I came here to say exactly that.
Bohemian Rhapsody was great when it focused on the band in the studio, but my eyes glazed over every time it went back to Freddie’s relationship with his wife.
I had no interest in seeing *Titanic *when it came out because of the dopey love story(I do regret not having seen it on the big screen now). I don’t know exactly how they could have filled out the rest of the movie but it seems there were enough other characters’ lives that could have been explored or something.
Also, Jack would have survived if Rose hadn’t hogged the whole dame piece of wood 
Today, I really enjoy the movie but the romance angle is my least favorite part.
People justifiably complain a film is sexist if there are no strong female characters. I heartily applaud his decision to have Arwen take the place of Glorfindel and make her part stronger.
Jackson was hamstrung by the Studios decision to make it into a trilogy. He had to pad, and the padding isnt good. Otherwise, the trilogy isnt bad, the first film is great.
Spielberg picked up a wife out of it, so Capshaw’s efforts weren’t totally wasted. I did like her in the opening musical number.
Glad to see Enemy At The Gates get mentioned a few times. For Tolkien, Arwen for Glorfindel is fine; the Dwarf-Elves love triangle was hot garbage.
“When we’re through with them, the only place romance will be spoken is in hell!”
Watchmen would have been immeasurably improved by dropping the unwatchable sex scene on the Owl ship.
the relationship between Danny and the bartender (Maggie?) in Caddyshack seemed totally superfluous. It involved 30 seconds (?) of screen time. I think what happened is the lives of the caddies were supposed to be the focus of the movie, but the big stars roles (a lot of which was adlibbed) crowded out this part of the film.
Freddy Mercury’s relationship with his wife was a significant part of his life. To omit it from his biopic would really do the story a disservice.
the Mad magazine parody (“Get moving, Van!”) made quite a point about the completely superfluous love interest subplot.
Hancock was a unique take on living as a superhero absolutely ruined by the stupid, shoved in, makes no sense love story between Will Smith and Charlize Theron. I wish for a reboot.
I agree. Not only was the idea of a romance in the movie peculiar, but he happened to just snatch Jason Bateman’s character’s wife right out from under him, and we’re supposed to be cool with it for some reason.
So not only was a love story not necessary or particularly useful, it was not even a GOOD love story either!
:dubious::dubious::dubious:Arwen wasn’t in The Hobbit. She was in the LOTR as a love interest anyway, and isn’t what people are talking about.
I’m sure what people are complaining about is the absurd romance between Kili the dwarf and the elf Tauriel, who was invented for The Hobbit.
If I am interpreting** DrDeth** correctly, he was saying that augmenting Arwen in LOTR was a good idea, but he agrees that inventing Tauriel for The Hobbit was a bad idea.
Yes, I know. I was talking about the fact that people complain if a film has no strong characters, and thus Jackson made a good choice in LotR with Arwen.
What should he have done with the Hobbit? Ignore the cries for a strong female character in films? He pretty much had to create a new character, the Hobbit book being a complete sausage party. Of course, when it was written that was fine, but today?
OK, so I over-interpreted.
Well, he could have created a strong female character for The Hobbit, and skipped the part where he made her swoon over the first dwarf she saw. Not every female character has to be a love interest.
Tauriel was fine but the romance was bad.
I concur. Or maybe just let out that Fili & Kili were female. After all, us humans arent supposed to be able to tell the difference.
To some extent. I appreciate Jackson brought in Galadriel, of course.