Interesting love interests which are ditched in favour of conventional ones

nyarlothothep

This may not be a topic for this forum specifically, but the two examples off the top of my head are in films/tv films so here goes. Basically in tv-film adaptation of Jason and the Argonauts there was this female who was an archer and far more interesting as a character than the conventional princess who had the personality of cardboard and who Jason? was made pre-destined to fall in love with even though the chemistry was more evident with the female archer. Now last time I saw this was in 2001 so I may be remembering things incorrectly but that was the overall impression I got.

Secondly Eoweyn? shield maiden of Rohan. I remember reading the LOTR books and thinking she was a really cool character but for frame of reference I'll just focus on the Two Towers which is a faithful enough adaptation. She was x1000000000 better as a character than the elven bird (Arwyn?) that Aragorn is again almost pre-destined by the logic of the plot to marry. Yet Eowyn gets brushed aside.

Even in Tron, Tron is the dull guy, Jeff Bridges should have got the girl in the computer world.

I notice this time and time again in films/tv where the unconventional secondary love interest is unsuccessful in their aims and the conventional/boring counterpart gets the girl/dude/whatever. What is the reason for this.

Precious1

I don't know about those movies, but I did notice that in the film "The Artist" The male protagonist has a dour wife, but he is complicit in this and is particularly cruel to her in one scene when he could have given comfort. However, in the end, he and the blithe female protagonist do get together.:)

nyarlothothep

Interesting, I definately think there a lot of unspoken values in films, things which aren't said because the writers aren't aware of them but just take them as givens. For example Gollum in LOTR gets his ass kicked around a lot even when he's trying to be good, what is all that about? Is it something ubersmench type of philosophy at work, that the weak deserve to be beaten up for being weak? I know that he's murdered some other hobbit in the past because of his addiction and that this is a bad thing but Gollum's existence is one of misery and endless punishment, how is he meant to redeem himself in the face of constant perpetual antagonism rather than going to other way and plotting to kill Frodo and Sam. Or Top Gun being a gay romance story, especially when you look at the beach volleyball scene. Anyway to relate this back to the thread at hand, what are the unspoken values whereby an interesting romance interest is displaced in favour of the conventional prince or princess?

Sad Professor

I think the secondary love interest tends be more appealing/interesting for the very reason that they are secondary. Their relationship with the protagonist is not meant to be, which frees up the writer to create a very different, perhaps darker, more haunted character than the main love interest. In most cases the secondary love interest is, one way or the other, doomed.

So in the case of LOTR, Eowyn is more interesting than Arwen because Tolkien knew she wasn't going to end up Aragorn and wrote her differently (better?) as a result. I also suspect he originally planned to kill her off at the end but chickened out.

BunShopVoyeur

That young guy isn't Tron.

nyarlothothep

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

That young guy isn't Tron.

Tron 1982, "He fights for the users!"

BunShopVoyeur

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Tron 1982, "I fight for the users!"

I apologise profusely.

nermal15

Pretty in Pink, obvious example. Duckie was way more interesting than Blaine.

nyarlothothep

Sad Professor wrote: »

I think the secondary love interest tends be more appealing/interesting for the very reason that they are secondary. Their relationship with the protagonist is not meant to be, which frees up the writer to create a very different, perhaps darker, more haunted character than the main love interest. In most cases the secondary love interest is, one way or the other, doomed.

So in the case of LOTR, Eowyn is more interesting than Arwen because Tolkien knew she wasn't going to end up Aragorn and wrote her differently (better?) as a result. I also suspect he originally planned to kill her off at the end but chickened out.

I don't think its necessary to doom them, for example Eowyn is interesting to begin with. I guess Aragorn ending up with Arwen makes Eowyn even more interesting because you kinda scratch you head thinking how can that be?! They could just make the primary interest interesting. For example in Arwen's case she fulfills all the standard conventions of feminity, she's demure, beautiful whatever but because she's basically the perfect wife, she's boring and one dimensional.

nyarlothothep

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

I apologise profusely.

No need, see below

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otppMltEGc4

Underdraft

Lord of the Rings. Sam hooks up with Rosie Cotton (when it's clear that he and Frodo were meant to be together).

