University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The death and rebirth of the American romantic comedy

(USC Thesis Other)

The death and rebirth of the American romantic comedy

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content
Copyright 2022 Wesley Stenzel

THE DEATH AND REBIRTH OF THE AMERICAN ROMANTIC COMEDY

by

Wesley Stenzel

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ANNENBERG SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION & JOURNALISM
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(SPECIALIZED JOURNALISM: THE ARTS)

May 2022

Copyright 2022 Wesley Stenzel
ii

Table of Contents
List of Figures ......................................................................................................................................... iii
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter One: Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter Two: A brief history of the romantic comedy ............................................................................. 3
Chapter Three: Crunching the numbers .................................................................................................... 7
Chapter Four: The rom-com and the movie star ....................................................................................... 9
Chapter Five: A marketer’s lament ......................................................................................................... 12
Chapter Six: Shifts in Hollywood filmmaking ........................................................................................ 14
Chapter Seven: The streaming era........................................................................................................... 18
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Appendix 1 – Romantic Comedy Films, Budgets, Box Office, and Rotten Tomatoes Scores ............... 24
Appendix 2 – Market Share of Theatrical Romantic Comedies.............................................................. 31

Copyright 2022 Wesley Stenzel
iii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Big 6 American Studio Romantic Comedies by Year ..................................................... 7
Figure 2: Market Share of Romantic Comedies, 2000-2021 .......................................................... 8

Copyright 2022 Wesley Stenzel
iv
Abstract

This project explores the fall and rise of the American romantic comedy, particularly within the
context of the studio system in the 21st century. Why did theatrical romantic comedies fall out of
fashion around 2012? I found that the trajectory of the romantic comedy serves as a powerful
example of the broader trends in American entertainment. I contextualize my research with the
history of the romantic comedy genre, analyze box office data, observe evolving norms in studio
filmmaking, and interrogate the complex relationships between romantic comedies and their movie
stars. My research, in conjunction with my interviews with individuals who wrote, produced, and
marketed romantic comedy films, indicates that studios largely abandoned romantic comedies
(along with most other mid-budget genres) in pursuit of increased focus on franchise blockbusters
that sell well overseas. The genre’s theatrical downfall is both a cause and effect of individual
movie stars’ decreased selling power for studio features––stars rarely launch non-franchise
theatrical films in the contemporary landscape. However, like so many other mid-budget genres,
romantic comedies are mounting a comeback on streaming services like Netflix, allowing for
further evolution of generic norms and increased opportunities for creative diversity.

Copyright 2022 Wesley Stenzel
1
Chapter One: Introduction

In the early 2010s, screenwriter Lindsay Stidham was about to see her first major success in the
studio romantic-comedy space. She’d written a new romantic comedy spec screenplay, titled Kat
and Simon’s 10 Anniversaries, which had an inventive spin on the genre: it followed a couple over
the course of a decade, checking in at yearly intervals on their anniversary. The film was in active
development at a major studio––until being edged out by the similarly-premised The Five-Year
Engagement. The next year, when action franchise movies like The Avengers and The Hunger
Games dominated the box office, Stidham took new rom-com projects to market, only to discover
a substantially reduced interest in the genre. “There was this span of like five years where rom-
com was like a dirty word, and nobody wanted a rom-com,” she explains. “I love the rom com and
have always continued to write them, but there were some years where it was such a tough go for
the genre," she says. “I think there started to be a tiny bit of a reckoning of the rom-coms of the
past, where people are like, ‘okay, this is not how people live, and these happy endings aren't
right.’”

Film writers and movie blogs were eager to declare the romantic comedy dead after 2012, when
American studios suddenly stopped producing and distributing rom-coms with the volume and
zeal of the previous decade (Yahr 2016, Romano 2014). There’s a common and sensible myth
surrounding the disappearance of the genre: a few high-profile bombs like How Do You Know
(which made $48.7 million on a $120 million budget) and Take Me Home Tonight ($7.5 million
on a $23 million budget) signified a rapidly-waning public interest in romantic comedies, and
studios quickly abandoned ship (IMDb 2010, IMDb 2011, Siegel 2013). The well had dried up,

2
and the formula had gone stale. If these movies weren’t going to make money anymore, there was
zero reason for studios to continue producing such easily-mockable and critically reviled date-
night fare.

But the real story isn’t so clear-cut. In reality, the vast majority of American romantic comedies
turned a decent profit at the box office––on average, they more than doubled their budgets––and
the bombs were actually few and far between. Critical reception wasn’t great, but it didn’t
dramatically decline between the genre’s mid-aughts heyday and the moments before its
abandonment. So what happened to the romantic comedy circa 2012?

