Leave a comment

thelana June 16 2006, 17:58:27 UTC
I think a big trouble I have with shipping canon ships is precisely that they are supposed to be in love and I'm supposed to root for them. Which means that I expect them to *act* like they are in love. Which means that I'm allergic to characters treating each other insensitively. And therefore the reason why I'm allergic to most UST couplings (except Mulder and Scully). If the characters are kept apart I have to *believe* the reason. If the only thing keeping them apart is their own stupidity and immature misunderstandings (again, I was traumtatized by soap operas growing up in that regard), I'm just gonna assume that apparently their love isn't strong enough and they don't really care for/respect each other and why should I ship them then?

With characters who don't love each other (or not that deeply) at least I don't expect them to be nice to each other and understand each other.

That's why I always thought that Max/Liz were in many ways a carbon copy how to write a ship right. They hooked up quickly instead of drawing out the UST part forever, they weren't stale and did have obstacles but the obstacles were appropriately huge and therefore realistic, the kind you could buy into.

Reply

dangermousie June 16 2006, 18:02:22 UTC
Actually my point feeds into your point. I don't like UST that is drawn out too long (which is why Kara/Lee lost me and Logan/Veronica came close, but recovered). I can buy John/Aeryn, who have sex in the middle of S1 and slowly grow closer and confess their love at the end of S2 (but even before that, they are good friends) because it's written believably and they have valid internal reasons for why relationships with anyone are a bit compicated for them. But when TPTB do the soapy seesaw, I just mentally check out of there.

Reply

thelana June 16 2006, 18:05:58 UTC
Yeah it's really about having high standards and if characters are supposed to have this big grand love *on screen* then the standards are also the highest. It has to be there, in the writing. Too many couples are just thrown together and sold as awesome (Clark and Lana anyone?) but too little actual thought goes into the writing.

Reply

dangermousie June 16 2006, 18:07:43 UTC
Exactly. I'll buy the couple if it's on screen/on page. Clark and Lana are as excting as grass, but I'll be OK with them working as a couple because the show says they do, but I don't see anything there myself so my interest is never engaged.

Reply

thelana June 16 2006, 18:13:51 UTC
Clark/Lana kind of were the worst case scenario of couples, no chemistry, no good acting and exactly zero actual storyline. Personally, and probably unpopularly, good writing is the thing I care most about. If a couple has good writing and no chemistry at least I'll still accept them and ignore them, but not be offended by them. Now if the storyline is crap even just on paper (again "OMG, Taylor saw Ridge hugging Brooke and now she thinks he doesn't love her anymore." rinse and repeat 565 times) then I just want to stab it, every time they come on screen, even if the actors are trying their best (Grissom/Sara from CSI comes to mind).

I think too many shows (especially procedurals) treat romance as a preppy little sparkle on top. Something they throw in when they feel like it, not something they craft with care and actually write as an intentional storyline. Something that so often effectively ruins the couple and the characterisation of the characters involved.

Reply

dangermousie June 16 2006, 18:15:47 UTC
I would take great chemistry over great writing, but I'd prefer to have both :)

It's OK to have romance as a tertiary thing in a story that is primarily something else, but when you make it an important part of the storyline, you should follow it through well or not do it at all.

Reply

thelana June 16 2006, 18:21:37 UTC
It depends. Good chem can make average writing look pretty great, but to me it doesn't save really, really bad writing to me. I think they could have cast Max and Liz as Clark and Lana and I still would have thought it was a terrible storyline.

Now good writing without chemistry is at least unoffensive to me. Then again, I consider it the nature of good writing to compliment the actors and their type of chemistry. So even if there wasn't much chemistry, good writing should find a way to incorporate that. So even if I could never buy good writing/no chemistry as a big real shippy romance, maybe I could at least appreciate it as a good storyline. On the other hand truly bad writing will always be a waste of space to me.

It's OK to have romance as a tertiary thing in a story that is primarily something else

Agreed. But a romance is a storyline, even if it just pops up every three or five or ten episodes. It needs continuity and logic and progress just like every other storyline would. Sometimes I'm not sure if all writers realize that.

Reply

plazmah June 16 2006, 18:25:56 UTC
I think too many shows (especially procedurals) treat romance as a preppy little sparkle on top. Something they throw in when they feel like it, not something they craft with care and actually write as an intentional storyline.

And a big fat WORD to you. It's sometimes something tacked on to the show, not really integrated or evolving like the main plot of the show itself.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up