Melani Blazer

This is been hashed and rehashed and probably little more than a bunch of hash, but I’ve been hard pressed to find a blog topic that wasn’t just journal entries of my less than exciting life lately. Still in the middle of kitchen work–which has multiplied into more work. Then there’s my normal “fun at the day job” saga, which has moments of soap opera drama. It’s summer, we’re doing outside things, have a stray cat who adopted us and of course, me trying to write in the down time. (go ahead, laugh at me)…

What I wanted to compare, after stepping back a few days and then studying it with a realistic approach, was how a pair of movies were marketed and how that affects the reaction and/or appeal. My husband (love you, honey) really helped me realize the truth to this via a very unscientific approach. And I’ve said out loud several times since… if these were books, things would be so different…

Last week the TV offerings were bleh, so we ordered 10,000 BC on pay per view.
The Plot is summarized as this: “A prehistoric epic that follows a young mammoth hunter’s journey through uncharted territory to secure the future of his tribe.” It does say Adventure/Romance on the genre listing at IMBD.com, but I don’t recall any of the trailers highlighting romance. At all.

From my point of view, this SCREAMED of a romance plotline, sooooo much so. Man meets woman, man wants woman, man almost has her, man loses her, man is willing to do anything and everything to get her back. In the mean time, man saves all of his people trying to get to her. Sorry if that spoils anything but…. the romantic thread was the strongest and most important in this. Without it, the movie would have fallen apart. The hero (and I can’t even remember the names, they didn’t stick, sorry) had one quest, one motivation and it was very obvious. At one point he makes a decision that appears to show he’s willing to forsake everything else just to save the woman he loves. It was absolutely sweet and heart tugging, in a caveman sort of way. The movie was good, not great, not bad, but would make an incredibly well written historical/paranomal book. Shelved as a mammoth novel in the romance section, thankyouverymuch. (pardon the pun)

My husband, who doesn’t think with a writer’s mind, much less a romance writer’s mind, saw this as a kick ass action/adventure where bands of tribes got together to defeat the bad guy(s). And in the meantime, save the girl, cuz the hero always gets the girl. Right? It was marketed as such–see Plotline description above. I think the marketing team banking on the Action genre generating more dollars at the theatre and DVD than a romance tag.

And then, the very next night, we watched Fool’s Gold. Stop here if you can’t handle mild spoilers.
The plot line for this one reads: “A new clue to the whereabouts of a lost treasure rekindles a married couple’s sense of adventure — and their estranged romance.”

Now, as one who doesn’t watch much TV, I’d seen only a bit about this movie, and really thought it was marketed as a romance–with an action subplot. I’m guessing on this one they were banking on the stellar on-screen chemistry between Kate Hudson and Matthew M. Because seriously? It was more actiony than romancy. Not that it wasn’t there, but …..

In a romance, I’ve been told, and heard and it’s been implied that there’s a journey the characters take, sometimes changing or learning or realizing to bring them to the position where they can finally be together. In the case of a couple who are separated, by break up or divorce or whatever, the “reason” that kept them apart/caused them to break up should be “Fixed” before HEA, no? No one told the marketing firm that made Fool’s Gold appear to be an upbeat, funny romance. Romantic? had it’s moments, but truly romance? *I* don’t see it.

I sincerely had a hard time believing that the “external plot” that brought them back together would be enough to overcome the issues that tore them apart. Well, aside from the fact money had been an issue and that kinda sorta gets resolved with the external plot part. But is that enough? Eh…..I wouldn’t buy it in a book, so why in a movie? But yet it worked cuz Kate and Matt are incredible on screen, the antics are great and it has a neat little plot that keeps ya guessing–oh, and just enough beating up, gunfire and suspense to keep the men from going, “oh geez, turn it off will ya, you’re killing me!”

And if anyone doubts me, there’s that line at the end where Ben tells Tess, “I’ve changed, I’m different, I promise…” (or something like that) and she says “You have not.” But kisses him anyway. Yeah, that sold me on the romance being for evah.

My husband loved it and totally bought it as a romance–mainly because he thinks Kate has great facial expressions and likes Matthew as an actor. He knew going in it was romantic and even thought that’s what would appeal to me and coerce me into another movie night instead of writing. Honey, I watched it for the treasure hunting. Seriously, I dig that stuff. LOL.

Funny how things work, isn’t it? I realize the general public isn’t going to analyze it the way I did. In both these movies there’s the HEA, which means, couple is together, bad guy is….out of the picture and all other issues have been resolved, either on or implied has happened off screen. But marketing was kinda flip flopped, likely in order to appeal to the audiences they wanted to see the film.

Either way, check em out. 10,000 BC had some neat effects and a well-used plot line that seems to continue to work, and this was just…so different than stuff I’d seen lately. Kinda of refreshing. Fool’s Gold? Matthew and Kate work sooo good together and it has some great comedy and of course, a dash for treasure. What’s not to love?