3
Chapter Two: A brief history of the romantic comedy

The romantic comedy is one of Hollywood’s oldest standing traditions. American studios have
produced a plethora of lighthearted love stories since the silent era, with films like It launching
performers like Clara Bow to major stardom. The genre flourished in the first two decades of sound
cinema as pioneers like Howard Hawks, George Cukor, and Preston Sturges directed densely-
dialogued projects such as Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelphia Story, and The Lady Eve,
respectively. These screwball films simultaneously benefitted from their leading actors’ existing
star personas and helped further solidify their signature styles, cementing fast-talking performers
like Katharine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and Barbara Stanwyck as Hollywood mainstays. In a 1978
article, writer Brian Henderson identified that the term “screwball” tends to be utilized without
concrete definition, but argues that screwball films are frequently defined by “the value of
spontaneity, which...stands in for and includes wit, intelligence, genuine feeling vs. conventional
response, adaptable moral response, vitality, life,” though not every example completely aligns
with these criteria (Henderson 1978, 13). It’s worth noting that even though historians and critics
often cite the 1930s as the golden age of the romantic comedy, the genre still went through waves
of increased and decreased popularity at the time, as evidenced by the infamous advertisement that
labeled screwball stars like Hepburn and Kay Francis as “box office poison” (TIME 1938). Its
volatility wasn’t unique, as the rom-com experienced the usual casting angst of any star-driven
genre, but its success remained unpredictable all the same.

Since the screwball period, the romantic comedy’s prevalence and popularity has ebbed and
flowed somewhat unpredictably. The genre continued to launch and solidify major stars through
the end of the 1960s, with actors like Doris Day, Rock Hudson, Audrey Hepburn, and Marilyn

4
Monroe finding solid success with romantic comedy. Historian Claire Mortimer noted by the
1960s, many of the most popular romantic comedy films could be classified in the sex comedy
subgenre, with more overt focus on gender dynamics and sexual negotiation (Mortimer 2010).

By the end of the 1970s, romantic comedies had fallen out of fashion, inspiring Henderson to write
a piece about “the death of the romantic comedy” (Henderson 1978). Henderson observed that in
that decade, films demystified romance by making sex so casual and frank. He also wrote that
romantically-involved film characters tend to undergo personal character arcs that lead to them
finding self-fulfillment or self-discovery when they’re single—they might flirt with the idea of
romance, but the messages of these films ultimately favor individuality over matrimony
(Henderson 1978, 21). Woody Allen’s Annie Hall exemplifies many of these trends, as the film
still focuses on the arc of a couple’s romantic relationship as they engage in screwball-inspired
play, but the film ultimately ends with a bittersweet breakup, offering little hope that the characters
are better off together. The film resonated with Hollywood, receiving that year’s Academy Award
for Best Picture. Subsequent troubling revelations about Allen’s personal life bleakly highlight the
divide between the idealized fantasy of romantic comedies and the sobering nature of reality: even
the painfully neurotic protagonist of one of the most cynical (and exemplary) anti-rom-coms seems
like an impossibly romantic hero compared to the writer-director who created him.

Henderson considered that several sociological shifts in American society may have made popular
culture more hostile to traditional romantic comedy conventions: “the doubling of the divorce rate
in the last decade, the rise of the single parent, the political and gay rights movements, etc”
(Henderson 1978, 19). He was particularly attentive to the increase in working women, all but

5
suggesting that the financial liberation of women has killed the romantic comedy. Henderson’s
claims are certainly debatable, as many of his social diagnoses for the rom-com’s death later
proved to make for successful romantic comedy premises: Sleepless in Seattle and One Fine Day
concern single and divorced parents, and a significant portion of rom-coms around the turn of the
century include hypercompetent professional women (You’ve Got Mail, Two Weeks Notice, The
Wedding Planner, and many more).

However, it’s inarguable that many of the most notable rom-coms of the 1980s focused on young
people rather than adult professionals. High school movies from John Hughes and his
contemporaries like Sixteen Candles, Pretty in Pink, Valley Girl, The Sure Thing, and Can’t Buy
Me Love helped keep the genre alive by appealing to teenagers, cultivating a new romantic comedy
audience that would eventually help support the genre’s renaissance. Though the rejuvenation of
the genre has no singular starting point, the success of Rob Reiner’s 1989 When Harry Met Sally…
and the even more overwhelming popularity of Garry Marshall’s 1990 Pretty Woman signaled that
American culture was eager to welcome the romantic comedy back into the mainstream. But was
the rom-com’s return driven by new stars, innovative stories, industry-level concerns, or a mixture
of the three?

Studios were eager to replicate the successes of these new rom-coms, leading to a renaissance for
the genre in the 1990s, which established a new generation of romantic leading actors including
Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock, Meg Ryan, and Hugh Grant. The ‘90s batch of romantic comedies
enjoyed consistent commercial success, and a few films with rom-com elements even received

6
Best Picture nominations at the Academy Awards, including Four Weddings and a Funeral, Jerry
Maguire, As Good as It Gets, and Shakespeare in Love, which won the esteemed award.

This new wave of rom-coms extended into the 2000s, and found new stars along the way, such as
Reese Witherspoon, Matthew McConaughey, and Jennifers Lopez, Aniston, and Garner. In
addition to the aforementioned female professionalism, romantic comedies from this era often
conveyed a level of self-consciousness about the conventions of prior rom-coms. The six major
American studios distributed 188 romantic comedies between 2000 and 2011, and while critics
rarely raved about the genre, the vast majority of 2000s rom-coms turned a solid profit (IMDb
2022).

7
Chapter Three: Crunching the numbers

See Appendices 1 and 2 for full budget, box office, and critical data.