Mellor

nyarlothothep wrote: »

For example Gollum in LOTR gets his ass kicked around a lot even when he's trying to be good, what is all that about? Is it something ubersmench type of philosophy at work, that the weak deserve to be beaten up for being weak? I know that he's murdered some other hobbit in the past because of his addiction and that this is a bad thing but Gollum's existence is one of misery and endless punishment, how is he meant to redeem himself in the face of constant perpetual antagonism rather than going to other way and plotting to kill Frodo and Sam.

The was a pretty evil character. He killed his fried in cold blood long before he became Gollum, or was "addicted". He tried to kill Bilbo also.
He tried to help Frodo at one point. But a large part of this was because if Frodo failed, he lost the ring. Most of the time he is waiting to get it back, or even leading them to trouble.

Gollum was lost, he couldn't be redeemed.

Tipsy McSwagger

Arwen gave up immortality for Aragorn so I think she wins.

Duggy747

Starship Troopers.

Rico should've wound up with Dizzy instead of dull Denise Richards who dumped him for her career. Poor Dizzy, she had it hard.

Would you like to know more? :pac:

Underdraft

Duggy747 wrote: »

Starship Troopers.

Rico should've wound up with Dizzy instead of dull Denise Richards who dumped him for her career. Poor Dizzy, she had it hard.

Would you like to know more? :pac:

He did end up with her (albeit she is killed before the end but I reckon he would have stayed with her had she survived).

Did you watch all of the movie?

nyarlothothep

Duggy747 wrote: »

Starship Troopers.

Rico should've wound up with Dizzy instead of dull Denise Richards who dumped him for her career. Poor Dizzy, she had it hard.

Would you like to know more? :pac:

Yes, this is an excellent point. Dizzy had more of a quirky character than Denise Richards who just conformed to all the conventions of society expects a woman to be. However Denise Richards was better looking but not so much that Dizzy couldn't win out with her personality. The same applies to Arwen and Eowyn. However I must note that Gollum does get an exceptionally hard time in the film, he gets routinely beaten up, strangled, insulted on a near consistent basis even when he is helping them. Afaik gollum was already transformed when he met Bilbo and he killed his friend under the power of the ring. I think Frodo almost killed Sam for the same reason too. I'm not saying Gollum isn't a murderer and shouldn't pay for it but sweet jebus he's get unduly punished for most of the Two Towers.

Duggy747

Underdraft wrote: »

He did end up with her (albeit she is killed before the end but I reckon he would have stayed with her had she survived).

Did you watch all of the movie?

I have never seen Starship Troopers and thus I'm just taking a complete wild stab at the story and names of the characters. Of course I saw it, by "wound up with Dizzy" I don't mean by just shagging her, I meant by the end it should've been her that hung around, not Richards.

Her and Dizzy should've had their fates switched. There was a scene recorded where they kiss after Richards is rescued, that would've made her even more unlikeable and him being completely pussy-whipped.

Sad Professor

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I don't think its necessary to doom them, for example Eowyn is interesting to begin with. I guess Aragorn ending up with Arwen makes Eowyn even more interesting because you kinda scratch you head thinking how can that be?! They could just make the primary interest interesting. For example in Arwen's case she fulfills all the standard conventions of feminity, she's demure, beautiful whatever but because she's basically the perfect wife, she's boring and one dimensional.

Yeah, but it's because she is the primary love interest and is destined to be with Aragorn that makes her boring to a large extent. Starship Troopers is a good example of this as well.

Love interests are always more appealing when their love for the protagonist is not meant to be. That the primary love interest tends to be conventional is a by-product of the fact that they are designed to be the primary love interest.

OldeCinemaSoz

Sunny should've been Harry's wife...

"What does a girl have to to go to bed with you?"
"Try knocking on the door?"

Apolloyon

Perhaps a bit off topic. But I've only seen one instance when this is subverted. In the move 'The Mask', because we're so used to romantic comedy conventions, we expect Tina (Cameron Diaz) the gangster's moll to be the false romantic lead and for Stanley (Jim Carrey) to end up with Peggy (Amy Yasbeck) the Newspaper reporter. Instead,

Peggy betrays him and he ends up with the 'bad girl' Tina and this in fact a much more satisfactory ending!

If only more films 'mixed it up' a bit. We'd get better movies!

SVG

Duggy747 wrote: »

Starship Troopers.

Rico should've wound up with Dizzy instead of dull Denise Richards who dumped him for her career.

Wasn't Starship Troopers just making fun of this convention though? All the cliches were pushed to ridiculous levels while maintaining a straight face. Rico had to end up with Denise Richards because that's how these things go. Their relationship is so hollow. I love it!

