#anti anti Varchie perhaps?

[alwaysspeakshermind]

Top 5 Anti-Varchie Arguments & Why They Make No Sense

#5: “Varchie’s so bland/there’s no chemistry between them at all.”

[Note: I would like to apologize in advance to anyone/everyone upon whose timelines I’m inflicting this series of semi-rant-y posts. Someone on Pinterest felt the urge to leave an outraged comment about why they hate Varchie on one of my pictures (clearly, they confused Pinterest with Twitter/Tumblr/Instagram), and it was so unnecessary and full of all the usual incorrect twaddle I see used on SM to discount A&V’s relationship that it annoyed me and made me decide to go ahead and start writing all the refutations I’ve been keeping to myself since S2 released its first trailer and the essay-length grumbles began. Because as much as I try to steer clear of entering this type of fight, I have trouble standing by when obviously-wrong conclusions are being drawn from obviously-misconstrued information and being presented as fact. And since it doesn’t take me long to write analysis-type posts, my usual ‘I don’t have time for this nonsense’ excuse is kind of removed.]

Right, so…chemistry. Two quick things:

Number one, on-screen chemistry is about rapport between actors, and just because a specific romantic pairing does not personally do it for you does not mean that they lack chemistry. 

Number two, in acting/performance art, chemistry is a tangible, quantifiable aspect necessary to any and all interactions between performers, so it is essentially false to state that any pairing that has made it to TV is utterly without chemistry. For writers to allow a couple to happen at all, for actors to even be cast in the first place, at least some chemistry must be present; it’s simply a matter of what kind of chemistry each pairing has, how much, and how well that chemistry translates onscreen.

Random example: Prior to Friends, Lisa Kudrow (Phoebe) was cast as Roz in Fraiser, but was subsequently replaced with Peri Gilpin because the latter’s onscreen chemistry was better with Kelsey Grammer (Fraiser). It was not a romantic chemistry issue. It was not a no chemistry, period between the actors issue. It was just that there wasn’t enough of the right kind of chemistry, which made the Kudrow/Grammar dynamic less compelling than desired.

Chemistry is, however, notoriously difficult to explain if you’re not familiar with most generally accepted forms of film-criticism, so I feel it’s useless to try proving anything with examples pulled directly from source material—for instance, anyone relatively adept at dissecting performance can see at once how the entire Riverdale pilot showcases the chemistry between Archie and Veronica so that the closet scene feels like a natural culmination of something that began the second they saw each other. If you can watch that episode from start to finish, pronounce “no chemistry” and actually believe it, providing textual evidence and defining terms is going to be a waste of time.

So instead, I’ll take the common sense route and just point out you may rest assured that with Riverdale, a show based in roughly half a century’s worth of comic history, everyone involved in the casting knew going into it that romantic chemistry between the actors playing Archie and Veronica was an absolute must. KJ Apa and Camila Mendes would not be playing the parts they are if they were unable to create any sort of romantic chemistry between them, and S1 would most certainly not have chosen to set up a Varchie relationship from the get-go—much less have continued to emphasize a budding Varchie relationship throughout—if that romantic chemistry had not translated onscreen. Ditto for S2 and S3.

Also, take my word for it: I’m here. It takes a *lot* of chemistry for me to get involved in a ship (to the point that nearly every ship I have ever shipped has involved actors who were married/dating at the time, or eventually married/began dating), and it really takes a lot of chemistry to get me involved with a teen ship because I didn’t like most teen shows back when I was a teen. Yet Varchie’s chemistry popped enough onscreen to reel me in. 

What does all this have to with anything?

Well, in short, claiming Archie and Veronica are “bland” or “without chemistry” is attempting to apply objective terms to a subjective opinion, so if you’re going to do that, it automatically opens your contention up to a couple of counter-arguments:

(1) You are objectively wrong, because by all acting terms/definitions/standards, Archie and Veronica have chemistry. 