There wasn’t much of a notable shift in the number of romantic comedies produced between 2001
and 2011: the big six American studios (Warner Brothers, Universal, Disney, 20th Century Fox,
Paramount, and Sony) and their affiliated subsidiaries made 14 rom-coms in 2001 and 16 in 2011
(IMDb 2022). The genre peaked in production three times between these years: 2003, 2005, and
2010 each saw 20 major studio releases (IMDb 2022). Every year between 2001 and 2011 had
more than a dozen theatrical romantic comedies hitting American screens (except 2007, which had
11) (IMDb 2022).
Figure 1: Big 6 American Studio Romantic Comedies by Year

Data sourced from IMDb – see Appendix 1.

8

In 2012, the genre began to slip, with 8 studio rom-coms; then, in 2013, the six major American
studios put out a total of six romantic comedies, and each year since then has seen an average of
fewer than four rom-coms on the big screen (IMDb 2022). But the genre’s profitability wasn’t
waning-–in fact, it had slightly increased by 2011, when the average rom-com made 263 percent
of its budget back at the box office, compared to 248 percent in 2001 (IMDb 2022). And the critical
consensus had barely changed, as the average Rotten Tomatoes score for a rom-com in 2001 was
40%, and only 37% in 2011 (and that’s largely beside the point anyway, as the genre has largely
proven to be completely critic-proof, with poorly-reviewed movies still earning a killing at the box
office) (Rotten Tomatoes 2022).

Figure 2: Market Share of Romantic Comedies, 2000-2021

Data sourced from IMDb and TheNumbers – see Appendix 2

9
Chapter Four: The rom-com and the movie star

It didn’t help that one by one, the rom-com’s most important stars gradually abandoned the genre.
Julia Roberts won an Oscar for Erin Brockovich in 2000, and, after her win, focused almost
exclusively on prestige dramas and family comedies, only returning to rom-coms to reunite with
Pretty Woman’s Garry Marshall for ensemble movies Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day. In 2018,
she publicly stated that she had no intention of dipping back into the genre because “they just don’t
work at a certain point of life experience… unless we [play] the parents of the people that are rom-
com-ing” (Bruner 2018). Sandra Bullock followed a similar trajectory: after her 2009 Oscar for
The Blind Side, she hasn’t returned to rom-coms, at one point saying, “They're not funny, they're
not romantic, they're not written well for women anymore...it was basically all crap. I did the last
good one. I'm done" (Wloszczyna 2009).

Matthew McConaughey got burned out on the genre
after 2009, turning down a $14.5 million offer to be in a new rom-com in 2010, instead focusing
on his dramatic renaissance that eventually earned him an Oscar in 2014 for Dallas Buyers Club
(Sharf 2020). Only Reese Witherspoon stuck with the genre after winning her Best Actress Oscar
for her dramatic work in Walk the Line in 2006, and even her rom-coms were few and far between.

The downfall of the theatrical romantic comedy speaks to Hollywood’s evolving relationship to
the star system. Although action, sci-fi, and fantasy blockbusters have largely dominated the box
office since Star Wars’ original release in 1977, the vast majority of American studio movies still
relied on star power to draw audiences into cinemas. Mission: Impossible wouldn’t have been a
smash hit without Tom Cruise, nor would the Rambo movies without Sylvester Stallone. And the
mid-budget movies that filled theaters between the summer and Christmas tentpoles––family

10
comedies, historical dramas, erotic thrillers, sports films, smaller action programmers, and, of
course, rom-coms––all leaned on star power even more than blockbusters did.

It’s important to note that no other genre of the last thirty-odd years has revolved more heavily
around female stars than the romantic comedy. In the blockbuster era, the vast majority of major
studio productions––particularly the action-adventure films that dominate the box office––tend to
rely on male star power, and have largely relegated female stars to underwritten love interests for
the male heroes until very recently. Romantic comedy was the rare corner of the industry in the
‘90s and ‘00s where most of the projects relied primarily on women. Female rom-com stars were
almost always paired with a charming male love interest––sometimes of equal or greater star
power (like Richard Gere and Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman or Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in
You’ve Got Mail), and sometimes of notably smaller movie-star stature (like Roberts with Dermot
Mulroney in My Best Friend’s Wedding or Drew Barrymore with Michael Vartan in Never Been
Kissed). Rom-coms simultaneously launched and relied upon female stars to maintain their cultural
power.

Romantic comedies have a particularly strong ability to endear audiences to their stars and solidify
star personas. Their unique narrative and thematic focus on ordinary people provides a consistent
everyday relatability. Even the most idealized, aspirational rom-com worlds find their power in
their illusion of attainability––there’s a sense that, if everything went just right, we could be as
happy as these characters. These movies are far from realistic, but the genre provides opportunities
for actors to play the most “normal” people they’ll ever portray on screen. They might be doctors
or hotshot lawyers, but rom-coms fixate on their relationships with their friends, family members,

11
and lovers as the primary point of interest. Careers, more often than not, are table settings and
subplots that provide context and texture to the characters. Instead, the genre focuses on how
people interact with one another, which helps increase our perception of the stars being just like
us––they experience romantic joy and heartbreak, have difficult but strong relationships with their
parents, and laugh with their friends. Rom-coms break down the barriers between stars and
audiences––it’s not a coincidence that the unofficial title of America’s Sweetheart has almost
exclusively been held by the rom-com queens of the ‘90s and ‘00s.

