Yeah! Those first several years of OP were just about perfect. It's kinda amazing how well Oda treated his women characters before and how lame they are now.
As pointed out ad nauseum, I'm with those not against romance so much as against bad writing. There's a huge difference between romance and love, and most popular stories shove the former in without the latter. So when I see two people gazing at each other longingly with absolutely zero chemistry, it's just a boring waste of time. The stupid thing is that many romance stories are like this. Take Twilight, which is fair game because of its immense financial success. The two main characters have absolutely no chemistry, and that goes beyond the actors mailing it in. The whole thing is worth reading just for the snark, but Steven Lloyd Wilson's breakdown of the one Twilight move he watched could summarize a good percentage of written romances:
I'll admit, it comes to mind because it was rather surprising to see The Farce Awakens try to shoehorn chemistry into the story with little indication that there'd be sex (more like "we're keeping this PG so don't get your hopes up), and it was equally awkward. So, it's not love that's the problem but the writer's inability to portray intimate human emotions, because it turns out a failure to portray chemistry even with sex surgically removed is every bit as terrible. I kind of wonder, what is it about popular writers these days that are almost psychopathic in their delivery of what audiences want with at best a creepy facade of human interaction? Are we going through a lull, or is this what audiences really want?
I feel like I'm being honest to how the show portrayed everything.
At the end of the day, a female character is just a character itself. Give her a personality, flaws, motivations and everything else you'd give to a character and run with it. A character should be good or believable regardless of gender. The difference shouldn't be in the character itself, it should be how the world interacts with said character and how said character interacts with the world if anything.
Ehhh. . . no. In my experience, the more enlightened people are, the more gender and sexual orientation are merely cosmetic. Mind you, that doesn't mean they don't get their freak on, but sex is more of a really fun pastime than something that torments their minds and defines their identity. Same with fictional characters. For a lot of "hard" sci-fi, while traditionally male-dominated, you can gender swap (and straight/gay swap) any number of characters and it'd be the exact same story, because these characters -- when "on screen", at least -- are using their higher brain functions. If a character is an engineer, it scarcely matters if engineer is a he or a she; what matters is whether or not engineer character knows how to avoid a warp core breach. What they do in the bedroom is the least interesting part of them from the author's PoV, or at least irrelevant. The problem is that if your stated objective handed down by the publisher or executive producer is to get asses in seats, sex sells and smart people are "boring". So, there's pressure to make everyone dumb and manufacture drama and fuck each other. If you're going to write, say, a trashy romance novel or trashy action movie, you need to channel your inner dumbness, the core of what we are as human beings.
That's why I said that the differences is how the character interacts with the world, and not so much the character itself.
John Wick does it well because John's romantic past is a huge of his character and his motivations, and the movie rightfully leaves it in the past.
What are you talking about? GotG1&2 had romance, Ant-man had romance, Thor:Ragnarok sorta had romance, Spidey longed for a girl, even Cap and Widow flirted a bit. While romance isn't the main plot in a "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl" way, they certainly don't shy away from all these beautiful, single people being sexually interested in each other. Personal relationships are a primary way to have these superhero gods retain some humanity and give audiences a way to relate to them. Superheroes without girlfriends turn into Batman (or Wolverine, I guess).
Peter Parker's love of Mary Jane is a core part of the character though.
You stated a fact, then the worst opinion ever back to back. Impressive.
Romance wasn't a fodder in John Wick. It didn't serve to please the audience.
In all situations Nolan seems to do better when the female love interest starts out dead. I think he has a woman problem.
Persistent pursuit might be romantic in movies, but not real life. Romcoms usually portray such behaviour (Say Anything, Love Actually, There's Something About Mary, Pride and Prejudice, Bollywood films, etc) as positive and it can have a real-time effect where men feel justified in stalking. How I Met Your Mother commented on this with their Dobler-Dahmer theory where it can be charming (Lloyd Dobler) or creepy (Jeffrey Dahmer). In studies done, people who endorse stalking myths that the pursuits despite rejection just means they really love you or the stalking victims were playing hard to get and changed their minds afterwards are more likely to be stalkers themselves and women are more likely to be victims of stalking. Oh and there's a gender double standard where men's persistent pursuits are seen as positive but if a woman chases a man it's predominantly considered as negative.
I really like this example and kind of agree with you OP. But as you and some others mentioned, it can be done well if it isn't telegraphed from the start and develops naturally with both characters becoming well defined. Romance movies spend their whole running time (hopefully) making you want to characters to get together while in a horror you're mostly focused on the protagonist(s) getting out of a situation alive, which is why seeing two of them kiss after escaping the ancient evil always seems to fall flat. Even in movies like Indiana Jones, it's never ever worked for me in any of the films and seems to bloom just because Indy is a man and the love interest is a woman. Can't they just be partners who recover the thing and send it to the museum together? Two platonic friends that just build more trust and faith in one another now that they've survived some harrowing ordeals?
LOL
Yep completely pointless awkward and just slows down the story but we got to get those boobs in and make sure we absolutely show no dick.
Uhh? Until Crystal Skull blew it up, the whole premise of Indiana Jones' sex life (or that of any dashing action hero for that matter) is that he doesn't do romance; he has flings. All passion, no gooshyfeels. He's a man's man, adventurer, dreamy hunk, scoundrel, walking testosterone factory, and as such he has throngs of female fans who'd willingly sleep with him. It's even strangely honest about the implications in Raiders of the Lost Ark; he broke Marion's heart and in doing so destroyed a friendship so he was reluctant to find her again. As opposed to James Bond where traditionally, the women are disposable.
Among the main cast it for the better they don't, but there's plenty of romance in the series, just small ones.
I totally believe Bond is much worse for this. But (Speaking from a place of having only seen Crystal Skulls once) the payoff of Indy having consequences for living the life of the pulp hero, ending up with a kid and a forever broken relationship, despite trying still doesn't paint those originals much better, IMO. I know he's supposed to be a macho ladies man sweeping women off their feet by the very reciting of his daily life, but the relationship in Raiders is still fucked up even though it doesn't have to be. Though I know there'll be consequences for Indy down the road when I see Raiders, I'm still pissed on the re-watch when the best he's capable of after basically landing her in a situation where he thinks he's killed an old friend's daughter and someone he loves is to look solemn and drink before going back on his adventure.
There's been good characters that seemed asexual until they're not.
When do they portray such behavior as positive in Pride and Prejudice? The article mentions Mr. Collins, but in the book and the most recent film, it's very much portrayed as negative.
