ramblings, mostly on shipping and related type things
Long-ish and maybe a bit ranty.
1. The Love Triangle: Love triangles? Generally, they suck. Why? Because almost always, one character is just clearly WRONG for the one with two options. As a result, the only real suspense is when the party with options will make the right choice. A a result, the 3rd wheel almost always comes off looking bad. For a triangle to really work and be interesting both options have to be equally worthy and a feasible choice. Most triangles go with the "third wheel" approach, and it's usually a girl who's CLEARLY meant to be with one, but is either drawn to or pursued by another. The only time I've seen this really work is in the kdrama Emperor of the Sea-Jung-Hwa cares for Yum Moon to a degree and pities him for the loyalties that tie him to the wrong people and, had she connected with him before connecting with Jang Bogo, she could have loved him. He loves her absolutely and completely and, while he and Bogo were friends, he was willing to stand asidefor their happiness, but once they were enemies, he no longer could. On the flipside, Chae Ryung loves Bogo but knows he loves Jung-Hwa. If her father hadn't demanded to know why she rejected all her suitors, she never would have burdened Bogo with her feelings. she doesn't demand his feelings or begrudge Jung-Hwa for having his love even though it hurts to see her, she only asks that he allow her to wait for the day he can love someone else.
Usually, though, it only REALLY works when they're equally worthy-just look at Casablanca and Philadelphia Story. In Casablanca, Rick and Laszlo love Ilsa equally, and she loves both men equally. When she fell in love with Rick, she thought her husband was dead, if she hadn't she never would have loved him. The love for one doesn't conflict with the other, except in that she can only be with one, and she knows which one is the right one to be with. Both men know that her love isn't a betrayal, and Laszlo doesn't begrudge her the affair-she thought he was dead, she continued living and tried to be happy, and when she learned he was alive, she went back to him. Both men understand and, once they know the situation, don't begrudge the other for having her love or allow it to color their opinion of each other(in fact, it probably causes their opinion to go up) In the end, it's not about "who gets the girl" or "who loves her more" but about what's more right for her, and will make her happier and safer. In Philadelphia Story, both Dexter and Macauley are perectly suitable for Tracy...we can easily see her being perfectly happy with both of them, and their not getting trampled by her, which her fiance would be. In fact, there's nothing really WRONG with her fiance except that he's so obviously wrong for Tracy(and dull, but he's decent enough) There's no "better man" question or the question of which one is suitable for her because they both are, it's just a question of which one she loves.
Modern times? Well, frankly, the ONLY reason Superman Returns worked on any level is because they made Richard just as good-if not better than-Clark...if anything, he's the better man, because he's willing to face the same dangers without effectively being a god.But beyond that, the only really GOOD example I can think of is in Damo...even though we, the audience, know the REAL reason Chae-Ohk and Jang Sung-Baek are drawn to each other(even though they don't) even without that, we can see why she would be drawn to him despite her love for Hwangbo Yoon. The two men are equally driven honorable and charismatic, they're just on different sides, and while both are of a stuts she can't touch, if she allows herself to love Hwangbo Yoon, he'll sacrifice everything to be with her, and she can't allow him to do that. In contrast, if she goes with Jang Sung-Baek, the one sacrificing everything is her, and that's more acceptable.
But usually? We get an obvious OTP, and then a third wheel put in either from the start, or later on to make things "interesting." Bah.
2. Imposing one canon on another: Small one. But, basically, the same story in different mediums is going to be told in different ways. If you've combined 2 characters into one, or told one character's story with another, DON'T bring in the other character just to make the fans of the original medium happy. Perfect example: Making MJ an amalgamation of MJ and Gwen in both the Spiderman movies and in Ultimate Spiderman. Gwen's story has been told and her role filled. Bringing in an altered Gwen is pointless. Or the X-Men movies. Rogue was effectively Kitty with Rogue's powers...served the plot and the "Logan and sidekick" point, so all is well. Until you bring Kitty in and it's just this cardboard cutout whining about life because the pertinent points have been covered by Rogue and hey, we can't finish while keeping Kitty in a cameo role, we have to make her IMPORTANT because we've all crushed on her since we were twelve! Also, if there's no clearcut "only one love interest" in the original canon, don't give us an OTP and then sacrifice it to make room for the one that's currently more popular in canon.
