| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crazrick
Liger
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 655
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 3:04 pm Post subject: Rules of Rom-Com... er, Buddy Love comedy |
 |
|
this is long and rambling, but I need guidance and support, Cats...
get a beverage and a snack and dig in!
you have been warned!
I admit, I don't do much rom-crap... uh, er... Buddy Love comedy.  
So, I don't know the genre as well as others, OK. So, I ask my fellow Cats and Kittens (and the Resident Ocelot) for clarification on a few rules of the genre known outside STC! as the dreaded Romantic Comedy...
I have a general grasp of the basic formula:
Incomplete Hero + Counterpart who makes up for what Hero lacks + and a Complication to their coming together = romantic fun, just add laughs
but, is there more to it?
obviously, the inclusion of a B Story might add another dash of genre to the mix, correct?
so let's say you have a Buddy Love comedy with a bit of Golden Fleece or Out of Bottle B story magic. Let's say your hero believes in a certain magic/miracle that will make dreams come true, while there is another sort of magic that makes its presence known or felt and could offer the same salvation.
So, in their search for Buddy Love, Our Hero goes on a Golden Fleece to capture this magic, or have an OOTB experience to enhance or distract from the real magic building between the leads... m'kay?
is it Double Mumbo Jumbo or some manner of Deus ex Machina to claim your hero believes in BOTH types of magic just when it is convenient and quick to resolve issues between belief systems, to advance the story? if there is no other build-up toward a character shifting their entire belief system from one solid form of wishful thinking to grasping for another form of magic to save the day, is that considered a cop-out, and weakens the whole story? or is that an acceptable conclusion to the rom-com buddy love genre story, just because you hit page 85 and need to wrap it up under 90?
Buddy Love and Soulmates... if a character believes there is but 1 true blue solid gold love in a lifetime, so they have been content their whole life waiting for the exact situation which unfolds in the story, is it acceptable then to have that character shrug off their belief system? or at least dumb down the beliefs and expectations in order to find a lesser degree or lower level of happiness? If they go from believing once in a lifetime to believing in eh, anything's possible, anyone can love me now... and tomorrow I may love several dozen, just for kicks! would you feel cheated having read or watched the story unfold to that resolution?
I could see this scenario playing out in a GF model, where the character believes one way, but is shown the other way over the course of the story, and comes to adopt that belief system. But, what if the story is BL/OOTB? is there still room to cram a GF ideal in the mix, just to mix it up and pay it off in some twisted fantastical way? simply because it's rom-com Buddy Love comedy genre??
what if the character claims to some how believe in both Once in a Lifetime and Love Could Happen Any Time, with any one, so go for it! What if every character in the story turns out to be a soulmate in some form or another to the lead? soulmate-love, soulmate-friends, soul-mate seamen (don't get any on ya!  ), soul-mate maid... what's the lesson or point of a story where everyone is soulmates except the Ultimate Evil who ends up cold and alone? how can everyone be soulmate somethings except for that one person? doesn't that make the outsider's story more interesting than the Hero-Joiner who becomes soulmate somethings to everyone? Doesn't belief in soulmates need to be isolated to maintain its speciality, its allure?
if a story is some how about magic but also some how about soul mates, but you also want to 'keep it real' so you make pains to destroy the illusion of the magic (while then still also as well maintaining a hint of a flicker of the possibility that some sort of 'magic' still might exist, maybe...), and you also lessen the effect of so-called soulmate by including soulmates of every flavor, does that dull the effect of the magic, the soulmate-love and the whole story you intended to tell when you first wrote FADE IN?
not to mention the Pitch... if the pitch claims the story is about someone who may not believe in magic, but thru the course of the story learns magic exists and must claim this magic to find love before its too late, then, when the story plays out, no forms of magic play into the resolution at all (except the catch-all Buddy Love genre at work ie They fall in Love because they are meant to... because it's rom-com!) does that hurt chances of sale? if the pitch doesn't match the story, say the pitch reads as GF, but the story develops as OOTB or ROP, does that hurt?
