While I completely agree with you, a lot of the movies you mention, while their quality could be argued, were still technically successes. "The Matrix: Reloaded" was successful (albeit, "Revolutions" wasn't), "Unbreakable" was successful, "War of the Worlds" was ridiculously successful, "The Village" was successful, "The Planet of the Apes" remake was successful, "Hostel" was hugely successful, otherwise why would they have made "Hostel 2", which was also technically a success despite only making a few million? I'm pretty sure "This Island Earth" was a success. It's considered a classic after all. And I must say that "Superman Returns" only wasn't successful because they had such a stupidly high budget. Only Spider-Man or Batman could have returned that much money.
In any case, while I won't argue that Warner Bros. puts out a lot of shitty movies, more often than I'd like, those shitty movies are quite successful.
Regardless, I totally agree with your overall statement that this is a ridiculously illogical claim to make. "The Brave One" just didn't have a hook. If the lead were male I would have been just as, if not more, disinterested in it. "Invasion" had like three different directors and it was a remake of a crappy old movie. Of course no one saw that. The only reason it worked with "War of the Worlds" was because it's based on more than just a crappy movie and it had a lot of publicity and good reviews. They also seem to forget the "Underworld" movies, both of which had Kate Beckinsale as the lead role, both of which were successful. And "Charlie's Angels"? And "Contact"? And "Tomb Raider"? Every early Disney movie ever made ("Snow White", "Cinderella", "Little Mermaid", etc.)? It's not the gender of the lead role, it's the quality and/or overall attraction of the movie itself to the general audience. That general audience includes women and men who respect women and/or find women attractive. They just don't understand their business anymore.
no subject
In any case, while I won't argue that Warner Bros. puts out a lot of shitty movies, more often than I'd like, those shitty movies are quite successful.
Regardless, I totally agree with your overall statement that this is a ridiculously illogical claim to make. "The Brave One" just didn't have a hook. If the lead were male I would have been just as, if not more, disinterested in it. "Invasion" had like three different directors and it was a remake of a crappy old movie. Of course no one saw that. The only reason it worked with "War of the Worlds" was because it's based on more than just a crappy movie and it had a lot of publicity and good reviews. They also seem to forget the "Underworld" movies, both of which had Kate Beckinsale as the lead role, both of which were successful. And "Charlie's Angels"? And "Contact"? And "Tomb Raider"? Every early Disney movie ever made ("Snow White", "Cinderella", "Little Mermaid", etc.)? It's not the gender of the lead role, it's the quality and/or overall attraction of the movie itself to the general audience. That general audience includes women and men who respect women and/or find women attractive. They just don't understand their business anymore.