest" only "everyone knows better who they are" by the end of the story.

Typically, superhero movies fall under the "Overcoming the Monster" or "The Quest" but only "Comedy*" requires a romantic thread. Of course some stories mix and match these and every so often you get the hero who goes through "rebirth" and becomes a hero from a villianous origin. None, however, dictate there be a romantic interest.

* In this instance, comedy is not "ha-ha" comedy but the original meaning.

edit: Additional detail.

 

[cherokeesam]

So no evil villian, what is the hero fighting against? Stories need the protagonist and antagonist, they don't need the love interest. I don't recall love interest being part of it unless you reference one of the 7 original stories in which love is only part one I can think of off hand. Pretty sure you're conflating Campbell with Three act structure which clearly doesn't not state "hero must have love interest" only "everyone knows better who they are" by the end of the story.

Typically, superhero movies fall under the "Overcoming the Monster" or "The Quest" but only "Comedy*" requires a romantic thread. Of course some stories mix and match these and every so often you get the hero who goes through "rebirth" and becomes a hero from a villianous origin. None, however, dictate there be a romantic interest.

* In this instance, comedy is not "ha-ha" comedy but the original meaning.

edit: Additional detail.

Since you're quoting tvtropes chapter and verse, here's some light reading for you:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoAntagonist

Disaster movies (man vs. nature/God). Drug/other addiction movies (man vs. chemicals, or whatever). Internal conflict (man vs. himself). Coming of age stories (boy vs. man). Rom-coms (man vs. his own heart/head/penis). Medical dramas, rescues from fires/accidents, land the crippled plane safely, rebellion against society....lots of stories don't have villains of any sort. Who's the villain in 127 Hours? Armageddon? Apollo 13? The Poseidon Adventure, or Twister, or The Towering Inferno? 2001? 2012? Top Gun? American Pie? Easy Rider? Trainspotting? Clerks? Annie Hall? Field Of Dreams? Citizen Kane? Huckleberry Finn?

 

[Teelie]

The villian antagonist is not always a person. It can and has been environmental, internal, it can be supernatural. It's still an antagonist and you're kind of proving my point. No love interest in most of them. And while a superhero is almost always foiled against another person it's not necessary either but it does make for an easier story for audiences. A love interest just hinders the story in many cases.

 

[MadVillainy]

I dont mind love interests. i just want to see them to be done well, which I honestly dont think we've gotten in a superhero movie yet except Cap and Peggy.

 

[Teelie]

I think Tony Stark and Pepper Potts was done well too. It just too often gets tacked onto a story and so blatantly out of place that it's a problem.