![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meganbmooreThis is pretty interesting: on Hollywood and the romance: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651506-2,00.html
I've actually been pondering this for a while. If you read my LJ, you know that I'm essentially hopeless when it comes to anything resembling a canon pairing, as long a I like them(unless there's an alternative I find preferable to one member, in which case that becomes problematic for me) That said...I usually avoid romantic movies, and when I read romances, it's more for escapism than romance, or because of genre storylines. When I do watch romantic movies, they're usually older ones, or ones based on older stories.
I think the reason for this is because, whether its a fluffy romantic comedy or a doomed angstfest, most modern stories, as covered in the article, are more "I love you for now" than "I'll always love you." Probably why I get more interested when the pairing is a secondary or side concern than when it's the main thing.
I've actually been pondering this for a while. If you read my LJ, you know that I'm essentially hopeless when it comes to anything resembling a canon pairing, as long a I like them(unless there's an alternative I find preferable to one member, in which case that becomes problematic for me) That said...I usually avoid romantic movies, and when I read romances, it's more for escapism than romance, or because of genre storylines. When I do watch romantic movies, they're usually older ones, or ones based on older stories.
I think the reason for this is because, whether its a fluffy romantic comedy or a doomed angstfest, most modern stories, as covered in the article, are more "I love you for now" than "I'll always love you." Probably why I get more interested when the pairing is a secondary or side concern than when it's the main thing.