Comments on: Enough with the Rom-Com’s already. http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/ Just another WordPress weblog Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:53:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: paul http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-16 paul Thu, 30 Nov 2006 00:28:33 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-16 Probably not diane keaton's legs, if i had to guess. Probably not diane keaton’s legs, if i had to guess.

]]> By: Tad http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-15 Tad Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:20:25 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-15 Ugly Betty? Ugly Betty?

]]> By: Amy http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Amy Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:13:45 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-13 the movies, not alex, I mean. Alex is very com. the movies, not alex, I mean. Alex is very com.

]]> By: Amy http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Amy Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:13:28 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-12 too much rom and not enough com? too much rom and not enough com?

]]> By: Amy http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Amy Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:12:53 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-11 To understand how bad these flicks must be, put this post in the context of Alex being hands-down the most romantically inclined woman I know. (And also the funniest!) To understand how bad these flicks must be, put this post in the context of Alex being hands-down the most romantically inclined woman I know. (And also the funniest!)

]]> By: jessica http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-10 jessica Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:35:47 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-10 i agree, these movies have all been made a thousand times. love the nickname rom com. i agree, these movies have all been made a thousand times. love the nickname rom com.

]]> By: Andy http://www.alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Andy Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:56:17 +0000 http://alexrichards.org/2006/11/19/enough-with-the-rom-coms-already/#comment-9 I like your rant. Keep up the good work! Well, it's probably not surprising to hear me whole-heartedly concur that rom-coms suck! (Especially since India's caricature of me from way-back-when is of me saying "rom coms suck!") The problem with most rom-coms is that the terrible lack of deviation in both plot and casting. The following argument is definitely open to attack on the basis that obviously it's not my favourite genre, but I feel that there are plenty of tired-old genres in which well-crafted if formulaic movies can really stand out. In particular horror movies tend to stick to a narrow path, and action movies, for example heist movies, have a formula by definition, yet can still be polished enougg that you feel you haven't just wasted $10.75 and two hours of your life. Examples here would include Ocean's Eleven, Lock Stock, Sneakers (notably missing would be the dreadul Italian Job remake). And yes, the big stars like Brad Pitt seem to crop up rather often (likewise for horror, where Sarah Michelle Geller is the new Jamie Lee Curtis), but most of the films have different leads with different casts in different roles. In contrast rom-coms seem to be dominated at any one time by a few over-exposed stars. Currently it's Jude Law, who seems to be making seven films a year. In the last few years I've groaned at the idea of Matthew McConaughey, Ben Affleck, Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant and of course the queen of half-hearted rom-coms Meg Ryan. The scripts are generally pure drivel and the plots are driven by some horrible gimmick (You Have Mail, Forces of Nature, The Wedding Planner - oh I forgot! add J-Lo to the list above!) Most (well, OK, some) of those actors are proven themselves capable of a decent performance in other films/genres/decades. Nothing is going to change as long as people keep going to see these movies. The market for this kin of thing is entirely driven by the star attraction. Nobody expects anything in terms of plot or dialogue beyond the boy-meets-girl, boy-and-girl-are-attracted-yet-somehow-unable-to-see-it-or-act-on-it, boy-and-girl-get-together-at-last fill-in-the-dots crap that is prevalent. As for ugly guys getting the hot girls, you have to give us some hope (I mean, you have to give <i>them</i> some hope, not me. Cos I'm not ugly. And I already got the hot girl. I like your rant. Keep up the good work!

Well, it’s probably not surprising to hear me whole-heartedly concur that rom-coms suck! (Especially since India’s caricature of me from way-back-when is of me saying “rom coms suck!”) The problem with most rom-coms is that the terrible lack of deviation in both plot and casting. The following argument is definitely open to attack on the basis that obviously it’s not my favourite genre, but I feel that there are plenty of tired-old genres in which well-crafted if formulaic movies can really stand out. In particular horror movies tend to stick to a narrow path, and action movies, for example heist movies, have a formula by definition, yet can still be polished enougg that you feel you haven’t just wasted $10.75 and two hours of your life. Examples here would include Ocean’s Eleven, Lock Stock, Sneakers (notably missing would be the dreadul Italian Job remake). And yes, the big stars like Brad Pitt seem to crop up rather often (likewise for horror, where Sarah Michelle Geller is the new Jamie Lee Curtis), but most of the films have different leads with different casts in different roles.

In contrast rom-coms seem to be dominated at any one time by a few over-exposed stars. Currently it’s Jude Law, who seems to be making seven films a year. In the last few years I’ve groaned at the idea of
Matthew McConaughey, Ben Affleck, Sandra Bullock, Hugh Grant and of course the queen of half-hearted rom-coms Meg Ryan. The scripts are generally pure drivel and the plots are driven by some horrible gimmick (You Have Mail, Forces of Nature, The Wedding Planner – oh I forgot! add J-Lo to the list above!) Most (well, OK, some) of those actors are proven themselves capable of a decent performance in other films/genres/decades.

Nothing is going to change as long as people keep going to see these movies. The market for this kin of thing is entirely driven by the star attraction. Nobody expects anything in terms of plot or dialogue beyond the boy-meets-girl, boy-and-girl-are-attracted-yet-somehow-unable-to-see-it-or-act-on-it, boy-and-girl-get-together-at-last fill-in-the-dots crap that is prevalent.

As for ugly guys getting the hot girls, you have to give us some hope (I mean, you have to give them some hope, not me. Cos I’m not ugly. And I already got the hot girl.

]]>