Not appreciated.
"Traditional" versus "Conventional" is just a battle of semantics. A TRADITIONAL or CONVENTIONAL LOVE STORY is when a MAN and WOMAN fall romantically in love with each other. This is the undisputed cornerstone of the motion picture industry. Probably the only point I'm agreeing with ANY of you wahckos on is that the LOVE and ROMANCE can be buried within a different type of movie other than a "Harry met Sally" type traditional romance.
No. We do not agree.
By conventional, I merely mean the B stories, as described by Blake Snyder, that -conventionally- turn up, in fact, in the films we watch. That
does include non-traditional relationships, if traditional romance in this discussion means only a hetero pairing of a man and a woman, as opposed to, for example, but not limited to, buddy-film romances, or so-called bromances. And I certainly do not mean to limit the scope to buddy romances. Therefore, it does not follow that "tradational" means the same as "conventional," at least as far as I intend, and within the context of this thread's discussion...so far.
Example: "The Terminator" was a traditional love story buried inside a Sci Fi in an NON-traditional way. ...Reece traveled across time for Sarah Conner. THIS is what the OP is looking for. Not someone loving their gun or their culture. But you're not going to see "The Terminator" listed under "Romance" anywhere movies are sold.
It's
hardly buried. And, it's exactly what posters like myself and Rayw, if I may speak for him for a moment, have been recommending the OP go ahead and include.
Once you venture out of the "Man and Woman" realm ...you cross the line into something else. Two guys getting it on is NOT a "Traditional Love Story". Now, before everyone starts whacking out "Homophobe!" replies on their keyboard, consider this:
That's, at the very least, debatable. Yes, true, a romance between two males is not traditional. However, it is not as simple as that. Probably, any romance between a male and a male that actually makes it into the cinema is likely to take the conventional, and, we can also say, likely, the traditional form of: boy meets girl (boy), boy looses girl (boy), and boy gets girl (boy) back. In that sense, it's very likely to be very conventional, and also at least semi-traditional. It would only fail to be traditional in that it's a homosexual romance. But, clearly, it would still be a conventional trope.
...I am a straight guy. I like women. Plain and simple! If I were being held prisoner in an enemy camp and they threatened to make me perform homosexual acts if I didn't start talking ...then I would probably be coughing up where my troops are hiding and when we were planning our attack.
Uhyeah. I'll take your word for it. Anyway.
I am NOT a big fan of "Traditional Romance Movies" ...but if the enemy was going to make me have sex with some hot girl if I didn't start talking ....I'm probably going to keep my mouth shut and do the girl.
Charming.
...
EVERYONE likes when a man and woman fall in love. You can hate SciFi movies ...but if it has a man and woman falling in love in a SciFi ...at least you have that to cling to.
Well, actually, no. Not everyone does.
To suggest that the OP should use something other than the "Man and Woman" archetypal romantic reference is to suggest that the OP dramatically limit his viewership potential.
Huh? Does not follow. The opposite is true.
I like how these quotes from Chimp and Richy work together:
=======================================
========================================
I point out that the original "Dirty Harry" movie didn't have a romance in it. So Richy points out that a LATER movie titled, "The Enforcer" did have a romance in it ...Therefore "Dirty Harry" has a romance buried within.
I point out that "Hellraiser III" didn't have a romance in it, and Chimp comes along and points out that the ORIGINAL "HellRasier" DID have a quasi-romance. ...Therefore "Hellraiser III" has a romance buried within.
...So on the IndieTalk Screenplay Forum, the only time an argument counts is if it's regarding the ORIGINAL movie in question ...(Unless you make a really good counter-point)... Then the only thing that counts is the SEQUEL in question.
.
Can't have it both ways, guys!
Obfuscation.
It's been way too long since I saw Dirty Harry, so I won't even try to guess or speculate.
I guess you didn't read that statement. I plainly acknowledged that I couldn't say about
Dirty Harry.
And I have complete confidence that mentioning
The Enforcer had/has merit.
NO!! ...Not at all! Traditional is Traditional. I'll agree with you that all you can do with a "Traditional Romance" is place it in NON-traditional situations. Anything else ...is just something else. Loving one's gun or their culture is NOT a "Traditional Romance". It's something completely different.
'Kay. And also sort of irrelevant. I don't think any poster thus far has meant to champion the inclusion of a traditional romance, as defined by you, in exclusive terms. Yes, the OP asked about traditional romance. And I think at least some posters have addressed traditional romance.
But, this is not exclusively the OP's thread. Once you post a thread like this, open it up for discussion, and solicit the advice of other ITers, then it becomes
everyone's thread, in my view. I hope that's also management's and the other regular ITers' view, as well.
So no, I don't think the discussion should be limited to, as you stated, a heterosexual romance between a man and a woman. This thread is not solely for the OP's benefit anymore than any of other threads should be exclusively for the benefit of their OPs.
Finally, I'm not a moderator, but I'd like to suggest you consider taking a more, if not professional tone, then at least a more cordial one with the rest of us. Perhaps you only meant to tease me, chimp, and whoever else you were addressing. But, for my part at least, it didn't translate well. I.T. is not the comments section of YouTube. There's no need for the adversarial approach. When I post on IT, I'm not out to make my fellow ITers look bad. We're not your enemies. At least, we don't want to be.