Perhaps what’s bad for the theatrical rom-com is good for women in Hollywood. Romantic
comedies used to be the best way for female stars to break out and solidify their star personas; now
there seem to be a wider array of options. In the expansion of action-adventure filmmaking, there
has been an unprecedented wave of action movies revolving around female stars and characters.
Actresses like Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow, Lucy, Ghost in the Shell), Charlize Theron
(Atomic Blonde, The Old Guard, Mad Max: Fury Road), and Jessica Chastain (The 355, Ava) are
leading a new wave of female-oriented action films. These actresses and their contemporaries like
Gal Gadot (Wonder Woman) and Brie Larson (Captain Marvel) could have thrived as romantic
leads during the rom-com era, but now they don’t have to because there are alternate paths to
stardom.

12
Chapter Five: A marketer’s lament

Film marketer Brad Goldberg loves romantic comedy movies. He worked to promote them in stints
at Fox, Sony, and Focus Features (a subsidiary of Comcast, which also owns Universal). Shortly
before their theatrical downfall, however, he observed a general disinterest in them from studios
and marketers alike––“it reached a point where we said ‘we don’t want these any more.’” A
plethora of perceived market-driven rationales played a significant role in the genre’s
disappearance from theaters, and there simply weren’t enough upsides for executives and
marketers to risk their money on these kinds of movies.

“The theatrical proposition of a romantic comedy became something that everyone soured on,” he
explains. By Goldberg’s estimation, the average rom-com needed $40-50 million at the box office
to be considered a success, and he thinks that only about a quarter of the genre’s films actually
reached that point of profitability (my research shows that it’s somewhere closer to half). The
profit ceiling on rom-coms is generally perceived to be significantly lower than other genres, and
their failure can be uniquely catastrophic: “there was no floor,” Goldberg says. “If it missed, it
really missed.” Martin Brest’s Gigli was the perfect example: “we just tossed it away and we still
lost a ton of money,” attests Goldberg.

But the bigger factor at play is the non-domestic box office revenue streams: home video sales,
cable rights, and, of course, the international box office. Romantic comedies didn’t tend to fare
well overseas––though Lynda Obst notes in her book Sleepless in Hollywood that while the genre
was often met favorably in Europe and Japan, the vast majority of rom-coms (and comedies in
general) didn’t translate to some of the biggest international markets, particularly China and Russia

13
(Obst 2014). Instead, “emerging markets” are creating their own romantic comedies, as Obst
writes, “indigenous romantic comedies are the new rage; they are now being made based on local
romantic customs in local languages with local talent for a lesser price” (Obst 63). Goldberg
affirms that American exercises in the genre tended to have “the least interest from
international…they were always much happier with the small budget horror or sci-fi films, and
obviously the big-budget stuff.” But the implications for the rom-com’s theatrical fall extend far
beyond one genre. Goldberg explains, “What kept happening over and over––in terms of
profitability and risk-reward––is that that whole middle ground of films became very dangerous.”

14
Chapter Six: Shifts in Hollywood filmmaking

Aside from a few occasional exceptions, studios have all but eliminated mid-budget movies from
their theatrical slates. Their focus has shifted away from star-driven vehicles and toward
recognizable intellectual property––sequels, reboots, and spinoffs of franchises that already have
proven to have a built-in audience, as well as biopics about celebrities and historical figures who
are much more famous than the actors that play them. In her book, Obst scathingly defines the new
tentpole model. “These properties are meant to work with or without a star and have a built-in
audience in the United States and overseas. They are developed inside the studios’ development
factories, designed by committee for surefire success” (Obst 5).

Scott Elias, an associate producer who worked on Two Weeks Notice and Music & Lyrics, reflects
on the changes in the industry. “We're all getting locked into films that are superhero-driven, that
are more like live-action comic books…what would have been animated is now live action,” he
says. “And that's driving a lot of it, whether it's the Marvel universe, or the DC stuff or whatever.
I read all those comic books as a kid, and in a way it's kinda fun to see them coming to the screen,
but there's such a preponderance of them that it's ruling the theatrical universe, and when people
DO drag their butts to a cinema, it's usually to see some tentpole thing like that. And that's a trend
that's been going on and on, as well as the trend of franchises, right?”

The studios’ insistence on every movie being a four-quadrant crowd-pleasing hit has all but
eliminated the production of smaller movies that focus on being one or two things instead of
everything at once. Every action movie now is crammed full of comedy, pop culture references,
and bare-minimum sexless romance to keep every imagined demographic of audience members

15
happy while not doing anything particularly well. It’s increasingly rare for studios to invest in
projects that are aimed at a particular demographic––if it doesn’t theoretically appeal to teenagers
and their parents, it probably isn’t going to get greenlit.

