Talk:Romance film

Chick Flick

I disagree with the definition of "Chick Flick" and have issue with it, partly of personal definition and somewhat justifiably as it is uncited. "Chick Flick" is not simply about the popularity with women but with women as a target audience and not necessary a "romance" or have romance as a main theme (learned in school, looking for reference). Just think of the more recent "chick flicks" like Boys on the Side (arguably about failing romance but the uniting theme is their friendship), Thelma and Louise (again, female "partners in crime"), Riding in Cars With Boys (despite the title, the larger theme is her relationship with her father and her son, not just her boyfriend/husband), and The Women (female friendships where only one friend is truly affected by her -lack of- romantic relationship with her husband).

I'm not ready to remove it yet as currently "chick flick" redirects to a Charmed episode and it deserves a mention somewhere else. I'd be so happy if someone beats me to the punch as it may take a while to find references now that I no longer have access to online journals. However, it shouldn't stay as it is.--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, found appropriate article. Working on correction. --Blondtraillite (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LGBT films

I have reverted the addition of LGBT films (piped to List of LGBT films) in the subgenre section, because it does not belong there - the entire LGBT film corpus is not a subgenre of romantic film - rather romance is probably a subgenre of LGBT film output. What would be a better way , ideally with source and a few notable films, to cover this. Is there a subgenre of romance that has an LGBT romance? or is it that romance and its subgenres encompasses all kinds of love stories. The article should contain the information that romantic films are made about love between women, between men, and indeed all variants of love. The term 'forbidden love' in the article text may be intending that, but it is extremely coy if it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I've left the sentence that Rainbowpeace has readded, but agree that it is clumsy. There are a couple of good sources on my talkpage to start a section on the portrayal of lesbian and gay romances in the movies. I can't think of a mainstream movie that includes a transgender romance, but I'm sure they exist in niche cinema. It occurs to me that a little section on "controversial" romantic themes - outside of LGBT - or romantic films might also be interesting. I'm thinking interracial romance(for which there is sourced material available on the films that 'broke the boundaries'), Now, Voyager and other films which struggled to get their story (rather than just shots of Jane Russell's cleavage) out under the Hays Code etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please examine my latest attempts to add LGBT romances into the Romance film section. See if that works better. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it really is undue. LGBT romantic films can be classified pretty well with the current subgenres (they can be dramas, "chick" flicks, or romcoms as well, etc.) Instead, I have added examples of LGBT-themed romantic movies in the examples (admittedly, my personal favorites).-- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Romance film is not a section to discuss the politics of homosexuality. There is a page dedicated to that entirely. This should purely be about romance films. No need to mention homosexuality itself. That last paragraph in the intro is completely unnecessary, out of place, and turns the romance film page into something else entirely. And for what? To fit someone's political agenda. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the definitions given for romance film already apply, no need to segregate homosexuality from heterosexuality by making it the big elephant in the room. As a gay person, we don't want little reminders put in place to remind people. It is unnecessary. If you want to talk about the politics of homosexuality in films and how it is seen, there are other pages or you can make one wholly devoted to it. This should be about romance film and the humans in those romance films. No need to make that pointless mention of same sex movies going as far back as 1919. It is very out of place and ruins the rhythm of this article. You'd be doing us gays a favor and stop trying to make us into the villains by thinking we need special treatment.97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said anything about special treatment. Discussing a group does not equal "special" treatment. As it is now this article has very few mentions of LGBT people. And if your opinion about LGBT people is correct you should most certainly have removed the sections about racial and social class discrimination as well. Now I don't care if you are accusing the LGBT community of pushing some agenda and that is irrelevant to the article. If anything this article pushes a heterosexual agenda by only mentioning straight romance and showing a picture of a straight couple from a film. And DO NOT try again to speak for the entire LGBT community or any section of it. I don't claim too and you shouldn't either because that as a genderqueer I find your accusations of me asking for "special" treatment offensive as the LGBT community should considering history. Don't think that just because you are gay that dosn't mean you can be homophobic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that is how it plays out. There are better ways to insert gay films without making it blunt. There is a list for a reason. It doesn't belong in the intro paragraph as the article is about romance films, not the politics of homosexuality. You need to take it elsewhere.97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the part of social class and racial discrimination should be removed. There are various forms of discrimination and it would be easier to use an umbrella term anyways.

But don't you call me homophobic just because I want to keep the romantic films page on topic and make sure everything on there pertains to romance movies and not just certain romance movies.

And for the record, YOU do not speak for the gay community either! Its offensive to me that you think we gays need special treatment and need to be treated differently from heterosexuals by constantly pointing out that we are gay. You may like being the big elephant in the room, but I certainly don't. If you want to list gay movies, there is a section called "Examples". Do that there. Otherwise, stop trying to create a problem where non exists. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with politics. Many films show bank robberies, murders, genocide etc. and are not putting on a political agenda for these actions. But the defintion of a romance film is a film that emphasizes the romance between two people. It IS NOT a film that emphasizes the romance between a MAN and WOMAN. I'm more then happy not to put it in the intro paragraph if you would kindly tell me where to put it. As for it being there you are outnumbered and unregistered. Ellen of the Roads, Obsidian and I all agree it should be in there we are just not sure how to put it in there. You are outnumbered three to one. However if you have an idea where it should be put I am more than happy to accomidate that-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I told you exactly where to put it, in the Examples section. Go to the LBGT films page, and put some of those films into the Examples section and make notes next to them. Anything more needs a page of its own that talks about the various political takes on the issue of couples in romance films, or films in general. And yes, it does have to do with politics when something is placed in a position that doesn't fit at all. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Or just put the gay reminder in the beginning of the Examples section to explain why some of the films in the example section are LGBT and not. Since you make the claim that they have been around since 1919, the actual list of films would be the best place to put that little comment. Not the intro.97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Romance film vs. Romantic subplot

In the intro, I added a paragraph that basically compares a romance film to a movie that has a romantic subplot. While there is a good definition of what a romance movie is, the page does little to tell the readers that not all movies are romantic. Most movies have a romantic plotline but that is a subplot. It is important differentiate a real romance film from that of a movie that merely has a subplot. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It also makes a great segway into the actual list of romantic film genres.97.91.177.81 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Without sources to give it credibility (ie comments from critics etc) it is unsourced opinion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you big baby, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanticPlotTumor

Why don't you go look for sources Ckatz? Instead of attacking people? 97.91.177.81 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm, who's on the attack here? The person who is trying to explain this to you, or the person using language such as "baby"? You've added a link that does not meet the requirements of the reliable sources policy. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)