Rico + Ibanez forever!

ziedth

Duggy747 wrote: »

Would you like to know more? :pac:

I got a genuine belly laugh out of that, thank you. Good example too.

nyarlothothep

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, but it's because she is the primary love interest and is destined to be with Aragorn that makes her boring to a large extent. Starship Troopers is a good example of this as well.

Love interests are always more appealing when their love for the protagonist is not meant to be. That the primary love interest tends to be conventional is a by-product of the fact that they are designed to be the primary love interest.

Ok, so the problem I have with this is that the primary love interest has to conventional. Considering writers like Tolkien were unconventional (at least in their own personal lives, and I don't mean in the obvious countercultural sense but in the sense that if you read up on their political/philosophical positions they ran contrary to recieved wisdom) I'm surprised they pandered to the dictates of the mainstream/society as to what constituted an appropriate female love interest.

nyarlothothep

SVG wrote: »

Wasn't Starship Troopers just making fun of this convention though? All the cliches were pushed to ridiculous levels while maintaining a straight face. Rico had to end up with Denise Richards because that's how these things go. Their relationship is so hollow. I love it!

Rico + Ibanez forever!

Yeah, that was the genius of Starship Troopers. Everything about that film was full of win.

OldeCinemaSoz

Nancy Allen should've ended up with
the nerd in DRESSED TO KILL but ended
up marrying director Brian DePalma instead?!?!

nyarlothothep

I always thought she was a good match for Robocop

johnny_ultimate

The ending of Scott Pilgrim always bothered me, which is weird considering the comics got it dead-on comparatively. Ramona was a manipulative, dull woman in the film. Knives was a lively, charismatic character who was far more appealing, especially once she stopped being a stalking psycho.

That the film teased a natural Knives reunion before crapping out wit a Ramona one instead was a sour end to a disappointing movie.

WatchWolf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The ending of Scott Pilgrim always bothered me, which is weird considering the comics got it dead-on comparatively. Ramona was a manipulative, dull woman in the film. Knives was a lively, charismatic character who was far more appealing, especially once she stopped being a stalking psycho.

That the film teased a natural Knives reunion before crapping out wit a Ramona one instead was a sour end to a disappointing movie.

You should check out the Alternative ending.

Penn

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The ending of Scott Pilgrim always bothered me, which is weird considering the comics got it dead-on comparatively. Ramona was a manipulative, dull woman in the film. Knives was a lively, charismatic character who was far more appealing, especially once she stopped being a stalking psycho.

That the film teased a natural Knives reunion before crapping out wit a Ramona one instead was a sour end to a disappointing movie.

How was she manipulative? I mean, if anything, Knives going out with Young Neil and trying to dress like Ramona was surely more manipulative than anything Ramona did?

nyarlothothep

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The ending of Scott Pilgrim always bothered me, which is weird considering the comics got it dead-on comparatively. Ramona was a manipulative, dull woman in the film. Knives was a lively, charismatic character who was far more appealing, especially once she stopped being a stalking psycho.

That the film teased a natural Knives reunion before crapping out wit a Ramona one instead was a sour end to a disappointing movie.

Yes! Excellent example, Ramona was a complete bitch, pretentious, stuck up, self absorbed and as you say completely dull beneath the affections of "alternative." Just another conformist albeit an "alt. conformist" who are no different from mainstream conformists. Knives by contrast was far more interesting as a character and not nearly as dislikeable. She was in fact the only character who wasn't aloof, arrogant, pretentious or obnoxious but then this was a film about hipsters.

johnny_ultimate

Penn wrote: »

How was she manipulative? I mean, if anything, Knives going out with Young Neil and trying to dress like Ramona was surely more manipulative than anything Ramona did?

I recall her taking the piss relationship wise throughout the film. I haven't seen it since it was out in the cinema, mind, so I don't remember exact details. Manipulative or not, she was still dull as ****.

And yeah, they tried their hardest to make Knives crazy. But she had the most interesting character arc in the whole film, and by the end I was really rooting for her as a character in spite of her 'rough patch' in Act 2.

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The ending of Scott Pilgrim always bothered me, which is weird considering the comics got it dead-on comparatively. Ramona was a manipulative, dull woman in the film. Knives was a lively, charismatic character who was far more appealing, especially once she stopped being a stalking psycho.

