Talk:Romance film

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ShyanneRoberts.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Chick Flick
I disagree with the definition of "Chick Flick" and have issue with it, partly of personal definition and somewhat justifiably as it is uncited. "Chick Flick" is not simply about the popularity with women but with women as a target audience and not necessary a "romance" or have romance as a main theme (learned in school, looking for reference). Just think of the more recent "chick flicks" like Boys on the Side (arguably about failing romance but the uniting theme is their friendship), Thelma and Louise (again, female "partners in crime"), Riding in Cars With Boys (despite the title, the larger theme is her relationship with her father and her son, not just her boyfriend/husband), and The Women (female friendships where only one friend is truly affected by her -lack of- romantic relationship with her husband).

I'm not ready to remove it yet as currently "chick flick" redirects to a Charmed episode and it deserves a mention somewhere else. I'd be so happy if someone beats me to the punch as it may take a while to find references now that I no longer have access to online journals. However, it shouldn't stay as it is.--Blondtraillite (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, found appropriate article. Working on correction. --Blondtraillite (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LGBT films
I have reverted the addition of LGBT films (piped to List of LGBT films) in the subgenre section, because it does not belong there - the entire LGBT film corpus is not a subgenre of romantic film - rather romance is probably a subgenre of LGBT film output. What would be a better way, ideally with source and a few notable films, to cover this. Is there a subgenre of romance that has an LGBT romance? or is it that romance and its subgenres encompasses all kinds of love stories. The article should contain the information that romantic films are made about love between women, between men, and indeed all variants of love. The term 'forbidden love' in the article text may be intending that, but it is extremely coy if it is. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left the sentence that Rainbowpeace has readded, but agree that it is clumsy. There are a couple of good sources on my talkpage to start a section on the portrayal of lesbian and gay romances in the movies.  I can't think of a mainstream movie that includes a transgender romance, but I'm sure they exist in niche cinema.  It occurs to me that a little section on "controversial" romantic themes - outside of LGBT - or romantic films might also be interesting. I'm thinking interracial romance(for which there is sourced material available on the films that 'broke the boundaries'), Now, Voyager and other films which struggled to get their story (rather than just shots of Jane Russell's cleavage) out under the Hays Code etc. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Please examine my latest attempts to add LGBT romances into the Romance film section. See if that works better. -Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it really is undue. LGBT romantic films can be classified pretty well with the current subgenres (they can be dramas, "chick" flicks, or romcoms as well, etc.) Instead, I have added examples of LGBT-themed romantic movies in the examples (admittedly, my personal favorites) .--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   18:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Romance film is not a section to discuss the politics of homosexuality. There is a page dedicated to that entirely. This should purely be about romance films. No need to mention homosexuality itself. That last paragraph in the intro is completely unnecessary, out of place, and turns the romance film page into something else entirely. And for what? To fit someone's political agenda. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the definitions given for romance film already apply, no need to segregate homosexuality from heterosexuality by making it the big elephant in the room. As a gay person, we don't want little reminders put in place to remind people. It is unnecessary. If you want to talk about the politics of homosexuality in films and how it is seen, there are other pages or you can make one wholly devoted to it. This should be about romance film and the humans in those romance films. No need to make that pointless mention of same sex movies going as far back as 1919. It is very out of place and ruins the rhythm of this article. You'd be doing us gays a favor and stop trying to make us into the villains by thinking we need special treatment.97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said anything about special treatment. Discussing a group does not equal "special" treatment. As it is now this article has very few mentions of LGBT people. And if your opinion about LGBT people is correct you should most certainly have removed the sections about racial and social class discrimination as well. Now I don't care if you are accusing the LGBT community of pushing some agenda and that is irrelevant to the article. If anything this article pushes a heterosexual agenda by only mentioning straight romance and showing a picture of a straight couple from a film. And DO NOT try again to speak for the entire LGBT community or any section of it. I don't claim too and you shouldn't either because that as a genderqueer I find your accusations of me asking for "special" treatment offensive as the LGBT community should considering history. Don't think that just because you are gay that dosn't mean you can be homophobic.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that is how it plays out. There are better ways to insert gay films without making it blunt. There is a list for a reason. It doesn't belong in the intro paragraph as the article is about romance films, not the politics of homosexuality. You need to take it elsewhere.97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the part of social class and racial discrimination should be removed. There are various forms of discrimination and it would be easier to use an umbrella term anyways.

But don't you call me homophobic just because I want to keep the romantic films page on topic and make sure everything on there pertains to romance movies and not just certain romance movies.