(2) You are objectively wrong because you are in essence saying that you do not see/understand the verifiable evidence set before you. (In other words, you have metaphorically gazed upon the color red and announced “this is not red.”)

(3) You are subjectively wrong because you are stating your based-in-subjectivity opinion as fact which inherently implies that you believe subjectivity is allowable in an argument. And if you believe subjectivity is allowable in an argument, than you are essentially contending that someone else’s opposing opinion is just as valid as yours, meaning anyone who says “Varchie has the best chemistry” is just as correct as you are, and your entire point becomes moot. 

Although you may not like Varchie’s dynamic/prefer another dynamic over theirs, attempting to file your dislike under the headings of blandness or zero chemistry simply labels you as someone who either cannot grasp the concept of chemistry in relation to acting, or someone who is too stubborn to admit to its presence. (And to be frank, neither option paints your intelligence in a favorable light.)

Personally, I’d like to think this argument gets used so often because most people just don’t understand what onscreen chemistry truly is/how it can be platonic or sexual and what denotes platonic or sexual/how it can exist between actors who hate each other and not exist between actors who love each other/how it can be organic or crafted through sheer effort, etc. Or that it keeps recurring because people just don’t interact with enough different types of people to understand that certain actions mean different things depending on who’s doing them.

But while I get that people have different preferences when it comes to romantic dynamics and interpret certain actions differently, based on the always-solid-yet-consistently-underrated performances KJ Apa and Camila Mendes have been delivering since the pilot, I have trouble buying that the oft-repeated cry of “no chemistry” is due solely to a feeble understanding of what that term means. Based on the inconsistent scads of oddball scenes/out-of-context facial expressions I’ve seen cited as “proof,” it seems a lot more like this argument is a camouflaged complaint against storylines people would like to have for their favorite couple, or the fact that one romantic trope was chosen over another (both of which are other posts entirely).

So, yeah. Pro-tip: choosing an argument that puts you in the position of disputing readily-observable facts is never the way to go. 

If you hate the Varchie pairing and want to talk about how much you hate it, okay. It’d be a nice gesture if you didn’t do in the Varchie tags or on people’s pictures that were literally only tagged Archie/Veronica which means you had to search those terms to announce your dislike and who on earth deliberately goes looking for things they hate, seriously, go search happy puppies or something instead, I promise it’ll make you feel better. You’re allowed to hate things, and you’re absolutely allowed to irrationally hate things. Just don’t confuse your irrational hatred with reasonable dislike, because the two reactions are not at all interchangeable. 

Also? Maybe don’t try so hard to justify irrational hatred with the ‘Varchie has no chemistry’ argument, because any viewer with a working brain can see at once that the visible evidence simply doesn’t back you up. And citing a source (scenes from the show) that disproves your entire thesis doesn’t exactly lend credence to your assertion.

[grinsekatze]

I have two things to say about this episode.

First: I wouldn’t be too worried about Varchie. They put them back together way too soon, and just look at the how: She was married to that dickwad Chad Gecko. MARRIED. Yeah, this is Riverdale and it barely makes any sense, but marriage usually is a thing you do when you’re in deep, saying Veronica is in no state of mind to just rush back into a relationship with her high school sweetheart and make it last. This is the escape they’re acting Barchie was. That’s also why Ronnie doesn’t care about Barchie fucking after everything. She must have loved Chadwick, some time in the past, and she’s running back to what was comfortable and, compared to their marriage, easy. And him? He’s messed up from being a soldier in whatever war the US military is fighting in 50ies uniforms, stuff he thinks he can’t tell anyone about, and he just ran away from feeling anything more for Betty.