The increased reliance on franchise filmmaking has dramatically complicated Hollywood’s
relationship with its stars. “Not that long ago, everything was based on who you cast,” Elias says.
“If you're gonna do a project of any kind, you had to get a big name, you had to get some kind of
talent attached to your project to make that project be greenlit. And more and more and more –
– and I think this is actually good––you don't need big names to get things launched.”
A handful of actors like Dwayne Johnson and Ryan Reynolds have managed to sustain successful
careers with recognizable star personas, though their power to launch non-IP productions stems
from their strength as producers as much as their acting abilities. But even these stars have heavily
relied on franchises to maintain their cultural impact––Johnson with Fast & Furious and Jungle
Cruise and Reynolds with Deadpool and The Hitman’s Bodyguard.

Indeed, a new formula seems to have arisen: Hollywood productions consistently rely on the
combination of a recognizable actor and an established brand, neither of which can usually succeed
without the inclusion of the other. Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth are essential to the success
of Marvel’s Captain America and Thor franchises, but have yet to headline genuine star vehicles
outside of their star-making characters. Emma Watson is Belle in Beauty and the Beast! Chris Pratt
is fighting dinosaurs in Jurassic World! Beyoncé and Donald Glover are in The Lion King! These
are all people that could lead a new generation of massively-appealing movie stars, making mid-
budget rom-coms, prestige dramas, and political thrillers to help solidify their star personas. But

16
despite their household-name-status and considerable onscreen charisma, they’ve scarcely pursued
big-screen roles outside of the franchise machine. In most of the aforementioned movies, you could
swap the actors for similarly-famous performers and very little of the overall project would
fundamentally change––studios just need name recognition to help multiply the excitement for
their IP.

Another factor at play is the increasing allure of television for actors. Streaming has blurred the
lines between cinema and television, so the once-laughable notion of movie stars jumping from
multiplexes to the small screen now looks a lot more appealing. With Netflix, Amazon Prime, and
Hulu all stepping up their programming to produce prestige (and prestige-adjacent) series that
previously were reserved for HBO alone, the household names of the ‘90s and aughts have flocked
toward home entertainment and away from big-screen storytelling. Julia Roberts, Reese
Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman, Will Ferrell, and Hugh Grant have all headlined recent streaming
miniseries. Meanwhile, George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington,
Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt, and Adam Sandler have all starred in direct-to-streaming movies in
the past five years. The expansion and evolution of streaming makes the migration of talent
completely understandable—after all, these new platforms have proven more willing than the
major Hollywood studios to greenlight the kinds of mid-budget character-driven projects for which
A-list stars clamor.

Another important factor is the disappearance of the behind-the-camera guardians of the genre.
While most rom-coms made enough money to turn a profit, some of the biggest bombs belonged
to the genre’s most important champions. James L. Brooks’ How Do You Know somehow cost

17
$120 million and made less than $50 million back, and he hasn’t returned to theatrical filmmaking
since (IMDb 2010). Diminishing returns on Nancy Meyers and Cameron Crowe releases signaled
that their best days were behind them, and neither have had a new film in the works for years. Nora
Ephron, the unmistakable voice behind a few of the greatest rom-coms of the end of the 20th
century including When Harry Met Sally... and You’ve Got Mail tragically passed away in 2013.
Meanwhile, Garry Marshall, the man behind Pretty Woman and Valentine’s Day, died in 2016.
The guardians of A-list rom-coms all suffered massive setbacks around the same time––and if all
the heavy hitters have abandoned their posts, why would less-established talents pick up the slack?

Yet rom-com storytelling hasn’t disappeared off the face of the earth; it’s just vacated theatres.
These kinds of stories are frequently integrated into sitcoms, and there are niche markets for micro
budgeted made-for-TV rom-coms like those from Hallmark. And, like so many other genres that
have vanished from cinemas, the romantic comedy has found a new home on streaming.

18
Chapter Seven: The streaming era

Netflix is trying to become the romantic comedy’s contemporary lord and savior. The streamer
has distributed 90 romantic comedies in the last six years––more than all the other studios
combined, and yet they are still a small drop in the bucket of its overall original content library,
currently totaling more than 1400 films since 2013 (Netflix 2022, What’s On Netflix 2022). But
the rom-coms Netflix produces aren’t one-to-one parallels to the kinds that studios were making
in the aughts––the streamer is much more focused on playing to smaller sub-audiences than
creating big crowd-pleasers. A significant portion––18, to be exact––of the original titles under
the “romantic comedy” banner on Netflix are teen movies about high schoolers, and while they
follow traditional rom-com tropes, they’re unquestionably geared toward adolescent viewers
(Netflix 2022). It’s a strategy that’s working, though, as the streamer has launched two massive
teen rom-com trilogies––To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before and The Kissing Booth both spawned
two sequels each, and each of the series’ films consistently rank among the most popular movies
on the platform.

Netflix is constantly blurring the lines between cinema and television, and the company’s romantic
comedies are a strong example of that categorical fuzziness. It’s too soon to say whether Netflix’s
romantic comedy output will have the same lasting quality that classics from Nora Ephron and
Nancy Meyers radiate. But it’s immediately clear that the vast majority of the streamer’s rom-
coms lack the craftsmanship that earlier studio equivalents possess––primarily because they lack
established directors and recognizable stars. Most of the Netflix rom-coms seem closer to
Hallmark movies than older theatrical releases in terms of quality, quantity, scale, and intended
audience––in fact, many of Netflix’s rom-coms are outsourced to some of the same studios that

19
produce films for channels like Hallmark. The connection between Netflix and Hallmark is made
all the more obvious when you consider the percentage of Netflix’s rom-coms that are Christmas-
themed––the platform has distributed a whopping 18 Christmas romantic comedies in just 5 years,
including two trilogies (The Princess Switch and The Christmas Prince) (What’s on Netflix 2022).

