Look, I need to get something off my chest that’s been bugging me for years as both a sci-fi fan and someone who teaches this stuff to teenagers daily. Romance in science fiction movies? It’s like adding a kazoo solo to a symphony orchestra – technically possible, but why would you want to?
I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately because my students keep asking me why so many sci-fi movies feel the need to shoehorn in love stories, and honestly? I don’t have a good answer for them. These are kids who get genuinely excited about dystopian societies and time travel paradoxes, but then groan audibly when the inevitable romantic subplot kicks in. Smart kids, really.
My relationship with this issue goes way back. I remember being maybe fourteen, sitting in a movie theater watching *Attack of the Clones* with my dad, completely absorbed in this galactic conflict unfolding on screen. The political machinations, the brewing war, the moral complexity of the Jedi’s role – I was eating it up. Then Anakin opens his mouth with that infamous sand speech, and I literally cringed so hard I sank into my seat. My dad looked over at me like “what’s wrong?” but I couldn’t even explain it at the time.
That whole romance felt like someone had taken a perfectly good space opera and decided it needed to be more like a CW teen drama. Here’s Anakin, supposedly this conflicted character wrestling with destiny and power, reduced to delivering pickup lines that would make a high schooler cringe. And Padmé – a former queen and senator – somehow finding this charming? The disconnect was so jarring it pulled me completely out of the story.
What really gets me is how these romantic elements often feel like they’re written by committee, designed to hit certain demographic targets rather than serve the story. It’s the same reason I roll my eyes when my students complain that every YA dystopia needs a love triangle – because apparently we can’t trust audiences to care about characters without romantic stakes.
*Interstellar* is probably the example that frustrated me most, though. I was completely sold on that movie for the first two acts. The science was gorgeous, the emotional weight of Cooper leaving his daughter felt real and devastating, and the whole time dilation concept had me on the edge of my seat. I remember checking my watch during the water planet sequence because the tension was so unbearable.
But then – and I swear this is when I felt my heart sink – we get to that third act where love becomes some kind of interdimensional force. Brand’s speech about love being the one thing that transcends dimensions made me want to throw something at the screen. Not because love isn’t powerful or meaningful, but because it felt like such a cop-out from the beautiful, hard science fiction the movie had been doing up to that point.
I teach *1984* and *Fahrenheit 451* to my juniors, and they never complain that those books need more romance. They’re too busy being horrified by surveillance states and book burning. The human connections in those stories matter, but they serve the larger themes about society and freedom. They don’t hijack the narrative.
*Passengers* might be the worst offender I’ve seen in recent years. The premise was so promising – what happens to human psychology during long-term space travel? What are the ethics of waking someone from cryosleep for your own companionship? These are meaty, complex questions that could fuel an entire film.
Instead, we got what basically amounted to a romantic comedy set on a spaceship, complete with all the problematic implications of Jim’s actions being glossed over because… love conquers all, I guess? The movie was so focused on getting Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence together that it completely abandoned the philosophical questions that made the setup interesting in the first place.
Here’s what kills me about this trend – science fiction is already an inherently human genre. You don’t need to add romance to make audiences care about the characters. Some of the most emotionally resonant sci-fi I know has little to no romantic content. *2001: A Space Odyssey*, *Arrival*, *Ex Machina* – these movies trust that audiences can connect with characters facing existential questions about consciousness, communication, and what it means to be human.
When romance works in sci-fi, it’s usually because it’s genuinely exploring something about the genre’s themes rather than just being tacked on. *Her* is probably the best example I can think of. Theodore’s relationship with Samantha isn’t just a love story – it’s a genuine examination of intimacy, consciousness, and connection in an increasingly digital world. The science fiction elements and the romance are inseparable because they’re exploring the same questions.
My students actually love *Her* when I show it to them (with appropriate permission slips, obviously). They don’t see it as a romance that happens to be set in the future; they see it as a story about technology and humanity that happens to use a romantic relationship to explore those themes. There’s a difference.
Even *Blade Runner 2049*, which does have romantic elements with K and Joi’s relationship, uses them to dig deeper into questions about artificial consciousness and what makes relationships real. The romance serves the science fiction rather than competing with it.
But for every *Her* or *Blade Runner 2049*, we get a dozen movies where the romance feels like it was added because some studio executive decided the movie needed “broader appeal.” It’s the same thinking that gives us unnecessary action sequences in dramas or comedy relief in horror movies – this assumption that audiences can’t handle genre fiction that’s actually committed to its genre.
I’ve had countless conversations with other sci-fi fans about this, and the frustration is real. We’re not asking for emotionless robots in space. We want complex, fully realized human characters dealing with extraordinary circumstances. But there’s a difference between rich character development that includes romantic elements and romance that undermines everything else the story is trying to do.
What really bothers me is that this trend seems to assume audiences aren’t sophisticated enough to engage with science fiction on its own terms. Like we need the familiar comfort of a love story to make the weird future stuff palatable. But my students prove that wrong every day – they’re perfectly capable of caring deeply about characters facing alien invasions or dystopian governments without needing those characters to fall in love.
Maybe I’m being too harsh. I know plenty of people who genuinely enjoy romantic subplots in their sci-fi, and that’s fine. Different people want different things from their entertainment. But I can’t help feeling like we’re missing out on so many interesting stories because writers and filmmakers feel obligated to include romantic elements that don’t serve the larger narrative.
Science fiction at its best makes us think differently about ourselves and our world. It asks big questions about technology, society, consciousness, and our place in the universe. When romance enhances those questions, great. When it distracts from them or reduces complex characters to romantic archetypes, it’s doing the genre a disservice.
I just want more sci-fi that trusts its audience to care about ideas and characters without needing the safety net of familiar romantic formulas. Is that too much to ask?
0 Comments