Which brings me to my second take: This is Archie we’re talking. The antis always try to make him this playboy but in truth he’s never been this. He fell for every woman he’s ever touched, the only exception perhaps being Cheryl and that’s why he turned her down in season 1. And they’re tryna act as if he doesn’t feel anything? Just a casual thing? Yeah, sure, Jan. He wants that to be true. Cause a lot of you are still hung up on how Archie turned Betty down in season 1 because of Grundy, and that was indeed heartbreaking for Betty. But then season 4 happened and the tables were turned and he sang her a fricking song and she stopped him, breaking his heart this time. Remember the look on his face, guys. He was devastated and decided he was gonna leave Riverdale to go to the academy the same fucking night. My take is: Archie is scared shitless of his feelings for Betty, at this point. It’s a nice tale they try to tell, being casual, but in fact he’s just scared, they both are, and I truly think if (and that’s a big if) this show is supposed to make even a little bit of sense, they’re not over and they’ll come around.

[stonerbughead]

Ok, I'm going to slide in here and awkwardly ask something, but feel free to ignore it: if you had full creative control of the show, how would you run season 5? You can pick and choose whatever leaks you want to include.

Bless your soul, you are truly such a positive and lovely force in this fandom from your meta to your gorgeous gifsets and writing! I’ve seen so many good answers today on my dash and while I have kind of abandoned canon post-4x17, I can’t pretend I haven’t been paying attention in the hopes that they can eventually get me back on board.

ANYWAY so I continue to find both Archie and Betty’s actions SO out of character, and I’m personally of the mind that the most fun/Riverdaleian way to solve this would’ve been for the mystery to somehow explain it

I’d be all for @sullypants’ tinfoil hat conspiracy theory that Charles somehow manipulated Betty and Archie to break up bughead or some other very riverdale explanation that involves cults, the Stonies, or even a grand alliance of past villains conspiring to break up bughead bc they are Too Powerful against their foes.

I also just headcanon Betty and Jughead as truly being the only one for each other so I feel like I’d be a lot less excited to see either of them with the anti-Jug or anti-Betty that others have predicted, tho I do think that makes sense. So here’s my insane idea for how to avoid that—this is truly wild and ridiculous but—wouldn’t it be so fun if Bughead didn’t break up bc of the kiss, but it’s somehow implied they broke up during college along with Varchie and Choni...Then we flash forward and find Betty and Jughead both in riverdale, acting like they’re broken up, only to find by the end of the episode(s) that they are actually still together but needed to go undercover as not-together in order to investigative whatever strange thing brings everyone back to town? I would love to see these two with their own PI firm (Betty would never be able to stay within FBI rules imo) and we’d still get all the cuteness of having to pretend publicly that they’re not in love. I love the idea of jug as a successful author in theory but it also feels very young for that so I’d just be here for knowing that his PI work with love of his life betty is what fuels his writing whether or not he’s published yet.

I just want my investigative duo bughead and I’ve always just loved the idea that they’re the mom and dad of the friend group, the only ones who are still together since high school (a la Naley in OTH minus the injury/near-broken marriage) who end up relationship counseling their friends as they navigate their exes.

Other things on my wishlist include:

Bisexual Archie AND bisexual Veronica slowly finding their way back to each other (and Veronica being wildly successful. I could see her single, playing the field, perhaps too damaged from her breakup with Archie to truly let anyone in. I see her more as Brooke Davis in OTH post Lucas Scott heartbreak you know? So strong except when it comes to love bc she’s so bruised.)

Also keeping Choni apart for longer before they find their way back to each other bc their original relationship development was 100% the weakest of the three big ships and they deserve better build up

More mechanic Betty!

Toni, Reggie, Kevin, and the Pussycats having full storylines. I’d love for Toni to be part of the main mystery for once bc I always felt her dynamic with Betty and Jughead is underused.

More group scenes! Everyone actually playing a role in the overall narrative while having an individual journey that makes sense for their character.

More core four friendship — would actually want to see Jarchie, Beronica, even the Barchie FRIENDSHIP given more care and attention.

Idk I feel like there’s a ton more I would’ve said after 4x16 but I have so much less creativity or hope for canon riverdale than I used to. Am loving seeing all the responses tho!!!