3. Bad Boys and Antiheroes: Authority issues and antisocial tendencies do NOT make a badboy or anti hero...they just make grouchy guys with social interaction issues. Badboys and anti-heroes don't CARE about right/wrong innocents saving the world etc. They're amoral, really don't care about authority and you're not going to get a response if you talk about the deaths of hundreds. They will, however, care if you tell them about one or two certain people(relative, love interest, friend, partner, whatever) who are part of that number. And if it's easier to save that one or two than to save them all, that's what they'll do. They don't CARE about the rest. That said, if theone they DO care about makes them save the rest and won't go otherwise, they will. Take Buffy and Angel. I've seen them called such, but Gunn and Angel are NOT badboys or antiheroes. Yeah, Gunn started out a bit that way, but only in the context that it was "kill the monsters to protect my people" than "kill the monsters to protect the inncocent." Neither one is "take home to mom" or "let be around the cops in general for more than 2 minutes" material, but they're both white hats. In contrast, there's Spike. Now, Spike is actually very sociable and rather likes people, granted mostly in the "people with legs" context, but if you don't cross him and his, you're cool. He likes Joyce because she treated him well and like a normal person even after she knew what he was, and once they get used to him, Willow, Tara and Anya always treat him ok, she he's cool with them. All he cares about when we first meet him is Dru and having fun, and later, all he cares about is Buffy and, as a necessary but limited extension, her family and friends. He never does anything remotely selfless or heroic that's not directly related to those goals. He would move Heaven and Earth and sacrifice both for Dru and then Buffy(and as an extension of Buffy, Dawn) This is NOT to say that Spike is better than Angel or Gunn(I like all three) or even that I prefer Spike/Buffy to Angel/Buffy, just that Spike is an antihero, they aren't. Also, Wolverine? Antisocial, but completely NOT an antihero. Jack Sparrow? Antihero.
3a. As far as shipping badboys and antiheroes with with the girl...it's our escapist fantasy. Unlike what a lot of people and many writers(paging Ron Marz paging Ron Marz) seem to think, we aren't delusional. We know it's not realistic and we know that it's not necessarily healthy. We do, however, like the fantasy of a man who is NOT a hero and is not nice and doesn't care about the worldor the safety of the innocents-or if he does, it's a secondary concern-but rather, about the life, safety and goals of one specific person, no matter what the cost is to himself or others and is willing to sacrifice everything for it. It doesn't even have to be for a love interest, it just usually is. WE LIKE the obsessive themes, the unhealthy ones, and most definately the "possible redemption" ones. We don't need saving from ourselves so please don't try to save us.
3b. This does NOT mean that the badboy or antihero is the one we'll always go for, or that they're the one we'll want to ship the heroine with, even if that relationship is the more interesting one. If the more conventional hero or "good boy" is better suited for the heroine or heck, just happens to be the one she loves, that's fine. Sometimes, it's preferable. Don't go with the bad boy 'ship just because you assume it's what the fans want. Two examples(though the paragraph as a whole doesn't apply to either, just parts) are Pirates of the Caribbean and Emperor of the Sea.
4. Ron Marz: Irrelevant to the bulk of my flist who would read this far, but Ron Marz CANNOT WRITE SHIPS. He needs to either leave the existing ships alone or just not go that route. His Witchblade rocked until he started messing with the OTP and forcing his own ship down our throats in what and I agree is his trying to "save" the book from Ian(never mind the fact that even when he isn't there, his relationship with Sara-romantic or otherwise-is one of the most interesting thiongs boutthe book) Now? It's going downhill fast. Every ship he creates(that I've read, which is Witchblade and every CrossGen ship he wrote) is boring at best(extremely rant worthy in one case, but we're not getting into that one again, it's well documented) The only exception has been Arwyn/Gareth in Sojourn, but even before turning the reins over to another, he was well on his way to wrecking that by shoehorning Cassidy in to make a *shock* love triangle. And frankly, I could have liked Cassidy if 90% of her character hadn't revolved aroubd pissing Arwyn off and making it a triangle. But every other ship of his that I've read? Bored me at best.
I could continue on for quite a while, but the fingers are tired and Jack of Fables wants to be read.
ETA: You disagree with my opinion on something, fine. I have no problem whatsoever with debates. You tell me my opinion is bull because it's not the same as yours? That's something else altogether, no matter who you are.
