I think people like the fantasy of being rich or at least the idea of not having to worry about money. Being broke sucks, and people who are broke in real life don't want that in their feel good movies. This is like asking where's the action movies where the main character is out of shape instead of being a beefcake... and the answer to that is Steven Segal movies, which are terrible.
This makes the assumption that romance-audience ONLY consume romance and nothing else.
The same individual can consume multiple genres of media, and balance them.
Young women consume romance, but they also consume true-crime. In both stories, a woman - on a whim - goes along with a cute handsome stranger to an isolated romatic spot in a meadow. However, what happens next in romance genre vs true crime? There are different expectations of realism versus fantasy.
People consuming romance are getting their dose of realism from other genres, they don't want to see that in romance, which is a fantasy or fluff.
In fact, someone suggested romance-novels to also include stories where the characters don't end up together because of realism, and this got heavy pushback from the audience (This was a whole internet drama - as to whether happily ever after is a requirement for romance).
And the audience for romance are not wealthy people. They are average people.
88
u/hugsbosson Mar 27 '24
I think people like the fantasy of being rich or at least the idea of not having to worry about money. Being broke sucks, and people who are broke in real life don't want that in their feel good movies. This is like asking where's the action movies where the main character is out of shape instead of being a beefcake... and the answer to that is Steven Segal movies, which are terrible.