![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
meganbmooreLong-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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 12:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 04:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 04:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 06:15 am (UTC)* resembles that remark *
goes back to being a grouchy guy
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 06:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 11:55 am (UTC)And I forgot to mention that the first thing I thought of when I read the title of this post was "I know, freight and postage costs are just phenomenal these days..."
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 05:02 pm (UTC)>> freight and postage costs are just phenomenal these days... <<
LOL! Thanks for the first out-loud laugh of the day! (I'm a sucker for dumb puns ...)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 06:26 am (UTC)* rubs hands together in satisfaction at a job well done *
no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 06:37 am (UTC)I also have a particularly warped view of reality, which probably doesn't help...
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:06 am (UTC)Yeah, I hate love triangles. I hate that they're so prevalent in a lot of Asian things though I can put up with them occasionally. Like in Hana Kimi, I wouldn't bump off Xiu Yi/Nakatsu because he's a third wheel because he's harmless to the OTP and he's just fun to watch.
In some things it just pisses me off when they have a ton of scenes between the wrong OTP in a love triangle and some people start shipping that.. I mean, I don't really care but when it's so obvious that the real OTP is the OTP that's gonna survive, it seems so pointless (unless something happens like that the original OTP goes stale and the wrong OTP becomes oddly preferrable).
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:12 am (UTC)But yeah, in hana kimi and iswak, they're harmless...we dont mind but the possibility of it happening is never a threat. its just when they decide there needs to be a real contender that it gets annoying, for that to work, it has to be really, really good. the only doramas i've seen really pull it off are damo and emperor of the sea.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 08:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 05:07 pm (UTC)>> You disagree with my opinion on something, fine ... <<
(Eek! What happened?? I feel like I do when I pass a burnt smear and a bunch of shattered glass along a median barrier on the highway ... .)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 05:43 pm (UTC)what happens when you cross an idealist and a cynic
(excuse me, now deleted, but whatever)
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 06:28 pm (UTC)That is mostly your perception of what happenned, which was tainted beyond repair by a single word not to your liking (that was taken back, as I recall).
And just because I'm not quite as cynical as you doesn't make me an idealist.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:26 pm (UTC)Ack. Sorry, shouldn't have asked.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 08:18 pm (UTC)Look, I don't want to throw any more gasoline onto the fire, but I wasn't speaking to you, I was speaking to our hostess megan. This is her LJ.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 09:15 pm (UTC)So one out of who-knows-how-many replies was more instinctive than eloquent, and suddenly I'm branded? Does this mean that anything and everything I say from this point on will be perceived with prejudice? I guess that when you talk to someone for four or five years, there's the chance you might hit a nerve once or twice. Still, after all this time, I honestly didn't think I was skating on such thin ice. I still say the only difference between the two convos was your perception, and all because of one little poorly-chosen word.
It's true I probably should have laid low until you cooled down, but to be honest, I really don't feel like it.
So you wanna play with semantics? Fine, here goes:
Even if I do happen to say that something is "bull," I am still doing nothing more than stating an opinion. It is actually no different than you saying that the exact opposite of what I just said is true. Naturally, we could automatically attach 'IMO' to every sentence we type, but I find that to be rather tiresome after a while.
Furthermore, when you disagree with what I say, you are basically thinking that I am wrong, even if you don't say it. Considering the fact that I never said that you were wrong, saying that I implied it is rather silly since you basically implied the same thing.
It's no secret I like to argue. Whoops... Did I say argue? My goodness, where did THAT come from? I would never "argue," only "debate" or "discuss." But I digress... So where was I?
I obviously know better than to think I could ever sway you from your beliefs, no matter how carefully I may express mine. And yet, by provoking you to defend your point of view there's a chance I would come to understand it better, even if I still decide to disagree with it. Plus, the discussion itself can be fun. But if I have to tread THIS carefully, then I would say it is not worth the effort and my opinions might be best kept to myself.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-08 10:24 pm (UTC)You weren't coming across as wanting to discuss our beliefs/opinions but of(as I stated in the IMs) being flat out right and my opinion being wrong and asking me to state(again) my opinion felt like it had a "so I can tell you why it's wrong" tacked on to the end, as opposed to "tell me so we can talk about it and review our different opinions" as it usually is.
I kept asking you to stop because it WAS upsetting me and it WAS starting to be a full out fight, and I did not(and do not) WANT to spend all my time bickering with you because there are too many other, more pleasant things we can spend our IMing time doing.
We ALWAYS fight/debate/bicker(debate just sounds nicer...) whatever and normally not only does it NOT bother me(like last night) but it's usually enjoyable(and you've indicated you enjoy it as well) but today it felt like you were dismissing my opinions and feelings and it felt like it was bordering on cruelty. Maybe the subject itself is something you feel more personally about than usual, or maybe, as you said, I'm having a bad day(I don't know, the comment was actually the start of my day as I generally check email just after getting up and it had just come in) but normally its very clear that despite our differing opinions, we're ONLY talking about our opinions and it has nothing to do with our liking and respecting each other(which, as far as I know, is still the case) but in both the comment and IMs it felt like I was under attack and it wasn't directed to my opinion, but to me, and the fact that the IMs DID move in that direction didn't help. The line you mentioned is something we normally never even get close to, and we've gone on before far, far longer than we did today, and it's certainly never before reached this point, and I never would have thought it would, to be honest(and hopefully, it's not a permanent rift thing)
If I'm coming across as being too touchy, maybe it was just how it was presented, or maybe we're both having off days, it's just that I asked you to stop and you didn't. And if I DIDN'T value your friendship and opinion, it wouldn't matter to me at all because then I'd just ignore you/block you/whatever(btw, I was cutting chicken for lunch when you signed off AIM earlier and never heard it beep). But the fact that I do is a large part of why it has me upset.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 04:45 am (UTC)The way I recall it, first time you said drop it I said fine and tried to shift the convo to something else. But no matter what I said seemed to you like an escalation. So what you perceived as 30 minutes of telling you you're wrong, I perceived as 5 minutes of trying to rephrase a comment which apparently upset you, and 25 minutes of trying to get past it. It certainly wasn't my intent to restart a debate we were through with.
Now I wish I would've saved the convo. I really believe that if you looked at it again now it would seem somewhat different.
no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 05:00 am (UTC)*will be home and likely glued to the computer in about 15 to a) a DL screwing up earlier and not joining right and b) there are apparently those on my flist who know tnothing about the source of this icon and that must be fixed.(
no subject
Date: 2007-05-09 05:35 am (UTC)(Ok, ok, now I'm really asking for it...)