1. The Love Triangle: Love triangles? Generally, they suck. Why? Because almost always, one character is just clearly WRONG for the one with two options. As a result, the only real suspense is when the party with options will make the right choice. A a result, the 3rd wheel almost always comes off looking bad. For a triangle to really work and be interesting both options have to be equally worthy and a feasible choice. Most triangles go with the "third wheel" approach, and it's usually a girl who's CLEARLY meant to be with one, but is either drawn to or pursued by another. The only time I've seen this really work is in the kdrama Emperor of the Sea-Jung-Hwa cares for Yum Moon to a degree and pities him for the loyalties that tie him to the wrong people and, had she connected with him before connecting with Jang Bogo, she could have loved him. He loves her absolutely and completely and, while he and Bogo were friends, he was willing to stand asidefor their happiness, but once they were enemies, he no longer could. On the flipside, Chae Ryung loves Bogo but knows he loves Jung-Hwa. If her father hadn't demanded to know why she rejected all her suitors, she never would have burdened Bogo with her feelings. she doesn't demand his feelings or begrudge Jung-Hwa for having his love even though it hurts to see her, she only asks that he allow her to wait for the day he can love someone else.
Usually, though, it only REALLY works when they're equally worthy-just look at Casablanca and Philadelphia Story. In Casablanca, Rick and Laszlo love Ilsa equally, and she loves both men equally. When she fell in love with Rick, she thought her husband was dead, if she hadn't she never would have loved him. The love for one doesn't conflict with the other, except in that she can only be with one, and she knows which one is the right one to be with. Both men know that her love isn't a betrayal, and Laszlo doesn't begrudge her the affair-she thought he was dead, she continued living and tried to be happy, and when she learned he was alive, she went back to him. Both men understand and, once they know the situation, don't begrudge the other for having her love or allow it to color their opinion of each other(in fact, it probably causes their opinion to go up) In the end, it's not about "who gets the girl" or "who loves her more" but about what's more right for her, and will make her happier and safer. In Philadelphia Story, both Dexter and Macauley are perectly suitable for Tracy...we can easily see her being perfectly happy with both of them, and their not getting trampled by her, which her fiance would be. In fact, there's nothing really WRONG with her fiance except that he's so obviously wrong for Tracy(and dull, but he's decent enough) There's no "better man" question or the question of which one is suitable for her because they both are, it's just a question of which one she loves.
Modern times? Well, frankly, the ONLY reason Superman Returns worked on any level is because they made Richard just as good-if not better than-Clark...if anything, he's the better man, because he's willing to face the same dangers without effectively being a god.But beyond that, the only really GOOD example I can think of is in Damo...even though we, the audience, know the REAL reason Chae-Ohk and Jang Sung-Baek are drawn to each other(even though they don't) even without that, we can see why she would be drawn to him despite her love for Hwangbo Yoon. The two men are equally driven honorable and charismatic, they're just on different sides, and while both are of a stuts she can't touch, if she allows herself to love Hwangbo Yoon, he'll sacrifice everything to be with her, and she can't allow him to do that. In contrast, if she goes with Jang Sung-Baek, the one sacrificing everything is her, and that's more acceptable.
But usually? We get an obvious OTP, and then a third wheel put in either from the start, or later on to make things "interesting." Bah.
2. Imposing one canon on another: Small one. But, basically, the same story in different mediums is going to be told in different ways. If you've combined 2 characters into one, or told one character's story with another, DON'T bring in the other character just to make the fans of the original medium happy. Perfect example: Making MJ an amalgamation of MJ and Gwen in both the Spiderman movies and in Ultimate Spiderman. Gwen's story has been told and her role filled. Bringing in an altered Gwen is pointless. Or the X-Men movies. Rogue was effectively Kitty with Rogue's powers...served the plot and the "Logan and sidekick" point, so all is well. Until you bring Kitty in and it's just this cardboard cutout whining about life because the pertinent points have been covered by Rogue and hey, we can't finish while keeping Kitty in a cameo role, we have to make her IMPORTANT because we've all crushed on her since we were twelve! Also, if there's no clearcut "only one love interest" in the original canon, don't give us an OTP and then sacrifice it to make room for the one that's currently more popular in canon.