oh, and can the Hero of a Buddy Love comedy be the one to state theme as though it is something they believe? if Theme is supposed to be the lesson learned, and the Hero states the theme as something they already believe, doesn't that imply that the story is complete, so no need to watch 80 more minutes of the story play out? (well, being Buddy Love, we know how the story will end any way, so that's why I don't bother to begin with  but, I digress...) shouldn't it always ALWAYS be someone else who states theme to the Hero, so the hero has something else gnawing away at their brain for the bulk of the story, until they 'get it' in the end? or does that rule not apply to Buddy Love comedy either?
lastly, is it at all ever remotely acceptable in the genre called Buddy Love comedy (or any other genre I suppose) to include characters-- and even/especially several characters-- 'just for laughs' if they could be condensed into fewer characters and serve the same exact function, same exact actions, same exact dialogue without losing any story-stuff or compromising any part of their (incompletely-imagined) character?
Say you have 'friends of the Hero'... followers... not just 1 buddy, but 2 or more... Buddy Love buddies, to show the Hero what they may be missing by sticking to their belief system when there's a whole world of other options to consider and pursue. Shouldn't those buddies bring something completely unique to the story? or can they be interchangeable and two-dimensional, given that the heart of the story is the Buddy Love between the leads? can you have 3 or 5 or 12 extraneous buddy characters who only serve to riff on each other? one character, one scene, one-liner who then disappears? or a single 'joke' that may crop up several times throughout the story, just for a gag while not really providing much forward momentum to the story itself? and/or all of the above at once? sounds like GF right?
ok, so can you have a Buddy Love comedy, with a Golden Fleece team gathered for an OOTB experience to encounter a DWAP navigating an ROP, and simply say it's possible because 'hey! it's rom-com!'
if the only person who can truly tell the difference between minor characters is the writer who has the vision in their head of those characters as individuals, if a reader who reads the story can't differentiate between minor characters riffing on each other 'for comedy' or can't find a function for each character outside the jokes between them, are those extraneous characters Acceptable or Allowed, given the genre of Buddy Love comedy?
can anyone cite some examples of Buddy Love comedy movies where any of these topics for discussion are dealt with? (OK, I know one Cat who can, but can anyone ELSE??)
I'm very curious to see examples of how these things work themselves out to a satisfying motion picture experience...
is it really an acceptable leap-of-logic catch-all when readers/viewers of a Buddy Love comedy finish the story and maybe scratching their heads over some of the nonsense they (characters and viewers) endured, to have the writer turn, smile, shrug and say 'what did you expect? it's rom-com!'
if it is so easy to crank out these 'rom-coms' because of that catch-all caveat, I'm up for the (lack of) challenge!
please, discuss...
and
write on!
_________________
On this island, nothing stays buried for long.
Secrets have a way of coming out...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
writingmama
Bengal Tiger
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
Posts: 211
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Blueberries
Tiger
Joined: 03 Mar 2009
Posts: 119
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can experiment with having a dozen two-dimensional characters who provide comic-relief or you can even do a slapstick BL. Why censor yourself? You can do anything you want. That's the whole point of moving the genre forward: doing something we haven't seen before. But:
Above all you have to deliver on the dramatic requirements of the genre. No matter what new and groundbreaking elements you bring, you still need to deliver on the BL genre: Incomplete hero, counterpart, complication. Otherwise it's going to be a very unsatisfying experience (and propably difficult to sell).