Netflix’s romantic comedies can be made more cheaply than their theatrical predecessors because
of their softened reliance on movie stars. “You can have no-name actors that nobody's ever heard
of before, or they can be first-time actors, and sometimes you can get onto Netflix or Amazon
Prime, and sometimes those projects catch fire with people and become extraordinarily popular,”
explains Elias. “And because of that delivery system, and this is again the good side of it, you don't
need to worry about being in 3,000 theaters, you don't need to worry about people paying $12 to
get into a movie theater, right? They're gonna watch it in the comfort of their home and it's all
about viewership, and the number of hits, the number of views. And that's a good thing! You don't
need Sandy Bullock to do a rom-com anymore.”

One positive angle to Netflix’s rom-com revival is the company’s rejection of the straight white
couple formula that dominated the theatrical studio releases of the last several decades. The
subscription-based model allows streamers to be more experimental and creative with their
thematic content. “We're in this lovely space where we're not focused on heteronormative love
stories anymore, which is very exciting,” Stidham explains. “We're looking at love more
realistically, and the answer is not anymore, like, ‘get married and have 2.5 kids,’ the answer might
be ‘Am I gonna be happy in a throuple?’ And that's just more interesting storytelling, right? To me
that's exciting, and that's what I talk about with my friends who are still single!” A sizable portion

20
of Netflix’s output has cast at least one romantic lead with a BIPOC actor, and several of the
streamer’s projects are centered on LGBTQ+ romances––both of which have barely been
attempted by theatrical studio rom-coms, despite the massive success of outliers like Crazy Rich
Asians and Love, Simon. If this genre seeks to remain exciting and appealing, it ought to include a
stronger mix of actors and creators from diverse backgrounds to offer fresh perspectives on
romance, and Netflix is helping lead the charge.

And if you’ve been disappointed by Netflix’s rom-com output, there may still be hope on the
horizon for the genre to make a theatrical comeback. Universal Studios has two big rom-com
projects slated for 2022: a gay romantic comedy from Billy Eichner and a project with Julia
Roberts and George Clooney (Ermac 2021, McClintock 2021). Meanwhile, many of the genre’s
royalty from the early 2000s––Reese Witherspoon, Sandra Bullock, and Jennifer Lopez––have
become increasingly powerful producers since the rom-com’s heyday, and all three of the
aforementioned actresses are starring in and producing their first new rom-coms in years:
Witherspoon in Your Place or Mine, Bullock in The Lost City, and Lopez in Marry Me and Shotgun
Wedding. Two of those four also seem to be action-romance hybrids, which certainly speaks to
Hollywood’s persistent reliance on multi-quadrant crowd-pleasers, but genre-bending isn’t new to
the rom-com, either, as Howard Hawks successfully cast screwball actors in romantic adventure
movies as early as Only Angels Have Wings in 1939, as well as Hatari!. These new star vehicles
could still serve as significant stepping stones in a full-blown rom-com renaissance, especially
when combined with Netflix’s ever-increasing slate. As producers, the rom-com stars of yesterday
have the power to pave the way for a new wave of theatrical romantic comedies if these new films
are successful––and their failure could further cement the genre’s future on streaming. Or perhaps

21
rom-coms will clarify the continually-evolving markers of mainstream success, as films that
perform tepidly at the box office like Marry Me can still prove to be worthwhile investments if
they find an afterlife on streaming. Love stories will always persist, but the future of the romantic
comedy is as uncertain as ever.

For Stidham, the rom-com landscape couldn’t look more different than it did ten years ago. “All
of a sudden––and I think Netflix really helped turn this around, their rom-com division––
everybody wants a rom-com right now.” She has several scripts in active development around
town, and other rom-com writers are doing similarly well. “I feel like I'm having a very good year,
and I think I'm gonna have a couple of good years in a row,” she says. “I love that people wanna
see them again. We just went through a freaking pandemic, and I think right now people want love,
and they want happiness, and they do want happy endings, and they want comedy. I think the rom-
com is fully back.”

22
Bibliography
Bruner, Raisa. “Julia Roberts on Why She's Done with Romantic Comedies.” Time. Time,
October 22, 2018. https://time.com/5431107/julia-roberts-rom-coms/.

“Cinema: Dead Cats.” TIME Magazine, May 16, 1938.
“Complete List of Netflix Originals.” What's on Netflix, January 7, 2022.
https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/originals/.

Ermac, Raffy. “Meet the All-LGBTQ+ Cast of 'Bros,' Billy Eichner's New Gay
Rom-Com.” OUT. Out, November 5, 2021. https://www.out.com/film/2021/9/23/billy-eichners-
gay-rom-com-bros-all-lgbtq-cast-luke-macfarlane-symone-ts-madison#media-gallery-media-1.