3. Bad Boys and Antiheroes: Authority issues and antisocial tendencies do NOT make a badboy or anti hero...they just make grouchy guys with social interaction issues. Badboys and anti-heroes don't CARE about right/wrong innocents saving the world etc. They're amoral, really don't care about authority and you're not going to get a response if you talk about the deaths of hundreds. They will, however, care if you tell them about one or two certain people(relative, love interest, friend, partner, whatever) who are part of that number. And if it's easier to save that one or two than to save them all, that's what they'll do. They don't CARE about the rest. That said, if theone they DO care about makes them save the rest and won't go otherwise, they will. Take Buffy and Angel. I've seen them called such, but Gunn and Angel are NOT badboys or antiheroes. Yeah, Gunn started out a bit that way, but only in the context that it was "kill the monsters to protect my people" than "kill the monsters to protect the inncocent." Neither one is "take home to mom" or "let be around the cops in general for more than 2 minutes" material, but they're both white hats. In contrast, there's Spike. Now, Spike is actually very sociable and rather likes people, granted mostly in the "people with legs" context, but if you don't cross him and his, you're cool. He likes Joyce because she treated him well and like a normal person even after she knew what he was, and once they get used to him, Willow, Tara and Anya always treat him ok, she he's cool with them. All he cares about when we first meet him is Dru and having fun, and later, all he cares about is Buffy and, as a necessary but limited extension, her family and friends. He never does anything remotely selfless or heroic that's not directly related to those goals. He would move Heaven and Earth and sacrifice both for Dru and then Buffy(and as an extension of Buffy, Dawn) This is NOT to say that Spike is better than Angel or Gunn(I like all three) or even that I prefer Spike/Buffy to Angel/Buffy, just that Spike is an antihero, they aren't. Also, Wolverine? Antisocial, but completely NOT an antihero. Jack Sparrow? Antihero.
3a. As far as shipping badboys and antiheroes with with the girl...it's our escapist fantasy. Unlike what a lot of people and many writers(paging Ron Marz paging Ron Marz) seem to think, we aren't delusional. We know it's not realistic and we know that it's not necessarily healthy. We do, however, like the fantasy of a man who is NOT a hero and is not nice and doesn't care about the worldor the safety of the innocents-or if he does, it's a secondary concern-but rather, about the life, safety and goals of one specific person, no matter what the cost is to himself or others and is willing to sacrifice everything for it. It doesn't even have to be for a love interest, it just usually is. WE LIKE the obsessive themes, the unhealthy ones, and most definately the "possible redemption" ones. We don't need saving from ourselves so please don't try to save us.
3b. This does NOT mean that the badboy or antihero is the one we'll always go for, or that they're the one we'll want to ship the heroine with, even if that relationship is the more interesting one. If the more conventional hero or "good boy" is better suited for the heroine or heck, just happens to be the one she loves, that's fine. Sometimes, it's preferable. Don't go with the bad boy 'ship just because you assume it's what the fans want. Two examples(though the paragraph as a whole doesn't apply to either, just parts) are Pirates of the Caribbean and Emperor of the Sea.
4. Ron Marz: Irrelevant to the bulk of my flist who would read this far, but Ron Marz CANNOT WRITE SHIPS. He needs to either leave the existing ships alone or just not go that route. His Witchblade rocked until he started messing with the OTP and forcing his own ship down our throats in what and I agree is his trying to "save" the book from Ian(never mind the fact that even when he isn't there, his relationship with Sara-romantic or otherwise-is one of the most interesting thiongs boutthe book) Now? It's going downhill fast. Every ship he creates(that I've read, which is Witchblade and every CrossGen ship he wrote) is boring at best(extremely rant worthy in one case, but we're not getting into that one again, it's well documented) The only exception has been Arwyn/Gareth in Sojourn, but even before turning the reins over to another, he was well on his way to wrecking that by shoehorning Cassidy in to make a *shock* love triangle. And frankly, I could have liked Cassidy if 90% of her character hadn't revolved aroubd pissing Arwyn off and making it a triangle. But every other ship of his that I've read? Bored me at best.
I could continue on for quite a while, but the fingers are tired and Jack of Fables wants to be read.
ETA: You disagree with my opinion on something, fine. I have no problem whatsoever with debates. You tell me my opinion is bull because it's not the same as yours? That's something else altogether, no matter who you are.