Sometimes you can get so excited with the idea of breaking new ground, and you get carried away and lose sight of the genre requirements. It can happen to the best of them. Look at Tarantino's Deathproof. It's a MITH that wants to break new ground and move the genre forward, and it does, it truly does, but in the process it loses sight of a MITH's dramatic requirements. Terrific stuff there, nice dialogue, cool characters, fantastic car chases, but it's ultimately an unsatisfying movie (my opinion). There's a lesson to be learned here: Break new ground, but don't get so distracted that you lose sight of the genre you're in. This is just what Blake always maintained. (And if you watch Basterds, you'll notice that QT has learned that lesson)
You seem to me a bit condescending toward BLs. If it's not a genre you absolutely love, why would you want to write a BL? If the thought of Tom Hanks telling Meg Ryan, "Don't cry, Shopgirl. Don't cry," doesn't send a shiver down your spine, well... Here's a test: If you're not willing to have a BL film festival in your house and watch 15-20 BLs before you even begin writing your script, you propably don't love the genre enough. Why make things difficult? I'd stick with a genre I know and love if I were you.
Hope that helps, Rick.
_________________
There's no sex in my violence!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Ralph Dobbins
Siberian Tiger
Joined: 24 Feb 2008
Posts: 459
Location: La Grange, Georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alright Rick. After two liters of Coke Zero, a leftover bowl of Spanish rice, and an assortment of Halloween candy I give you the following.
I'm not sure I'm completely following you here. But because I write RomCom let me take a stab at it.
| Quote: | | is it Double Mumbo Jumbo or some manner of Deus ex Machina to claim your hero believes in BOTH types of magic just when it is convenient and quick to resolve issues between belief systems, to advance the story? |
It’s not the God of the Machines unless you have some previously unmentioned force come in at the last minute to resolve the story with no regard for what the hero has done up to that point.
What's wrong with the hero not knowing which is the nature of love. His/her not knowing results in an inability to commit for fear of getting it wrong. He/she wants to find the right answer in order to get it write and not screw it up. The hero embarks on a quest to discover if:
a. Everyone has a soulmate
or
b. Love can strike at anytime.
I wouldn’t view that as DMJ, just indecisiveness.
Along the way the people may change their mind based on circumstances.
| Quote: | | If they go from believing once in a lifetime to believing in eh, anything's possible, anyone can love me now... and tomorrow I may love several dozen, just for kicks! would you feel cheated having read or watched the story unfold to that resolution? |
I wouldn't feel cheated at all. Life's circumstances are always challenging our preconceived ideas. I would "feel cheated" if a character held fast to his/her ideas in spite of events that would logically challenge his/her way of thinking about love.
| Quote: | | is it really an acceptable leap-of-logic catch-all when readers/viewers of a Buddy Love comedy finish the story and maybe scratching their heads over some of the nonsense they (characters and viewers) endured, to have the writer turn, smile, shrug and say 'what did you expect? it's rom-com!' |
It’s no greater leap of logic to believe that a man bitten by a radio active spider gains super human strength and swings from buildings using webs he sprays from his writs.
No more or less acceptable than if a sci-fi writer would turn, smile, shrug and say “What did you expect? It’s sci-fi!” Audiences for the most part enter a film with a suspension of disbelief appropriate to that genre. As writers it’s our job to know how far to push the envelope. Otherwise you end up with farce.
IMO the Romantic Comedy audience isn’t looking for the reality of relationships, but an escape from it or at the very least a little hope in them. So no I don’t think they see it as nonsense at all. Most (not all) people who go to see this genre want to see “and they lived happily ever after”.
| Quote: | | if it is so easy to crank out these 'rom-coms' because of that catch-all caveat, I'm up for the (lack of) challenge! |
Lack of challenge? Who said writing Romantic Comedy is easy? Trust me on this it’s not easy at all particularly if you hold the genre in contempt. (not saying that you do). IMO it is the most difficult because it deals with the most universal and mystifying primal emotion. Literary snobs say the same thing about romance novels which actually sustain the publishing industry.
| Quote: | | I'm very curious to see examples of how these things work themselves out to a satisfying motion picture experience... |
Love Potion No. 9?