Grindon, Leger. The Hollywood Romantic Comedy: Conventions, History, Controversies.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Henderson, Brian. “Romantic Comedy Today: Semi-Tough or Impossible?” Film
Quarterly 31, no. 4 (1978): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.2307/1211803.

Horton, Andrew, Joanna E. Rapf, and Tamar Jeffers McDonald. “The View from the
Man-Cave.” Essay. In A Companion to Film Comedy, 217–35. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-
Blackwell, 2016.

“How Do You Know.” IMDb. IMDb.com, December 17, 2010.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1341188/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1.

IMDb. IMDb.com. Accessed November 6, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/search/.

Interview with Elias, Scott on February 9, 2022.

Interview with Goldberg, Brad on September 28, 2021

Interview with Stidham, Lindsay on February 11, 2022.

Karnick, Kristine Brunovska, Henry Jenkins, and Kristine Brunovska Karnick.
“Commitment and Reaffirmation in Hollywood Romantic Comedy.” Essay. In Classical
Hollywood Comedy, 123–46. New York, NY: Routledge, 1995.

McClintock, Pamela. “George Clooney, Julia Roberts Rom-Com 'Ticket to Paradise' Lands
September 2022 Release in Theaters.” The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter, April
6, 2021. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/george-clooney-julia-roberts-
rom-com-ticket-to-paradise-lands-september-2022-release-in-theaters-4161872/.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2012.

23

Mortimer, Claire. Romantic Comedy. London: Routledge, 2010.

“Movie Market Summary 1995 to 2022.” The Numbers. Nash Information Services, March
6, 2022. https://www.the-numbers.com/market/.

Obst, Lynda Rosen. Sleepless in Hollywood: Tales from the New Abnormal in the Movie
Business. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2014.

Romano, Andrew. “The Romantic Comedy Is Dead.” The Daily Beast. The Daily Beast
Company, July 12, 2017. https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-romantic-comedy-is-dead.

“Romantic Comedies.” Netflix. Netflix. Accessed March 6, 2022.
https://www.netflix.com/browse/genre/5475?so=az.

Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango. Accessed November 9, 2021.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/.

Sharf, Zack. “Matthew McConaughey Turned down $14.5 Million Offer to Make Another
Rom-Com Movie.” IndieWire. IndieWire, October 20, 2020.
https://www.indiewire.com/2020/10/matthew-mcconaughey-turned-down-14-million-rom-com-
movie-offer-1234594058/.

Siegel, Tatiana. “R.I.P. Romantic Comedies: Why Harry Wouldn't Meet Sally in 2013.”
The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter, September 26, 2013.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/rip-romantic-comedies-why-harry-
634776/.

“Take Me Home Tonight.” IMDb. IMDb.com, March 4, 2011.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810922/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0.

Wloszczyna, Susan. “Sandra Bullock Is (Bleeping) Tired of Romantic Comedies.” ABC
News. ABC News Network, June 12, 2009.
https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7824993&page=1.

Yahr, Emily. “The Rom-Com Is Dead. Good.” The Washington Post. WP Company,
October 8, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-rom-com-is-dead-
good/2016/10/06/6d82a934-859c-11e6-ac72-a29979381495_story.html.

24
Appendix 1 – Romantic Comedy Films, Budgets, Box Office, and
Rotten Tomatoes Scores

The following table is data sourced from the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) and Rotten
Tomatoes. Column A (the list of romantic comedies) was compiled by manually scanning
official IMDb lists of films distributed by the big six American film studios (20th Century Fox,
Columbia/Sony, Disney/Buena Vista, Paramount, Universal, Warner Brothers) and their
subsidiaries (Fox Searchlight, Sony Pictures Releasing, Miramax, CBS Films, Focus Features,
New Line). The criteria for inclusion were as follows:
1. Received American theatrical distribution from one of the six major American studios or
their subsidiaries/related studios
2. Tagged under both “romance” and “comedy” genres
3. Released after January 1, 2000
4. Is majority live-action (Enchanted is the only included film with notable animated
segments)
5. Financed by an American company or starring at least one American actor.

Columns B-E––Release (release date), Dist (distributor), Budget, and Box Office––were sourced
from individual film pages from IMDb. 10 films (About Adam; Deliver Us from Eva; Hope
Springs; Love Don’t Cost a Thing; Little Manhattan; In the Mix; Just Friends; Something New;
Angus, Thongs, and Perfect Snogging; Lola Versus) have no budgetary data listed on IMDb, so
column D is left blank for those films.

Columns F-G represent the results of simple mathematical equations comparing the budgets and
box office yields from columns D-E. Column F represents E minus D (box office minus budget)
to show the film’s profit in US dollars. Column G shows the percentage of the budget that the
film made at the box office (E/D times 100 and rounded to the nearest tenth) to show the
profitability of the film as a percentage.

Column H (G/L) is a binary conditional based on column G. If G<100, then the film is marked as
a financial LOSS, and if G>100, the film is marked as a financial GAIN.

Column I (RT) is sourced from individual Rotten Tomatoes (rottentomatoes.com) pages for each
film showing the Rotten Tomatoes critical aggregate of positive reviews.