That the film teased a natural Knives reunion before crapping out wit a Ramona one instead was a sour end to a disappointing movie.

I don't want to revive the disagreement I had with nyarlathotep about this (basically "hipsters like this film which means I can't") but I know what you mean.

There's a substantial amount of characterisation missing in the film for pretty much all of the cast - even though they're primarily one-liners, they flesh out the group dynamics and help explain how and why these people actually like one another. In Ramona's case the extended version of the first date with Scott helps make her more interesting and shows why Scott's interested in her. (There are also a couple of extra bits that give Knives a chance to shine and underscore the fact that, despite being the youngest one of the group she also grows up the fastest during the course of the film). Even at that, though - Scott's relationship with Knives only existed because he was in denial about all of his past mistakes. The whole narrative is about the necessity of growing up and acknowledging your mistakes, so ending with Scott and Knives back together would undermine everything else that happens in the film...now, an ending where Scott doesn't get together with Ramona or Knives could have been interesting, if a bit weird in terms of the tonal shift involved...

There are a couple of fanedits out there where people have woven these cut scenes back into the film, and while they aren't very long (about 5-10 mins extra max) they really help the film flow better. It's disappointing that Edgar Wright doesn't acknowledge the flaws in the film - he's stated more than once that the theatrical release is what he considers the Director's cut.

Penn

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I recall her taking the piss relationship wise throughout the film. I haven't seen it since it was out in the cinema, mind, so I don't remember exact details. Manipulative or not, she was still dull as ****.

I disagree. I think that due to her relationships in the past (particularly Gideon), she was just wary about being in a relationship with Scott, plus knowing what he'd have to go through to be with her.

And I can't say I ever really found her dull. I think that any dullness would just have been amplified due to the speed of the other characters and tone of the film.

I dunno, maybe I'm biased because I really liked the film and Ramona was insanely hot, but generally, I have to disagree with you.

Das Kitty

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, but it's because she is the primary love interest and is destined to be with Aragorn that makes her boring to a large extent. Starship Troopers is a good example of this as well.

Love interests are always more appealing when their love for the protagonist is not meant to be. That the primary love interest tends to be conventional is a by-product of the fact that they are designed to be the primary love interest.

It seems to be something found in "happily ever after" type pairings. It appears to be a pre-requisite for male characters to have a streak of darkenss running through them, but it's rarely present in the female character. Female characters in those stories are mostly the pure, beautiful, giving archetype. It's nothing new, folk stories and legends are filled with pairings like this (e.g. Persephone and Hades).

When the story is dealing with doomed love, including unrequitable love, the female characters tend to be more multifaceted, more like the male characters. If this female character is to become the primary love interest she must be transformed into the traditional role before she is acceptable. If she is not compliant, the love is doomed.

I actually wish that there were more films / stories where both parties compromised and changed and met somewhere in the middle, or where the female character doesn't need to lose her darkness to be allowed love. But I have to admit, the latter doesn't fall very happily into the "happily ever after" plot.

Maybe that's why I prefer plots where the love is doomed, because that's really the truth of all love. It's all doomed in the end one way or another.

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I always thought she was a good match for Robocop

johnny_ultimate

Penn wrote: »

I disagree. I think that due to her relationships in the past (particularly Gideon), she was just wary about being in a relationship with Scott, plus knowing what he'd have to go through to be with her.

And I can't say I ever really found her dull. I think that any dullness would just have been amplified due to the speed of the other characters and tone of the film.

I dunno, maybe I'm biased because I really liked the film and Ramona was insanely hot, but generally, I have to disagree with you.

Well what really bothered me about the film was that the comics - for all their flaws - never left me in any doubt that Ramona and Scott were a good couple. Ramona's unintentional hostility was much more credible, as a character she was much more charismatic and the ending (which is, if I recall, somewhat different and quote realistic unquote) far more believable. Scott's arc and the story's thematic focus were far stronger.

I just don't think Winstread had the acting strength to pull it off. It just felt like a monotone performance. Considering the strong performances elsewhere - particularly Pill, Culkin and of course Wong - she was just the least colourful in a film chock-full of colourful characters. I had various other issues with the film - not least it's attempt to fit six volumes of episodic material into one feature - but Ramona's bland characterisation was potentially the most grievous flaw.

Fysh

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I just don't think Winstread had the acting strength to pull it off. It just felt like a monotone performance. Considering the strong performances elsewhere - particularly Pill, Culkin and of course Wong - she was just the least colourful in a film chock-full of colourful characters. I had various other issues with the film - not least it's attempt to fit six volumes of episodic material into one feature - but Ramona's bland characterisation was potentially the most grievous flaw.

A lot of that is down to scenes being pared down or dropped completely in the editing process. It's worth watching the film again, but honestly if you do I would suggest seeking out one of the "restored" fanedits. The film flows much better that way (and also has a lot more of the humour from the comics- I can't believe the theatrical release cut lines like "you stole him with your advanced american slut technology!" )

nyarlothothep

Fysh wrote: »

I don't want to revive the disagreement I had with nyarlathotep about this (basically "hipsters like this film which means I can't") but I know what you mean.

Its not that I can't like this film, its that I don't because all the characters remind me of people in my generation who follow this hipster fad. None of the characters except Knives display any traits except know it all-ism, arrogance, aloofness, condescension and conceitedness. I didn't like the film because the characters, particularly Ramona, were dislikeable.

OldeCinemaSoz

CHINATOWN is a classic...

There sho' was some strange family
associations goin' on in that one...



:eek:

Fysh

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Its not that I can't like this film, its that I don't because all the characters remind me of people in my generation who follow this hipster fad. None of the characters except Knives display any traits except know it all-ism, arrogance, aloofness, condescension and conceitedness. I didn't like the film because the characters, particularly Ramona, were dislikeable.

Heh, I meant it when I said I didn't want to revive our previous discussion about it

I do understand where you're coming from about the characters being snarky (though it didn't bother me that much, and I thought it fit in quite well with the themes of the film). In the theatrical release, Ramona is most certainly the duller of the two options for the most part. It's quite surprising how much quality material was left on the cutting room floor - so many jokes that helped show the group dynamic beyond the trying-too-hard-to-be-cool teenagedness or, in the case of Scott and Ramona, why the two of them actually found anything to like in one another. And all for the sake of a leaner running time

(Mind you, I also think it's criminal that Wright didn't find a way of including Scott Pilgrim Vs. The Animation into the film somehow - the whole Kim & Scott thing makes a lot more sense when that's included...)

OldeCinemaSoz

Frackin' hell!!!

Did anybody ever see BRING ME THE HEAD
OF ALFREDO GARCIA? So much love from
one man to one headcase...

OldeCinemaSoz

Didn't Susan George ditch her love Dustin Hoffman
for something more er, more earthly in STRAW DOGS? :eek:

I'm looking forward quite eagerly BTW for what James Woods
can do in the part in the impending and upcoming remake...

Kinski

I still find it difficult to believe anyone thought Scott Pilgrim was anything other than rubbish (but that's a whole other discussion!)

I was always curious about that girl (Russian, I think) who lived across the hall from Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker. Mary Whats-it was kind of a wet blanket.

Sad Professor

OldeCinemaSoz wrote: »

Didn't Susan George ditch her love Dustin Hoffman
for something more er, more earthly in STRAW DOGS? :eek:

I'm looking forward quite eagerly BTW for what James Woods
can do in the part in the impending and upcoming remake...

She didn't ditch Hoffman. The other guy raped her before letting his buddy have a go.

The Straw Dogs remake came out last year and was rubbish. All the actors in the original were better. They looked and acted in a way that added to the rural horror aspect of the film, something which the casting in the remake totally failed to achieve. I really thought Lurie was going to demonise the rednecks in the film, but he doesn't. Peckinpah's film was as much as a horror film as a psychological thriller, a fact which obviously went over Lurie's head.

don ramo

Duggy747 wrote: »

Starship Troopers.

Rico should've wound up with Dizzy instead of dull Denise Richards who dumped him for her career. Poor Dizzy, she had it hard.

Would you like to know more? :pac:

Underdraft wrote: »

He did end up with her (albeit she is killed before the end but I reckon he would have stayed with her had she survived).

Did you watch all of the movie?

she was retarded or something, she

dies happy cause she got to have rico

****ing retard like:rolleyes::rolleyes:

LittleBook

Casablanca ... ffs Elsa, Laszlo can continue his work without you! Stay with Rick ... don't mind him, you won't regret it!!!

OldeCinemaSoz

Sad Professor wrote: »

The other guy raped her before letting his buddy have a go.

I must have missed something, then?

Anyhoo...Peckinpah's films always throws up some cunumdroms.