And for the record, YOU do not speak for the gay community either! Its offensive to me that you think we gays need special treatment and need to be treated differently from heterosexuals by constantly pointing out that we are gay. You may like being the big elephant in the room, but I certainly don't. If you want to list gay movies, there is a section called "Examples". Do that there. Otherwise, stop trying to create a problem where non exists. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with politics. Many films show bank robberies, murders, genocide etc. and are not putting on a political agenda for these actions. But the defintion of a romance film is a film that emphasizes the romance between two people. It IS NOT a film that emphasizes the romance between a MAN and WOMAN. I'm more then happy not to put it in the intro paragraph if you would kindly tell me where to put it. As for it being there you are outnumbered and unregistered. Ellen of the Roads, Obsidian and I all agree it should be in there we are just not sure how to put it in there. You are outnumbered three to one. However if you have an idea where it should be put I am more than happy to accomidate that-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I told you exactly where to put it, in the Examples section. Go to the LBGT films page, and put some of those films into the Examples section and make notes next to them. Anything more needs a page of its own that talks about the various political takes on the issue of couples in romance films, or films in general. And yes, it does have to do with politics when something is placed in a position that doesn't fit at all. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Or just put the gay reminder in the beginning of the Examples section to explain why some of the films in the example section are LGBT and not. Since you make the claim that they have been around since 1919, the actual list of films would be the best place to put that little comment. Not the intro.97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Romance film vs. Romantic subplot
In the intro, I added a paragraph that basically compares a romance film to a movie that has a romantic subplot. While there is a good definition of what a romance movie is, the page does little to tell the readers that not all movies are romantic. Most movies have a romantic plotline but that is a subplot. It is important differentiate a real romance film from that of a movie that merely has a subplot. 97.91.177.81 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It also makes a great segway into the actual list of romantic film genres.97.91.177.81 (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Without sources to give it credibility (ie comments from critics etc) it is unsourced opinion. --Ckatz chat spy  20:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Here you big baby, http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanticPlotTumor

Why don't you go look for sources Ckatz? Instead of attacking people? 97.91.177.81 (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Umm, who's on the attack here? The person who is trying to explain this to you, or the person using language such as "baby"? You've added a link that does not meet the requirements of the reliable sources policy. --Ckatz chat spy  20:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WorldCat Genres
Maximilianklein (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

LGBT Films
Someone tried to remove the reference to LGBT films. Here are my 4 suggestions for what we can do. 1) We can re-add the information to the main article. A brief sentence would be all that was needed. 2) We could re-add it to the subgenre list. 3) We could leave it as a note on the list. 4) We could give it its own section. Now I have tried 1, 2 and 4 and each time I had an editor that disagreed with me. Now I have one who disagrees with me for 3. However I'm willing to compromise and talk so lets talk. In the past there were sentences that talked about specific forms of discrimination that we reduced down to "various forms of discrimination" and others. Ultimately, the only goal I have is for an inclusive article. More than ever it has been made clear that the Romance genre isn't always Cisgender or Heterosexual. And it goes without saying that if other editors have better ideas I would love to hear them as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

films
Romantic gama (spectrum) Mayur Zate (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

New section proposal: Age Gap
[I propose beginning a new section on the matter of the age gap between couples in romantic films. As a starting point I've prepared the below paragraph and citation. As an employee of the author of the citation (stephenfollows.com) I disclose this as a paid contribution and leave it up to independent editors to judge the merit:

A study of heterosexual on-screen couples in 422 romantic films from 1984-2014 found that at no point in period had the average annual age of female leads been older than the average age of their male counterparts. It also found that on average, male leads in romantic films were 4.5 years older than their female co-stars. The result supports speculations that romance films tend to pair younger women and older men[possible citation needed here?].

-- Lars Prestegarde (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)].


 * Not RS for the proposed content - A blogger stating that he "built a dataset" does not verify the text. This subject might be a suitable addition to the article if a better citation, for example the recent articles in Slate and Variety, supports it.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was pinged here from RSN. There was a lot of buzz on that topic at that time (summer 2015). this similar blog did their own number crunching and linked to this Guardian piece, this buzzfeed piece, and this CNN piece. There is this piece in Vulture too from 2013.  I don't see the harm in citing the follows blog along with the other sites if it adds something in the eyes of folks working on this article. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This page has only 41 watchers. That's exactly the kind of WP page on which it's possible to insert promotional links and undue content without effective opposition or contrary consensus.  SPECIFICO  talk  15:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Maen
Made at 12 o'clock 140.213.154.210 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Mlclark1 (talk) 13:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Sub-genres
Bromantic comedy and gothic romance must be excluded from romantic film sub-genres. Bromantic definition conflicts with definitions of romantic films, even the word bromantic is a parody on romance. It is a strong friendship rather than any kind of romance. And gothic romance is not a classical love story. It's rather something like subclass of horror genre which is not compatible with romantic films. As far as I understand, "gothic romance" is not romance, it is alternative dark romance. What is gothic romance can be found here:. Bromantic comedies and gothic romance are also not listed in sub-genres in lists that can be found on the web:, , ,. This Wikipedia article makes misclassification. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse-2002
— Assignment last updated by Jneezy504 (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Kmdavis7 (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)