Dist Key:
20CF - 20th Century Fox
BV (D) - Buena Vista (Disney)
C (S) - Columbia (Sony)
CBS (P) - CBS Films (Paramount)
M (D) - Miramax (Disney)
NL (WB) - New Line Cinema (Warner
Brothers)
FF (U) - Focus Features (Universal)
FS - Fox Searchlight
P - Paramount
SPR - Sony Pictures Releasing
U - Universal
WB - Warner Brothers
WDP (D) - Walt Disney Pictures (Disney)

26

27

28

29

30

31
Appendix 2 – Market Share of Theatrical Romantic Comedies

The following table shows data sourced from Table 1 (sourced from IMDb) and data from The-
Numbers.com.

Column A shows the calendar year.

Column B shows the total number of films theatrically distributed by the big six American
studios (see above for enumeration) in the given calendar year. The data is sourced from
https://www.the-numbers.com/market/.

Column C shows the number of romantic comedies distributed by the big six American studios
as outlined in Table 1. The data is sourced from IMDb.

Column D is the result of a simple mathematical formula dividing column C by column B and
multiplying by 100 (C/B*100) to ascertain the percentage of theatrical films that were romantic
comedies in a given year.

YEAR # of films # of rom-coms Market share %
2000 104 8 7.692307692
2001 103 14 13.59223301
2002 119 13 10.92436975
2003 106 20 18.86792453
2004 113 18 15.92920354
2005 107 20 18.69158879
2006 128 16 12.5
2007 118 11 9.322033898
2008 104 15 14.42307692
2009 111 17 15.31531532
2010 96 20 20.83333333
2011 101 16 15.84158416
2012 90 8 8.888888889
2013 78 6 7.692307692
2014 88 7 7.954545455
2015 93 4 4.301075269
2016 95 5 5.263157895
2017 81 0 0
2018 86 5 5.813953488
2019 87 3 3.448275862
2020 34 2 5.882352941
2021 60 0 0

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This project explores the fall and rise of the American romantic comedy, particularly within the context of the studio system in the 21st century. Why did theatrical romantic comedies fall out of fashion around 2012? I found that the trajectory of the romantic comedy serves as a powerful example of the broader trends in American entertainment. I contextualize my research with the history of the romantic comedy genre, analyze box office data, observe evolving norms in studio filmmaking, and interrogate the complex relationships between romantic comedies and their movie stars. My research, in conjunction with my interviews with individuals who wrote, produced, and marketed romantic comedy films, indicates that studios largely abandoned romantic comedies (along with most other mid-budget genres) in pursuit of increased focus on franchise blockbusters that sell well overseas. The genre’s theatrical downfall is both a cause and effect of individual movie stars’ decreased selling power for studio features––stars rarely launch non-franchise theatrical films in the contemporary landscape. However, like so many other mid-budget genres, romantic comedies are mounting a comeback on streaming services like Netflix, allowing for further evolution of generic norms and increased opportunities for creative diversity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

It's not just about Harry: why Nora Ephron (still) matters

PDF

Women in peril: essays on gender, violence, and media

PDF

The color of laughter: a look at how Black comedians shape race in America

PDF

Get @ me: comedy in the age of social media

PDF

100 years of horror: a history of modern horror movies

PDF

Adolescents who have never dated: friendship attributes as predictors of prolonged romantic development among Asian American and Latine youths

PDF

The transcendence of violence and survival: To ‘Kill the Indian’ then and now

PDF

MATCH CUT: the making of professional screenwriters and a (counter)storytelling movement in film school

PDF

Screenwriting in the digital age: for the first time, new technology and distribution methods give feature film writers power to make a living outside Hollywood studios

PDF

Comic venus: women and comedy in American silent film

PDF

Discovering self

PDF

Two-faced: the image of the female political journalist in American film

PDF

The mistreatment and misrepresentation of Black women in sports media must stop

PDF

Georges Delerue in Hollywood: the film composer's legacy, as seen through his final chapter

PDF

Lights, camera, (call to) action: global public engagement in film launch campaigns

PDF

Entanglements of the Asian identity: visibility and representation in the United States

PDF

Gender confusion and the female journalist: TV journalist Robin Scherbatsky of How I met your mother

PDF

Links between discrimination and sleep difficulties: romantic relationships as risk and resilience factors

PDF

Sunsetting: platform closure and the construction of digital cultural loss

PDF

The association of cerebrovascular disease risk factors with brain structure and its modification by genetic variation

Asset Metadata

Creator Stenzel, Wesley (author)

Core Title The death and rebirth of the American romantic comedy

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Specialized Journalism (The Arts)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 04/20/2022

Defense Date 04/20/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Hollywood,movie stars,OAI-PMH Harvest,rom com,romantic comedy,rom-com,Specialized Journalism,specialized journalism - the arts,Stars,studio film

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Jenkins, Henry (committee chair), Saltzman, Joe (committee member), Steinbach, Katherine (committee member)

Creator Email wesley@stenzels.com,wesleystenzel@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111037669

Unique identifier UC111037669

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Stenzel, Wesley

Type texts

Source 20220421-usctheses-batch-931 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu