The typical romantic movie trope/cliche is the formula of “Man gets woman, man loses woman, man gets woman again.”
Without criticizing it, what is the particular appeal of this formula? Especially if the man loses the woman due to his or her own failures? I can understand the appeal if the man and woman break up with each other in the middle of the movie due to outside circumstances against their will (i.e., if they’re simply star-crossed lovers and circumstances keep them from getting together,) but otherwise, why is this formula so popular?
Well, first off, it’s the most obvious (which doesn’t mean the best) romance version of the standard three-act dramatic structure, which requires that the author:
[ul]
[li]Establish a protagonist with a compelling goal[/li][li]Introduce obstacles and complications between the protagonist and the goal, creating conflict.[/li][li]Show the protagonist overcoming those obstacles and reaching the goal, (or failing to do so utterly, in a tragic ending.)[/li][/ul]
Having the hero lose the girl at the start of act 2 because of his own failings can set up that his obstacles are parts of himself, that he’s his own worst enemy, and that he must change and become a better man to get the girl back. Of course, that’s not the only way to use this trope… 
Start of Act 2 or end of Act 2?
What’s the appeal? It’s a **universal **human theme. EVERYONE has experienced some part of this story (with gender variations) at least once, starting in kindergarten, usually multiple times even unto the nursing home.
What’s that saying?
There’s two stories: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back…or he doesn’t.
This is exactly it, although usually the big disaster is at the end of the second act, with the third act consisting of our hero’s redemption.
All romantic comedies are just Die Hard for girls. But if Meg Ryan’s in it I’ll watch too.
Once I’ve broken up with a woman, I feel no desire ever to take up with her again. In that respect, I find the scenario unrealistic.
Even if I were to do such a silly thing, I’ve no doubt it would be an even bigger disaster than previously.
Really? Well that’s just because when you broke up in the past, it was never because of some conniving interloper who was tricking you into breaking up; or because of some totally freak accident which caused you to have a completely false perception of her; or because you didn’t get knocked on the head and wake up not knowing who you are; or because you didn’t have to choose between her and inheriting a a billion dollars; or because – dude, what kind of humdrum life have you been living, anyway?
Fundamentally, it’s just wish fulfillment for women.
- It’s not her fault she broke up
- Not only is it his fault, but he’ll realize that and change his ways.
- She’ll be pursued, saving her the effort and risk of looking for a new partner
Point 1 might be replaced by “It’s not her fault they never got together in the first place” for romantic comedies based on childhood friends who finally realize they’re in love. When Harry Met Sally is such a gold standard by having both versions of #1.
Dude, you are missing the point. It isn’t “Guy dates a girl for a while, decides he no longer likes her and dumps her, then changes his mind when he realizes no other woman wants him, and tries to win her back” It’s "guy finds woman of his dreams and loses her through a misunderstanding/accident/natural disaster/unplanned pregnancy with a stripper before he can declare his true love, and then spends time and effort to get back to the Only Woman Who Can Truly Make Him Happy. Who may be on the verge of marrying someone else.
I’ve always heard this cliche expressed as “boy meets girl, boy loses girl…”
There are certainly movie romances where the couple breaks up and gets back together again, but I don’t think they’re as common as ones where one of the characters is attracted to the other fairly early on but they don’t actually get together until near the end.
I’d say breaking up and getting back together is more common on TV shows, presumably because the writers have to keep coming up with storylines for year after year.
Well said, and note that this is not unique to romantic plots. Establish a theme, create tension and then resolution is pretty much every piece of art ever, it’s just a wardrobe change.
The attraction, IMHO, is that it mimics life, it triggers the emotions associated with meaning and significance; struggling to survive, sex, fighting.
Although, personally, I’m partial to the boy meets girl under a silvery moon, which then explodes for no adequately explored reason variety, but that’s just me. They don’t call me the outlier for nothing.
I envy you - living your life with no mistakes and no regrets.
In stories the protagonist usually has some sort of flaw or issue they need to get over. Once they conquer it they’re rewarded. In this case the prize is a woman.
You’ve never seen couples who break up and get back together constantly? Seems pretty normal.
I agree, but it’s weird to me because it doesn’t give much agency to women. Hard to relate to as a guy, because guy heroes are usually active participants in their success or failure. I’ve seen lots of popular stories for women criticized because the female characters basically sit around while good things happen to them because they’re just such good people. I don’t think most women care about that criticism much, though.
Basically. Story beats don’t change much across genres. Instead of a car chase or fist fight another story will have a shouting match or someone upturning furniture or running away from home or whatever. Same point.
Instead of a car chase? It’s hard to find a romantic comedy that doesn’t have a chase scene in Act 3.
We were ON A BREAK!!!
That’s interesting. Perhaps some women prefer a flawed partner who has to fix his flaws, and does, rather than have a non-flawed partner who doesn’t need self-improvement.
I don’t think most people care about most criticism of any given medium or genre.