Tate Donovan, a geek biochemist with no luck at all with women, is persuaded by his friends to visit a gypsy, Madame Ruth. She gives him "Love Potion No. 8", an elixir which can potentially force anyone of the opposite sex to instantly fall in love with him. He shares the potion with his friend, Diane, and together they embark on a "scientific evaluation" that gets out of hand.
or
Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Connor Mead, a successful fashion photographer and a Lothario keen on casual sex, goes to his younger brother's wedding to convince him not to marry. He arrives at his dead uncle's estate during the rehearsal the night before the wedding; he starts in, taking his brother aside, trashing marriage. Later in the men's room, his uncle, who taught Connor all he knows about women, appears to him, confesses to have been wrong, and tells Connor that three ghosts will visit him that night: the ghosts of girlfriends past, present, and future. Connor has already set the breakup in motion. Can he learn anything from his life and fix what he's broken?
You can get a lot more real life industry based insight from Billy Mernit author of Living the Romantic Comedy. There are some worthwhile posts in his archives. Also here’s the link to a comparison of BS2 to the Rom Com structure Mernit presents in his book.
http://savethecat.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=14484#14484
Hope there's something of use in all of this.
Ralph
_________________
The task of the writer is to make you hear, to make you feel- it is, before all, to make you see. That - and no more, and it is everything.
Joseph Conrad
|
|
| Back to top |
|
writingmama
Bengal Tiger
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
Posts: 211
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Woohoo for Love!
Thanks Ralph and Blueberries!
I am such a fan of the rom com/buddy love genre and I really appreciate all you say here!
LET LOVE RULE!
HUGS!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
crazrick
Liger
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 655
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rachel T.
Ocelot
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 768
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, basically, what you want to know is, how many of the rules of RomComs (not to be confused with the rules of BLs) can you get away with breaking, so you can pat yourself on the back for being so clever, yes?  
Well, tough cookies, Rick! You're not getting away with it that easily! 
Let's face it, right off the bat: RomComs have such a lousy reputation in Hollywood precisely because everybody thinks they can write one. And because everyone thinks they can write one, everyone does. And since they are the cheap "block movies" that Hollywood studios covet, the studios buy whatever's available, even if it's not that great. Thus, the market is saturated with second-rate pictures, written by authors who are now convinced they're right about RomComs, and RomComs get an even lousier reputation.
RomComs have their quirks and surface traits - the "meet cute" is the first that comes to mind - but these are icing on the cake.
Buddy Loves, on the other hand, have their rules too, but these are central to the story and it's construction.
I think most RomComs pay attention to the frosting, and forget the rules.
| Quote: | | so let's say you have a Buddy Love comedy with a bit of Golden Fleece or Out of Bottle B story magic. Let's say your hero believes in a certain magic/miracle that will make dreams come true, while there is another sort of magic that makes its presence known or felt and could offer the same salvation. |
OOTB are often about how the magic makes things worse for the hero. Or, in cases like Liar, Liar, magic just gets the ball rolling, and shows that the hero needs to change. Magic is never the answer.
| Quote: | | is it Double Mumbo Jumbo. . . |
Yes. (Unless you're going for the "true love is magic and a universal cure-all" thing, in which case I as a ticket-holder would want to bop you on the head for serving up such cheese. )
| Quote: | | or some manner of Deus ex Machina to claim your hero believes in BOTH types of magic just when it is convenient and quick to resolve issues between belief systems, to advance the story? |
(emphasis mine)
You've answered your own question: Yes. The only reason you want him to believe in both is to give yourself a shortcut at the end. You don't want to go to the work of showing him changing his mind and actually wrestling with the question, and it's much easier to have him believe in both and simply discard one whenever it's convenient for you. Problem is, it weakens the story, short-changes the audience, will possibly get you re-written, and makes me, as the audience, want to bop you again.
| Quote: | | if there is no other build-up toward a character shifting their entire belief system from one solid form of wishful thinking to grasping for another form of magic to save the day, is that considered a cop-out, and weakens the whole story? |
Yes. Never ever ever show a character just changing their mind on the spur of the moment for no other reason than author's convenience. Ever. Story is in the struggle; no struggle, no story. Watch or read any version of Pride & Prejudice - there's a reason that story is one of the cornerstones of modern romantic fiction. Elizabeth Bennet spends the entire story changing her mind about a variety of people, from minor shifts about people she's known her whole life, to the most important about-face regarding Mr. Darcy.
| Quote: | | or is that an acceptable conclusion to the rom-com buddy love genre story, just because you hit page 85 and need to wrap it up under 90? |
It's so-called acceptablilty might be why RomComs have such a lousy reputation.
| Quote: | | Buddy Love and Soulmates... if a character believes there is but 1 true blue solid gold love in a lifetime, so they have been content their whole life waiting for the exact situation which unfolds in the story, is it acceptable then to have that character shrug off their belief system? or at least dumb down the beliefs and expectations in order to find a lesser degree or lower level of happiness? If they go from believing once in a lifetime to believing in eh, anything's possible, anyone can love me now... and tomorrow I may love several dozen, just for kicks! would you feel cheated having read or watched the story unfold to that resolution? |
I wouldn't feel cheated if you'd spent 90 minutes giving me darn good reasons for them changing their mind. But they better be riveting reasons.
| Quote: | | What if every character in the story turns out to be a soulmate in some form or another to the lead? |
This is common in Superhero/Fleece fiction (that's "epic fantasy" to you) - the idea of the hero leaving home and building his own sort of "tribe," Team, or Inner Circle. The Team often has skills that the hero doesn't, and together they make a unit that can acheive the goal. Think Star Wars.
| Quote: | | what's the lesson or point of a story where everyone is soulmates except the Ultimate Evil who ends up cold and alone? |
That with so many people in the world who are willing to help you, love you, and support you, the only reason to end up alone is because you CHOOSE to?
| Quote: | | how can everyone be soulmate somethings except for that one person? |
Love is a choice, dude - a decision to put someone else's needs and well-being above your own. It's not just warm-fuzzies. The warm-fuzzies are "like."
| Quote: | | doesn't that make the outsider's story more interesting than the Hero-Joiner who becomes soulmate somethings to everyone? |
Only if the writer sucks at creating heroes. And/or villains.
| Quote: | | Doesn't belief in soulmates need to be isolated to maintain its speciality, its allure? |
Depends on how you define "soulmates." If you're talking about that thrill of "She's the only person in the world who GETS me!" then that creates a bond between those two, yes. But that doesn't necessarily mean isolation and exclusion. "Being gotten" can be thought of a refuge to run to, a safe place to cocoon and rest up, rather than a wall that divides.
| Quote: | | if a story is some how about magic but also some how about soul mates, but you also want to 'keep it real' so you make pains to destroy the illusion of the magic (while then still also as well maintaining a hint of a flicker of the possibility that some sort of 'magic' still might exist, maybe...), and you also lessen the effect of so-called soulmate by including soulmates of every flavor, does that dull the effect of the magic, the soulmate-love and the whole story you intended to tell when you first wrote FADE IN? |
Well what story are you intending to write?? The story that says "Yes! Love is real magic - the wands and rainbows kind - and soulmates are real and isn't it all just so freakin' amazing!" ? Or are you writing the "No! Love is real, but it's the every-day, nitty-gritty, down-to-earth kind of 'magic' and soulmates aren't a fantasy, they're a relationship that takes work" story?
| Quote: | | not to mention the Pitch... if the pitch claims the story is about someone who may not believe in magic, but thru the course of the story learns magic exists and must claim this magic to find love before its too late, then, when the story plays out, no forms of magic play into the resolution at all (except the catch-all Buddy Love genre at work ie They fall in Love because they are meant to... because it's rom-com!) does that hurt chances of sale? |
You're not even close to the pitching stage, yet, but: if you say the story is about someone finding and using a magic they don't believe in to acheive a goal, and then no magic appears at all, then I, as a script reader at the studio, will bop you on the head yet a third time, because you didn't deliver on the promise of the premise. If you claim magic is integral, then the whole reason to pick this up is to see the person who believes in love but not magic have to use magic to get love. If no magic appeareth, I will then be mad. With cause. You didn't give me the script you promised.
| Quote: | | and can the Hero of a Buddy Love comedy be the one to state theme as though it is something they believe? |
Sure. The story is about proving them wrong. Or right.
| Quote: | | lastly, is it at all ever remotely acceptable in the genre called Buddy Love comedy (or any other genre I suppose) to include characters-- and even/especially several characters-- 'just for laughs' if they could be condensed into fewer characters and serve the same exact function, same exact actions, same exact dialogue without losing any story-stuff or compromising any part of their (incompletely-imagined) character? |
I suppose you could - but you have enough to do in 90-110 pages as it is. Why on earth would you want to? And if you've got that much time to spend on them, you're not devoting enough attention to the plot. And I, again, will be mad.
| Quote: | | is it really an acceptable leap-of-logic catch-all when readers/viewers of a Buddy Love comedy finish the story and maybe scratching their heads over some of the nonsense they (characters and viewers) endured, to have the writer turn, smile, shrug and say 'what did you expect? it's rom-com!' |
NO!!! This is pure laziness on the writer's part! I don't care what genre it is, it's lazy! 
Movies to watch:
Pirates of the Caribbean - Boy loves Girl. Girl likes pirates. Boy must save girl from cursed pirates. Fun as Captain Jack Sparrow is, the story centers around Will and Elizabeth, and the sequels wobble when they stray from those two.
Shanghai Noon - much bantering, no extra characters in sight.
Pride & Prejudice - (watch the Kiera Knightley version if you can't wade through the BBC version or the book. Even my guy cousin liked it.) Good example of character change.
How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days - the director flat out said "these two would have liked each other anyway." I like Kate and Matthew, but this is a big red warning sign. Nothing as fundamental to the story as this is should be taken for granted. Ever.
*edited to remove reference to a story that was only an innocent bystander and in no way involved.
_________________
Don't be afraid to admit that inside you is a seething, fiery core of ambition and lust for success that would appall Napoleon.
-Russell Galen
Last edited by Rachel T. on Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:39 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
crazrick
Liger
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 655
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Rachel!! for wading thru amd weighing in on most every question or aspect of the art and craft of Buddy Love comedy
I would ask that you not assume I am wondering about anything specific especially nothing I have written, but for the most part, you done good to avoid direct 'attacks' on whatever you know about what I've shared of what I wrote.
hopefully someone else finds all these insights as useful to their craft as I have.
anyone else got any more bits to gnaw on?
good stuff Cats!
_________________
On this island, nothing stays buried for long.
Secrets have a way of coming out...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rachel T.
Ocelot
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 768
Location: Michigan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
crazrick
Liger
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 655
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just so we're clear, I DON'T DO ROM-COM!!!!
some day, maybe we'll be able to more-closely examine the specific story I had in mind when I posted this, but for now it remains a general sort of ponderance...
thanks for the insights, Cats and Ocelots!
please, continue...
_________________
On this island, nothing stays buried for long.
Secrets have a way of coming out...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
martinm
Bengal Tiger
Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 213
Location: Atlanta, Ga
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rachel T.
Ocelot
Joined: 15 Jan 2008
Posts: 768
Location: Michigan
|
|
| Back to top |
|
crazrick
Liger
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 655
|
|
| Back to top |
|
writingmama
Bengal Tiger
Joined: 13 Aug 2008
Posts: 211
|
|
| Back to top |
|
crazrick
Liger
Joined: 28 Mar 2008
Posts: 655
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
