Wait, the Film Industry is Sexist? WHUT? No, RLY?

[talkingsoup]

WHUT?

No, seriously, WHUT?

The gist: Warner Bros. exec, the Esteemed Robinov, said that the company would no longer produce movies with female leads. Citing a few recent movies with female leads that happened to bomb.

Cause, yanno, movies bombing. 'S never happened before. Movies bombing with male leads? Nope, never. It's the wimmins fault, yanno.

Hay, guess wat, WB?

The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions? Troy? Alexander? Superman Returns? The innumerable, unnameable, unmentionable punch-drunk comedies?

And, guess wat, guess wat! It's not just yoos guys!

Gigli? Original Sin? Unleashed? Unbreakable? The Village? The Planet of the Apes remake? Rollerball? The War of the Worlds remake? Hostel 1 and 2?

Nor are terrible movies a recent invention! Sorry, WB, ya don't own the patent on that one!

Waterworld? This Island Earth? Xanadu? Plan 9 From Outer Space and everything else by ol' Ed Wood? Howard the Duck? Caveman?

And let's not forget that yoos guys have produced blockbusters with strong female characters before!

Remember White Oleander? North Country? No? Anyone?

Okay.

Now. Anyone taken statistics? I haven't. You don't need to have to notice the trend going on here.

The problem? Logic.

"Dur, three movies with females leads dun badly. Must be cause...cause dere are dem, dem wimmins in dem leadin' roles, an' stuff!"

When there is evidence of WB-produced movies that have failed, evidence of recent non-WB movies that have failed, evidence of OLD movies that have failed, and evidence of SUCCESSFUL movies with FEMALE leads.

Philosophy 101. This claim is not only invalid, it is also inductive.

Therefore this claim is illogical.

Therefore this claim is made of PHAIL. EPIC PHAIL.

Which means that the Esteemed Robinov and his cronies and, well, the entire company, is made of EPIC FAIL.

So, thank you, your Esteemed Sir, for proving your own idiocy. I hereby boycott all future movies produced by you or your company in the future. You have alienated your entire female audience. Congratulations.

We do not need you. You do not represent us. You do not speak for us. May a thousand talented women strip off their high heels and stab you with them, then string you up with their own nylons, so they can walk home in comfortable flats and not ever have to worry about runs again.

Comments

[ddrussianinja.livejournal.com]

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.

[talkingsoup]

Grah, see that's the thing, I don't measure movies in term of monetary success, I measure them in terms of, "Was it awesome? Did they win awards?" But of course I forgot that with production companies it's money, money, money makes the world go round! Business and all that.

Mostly I was just trying to get the point across that there are a hell of a lot of crappy movies that have men as the leading role, and that movies failing, wasn't anything new and had no relation whatsoever to whether the lead was male or female, or if there even was a lead! Ensemble casts, ever hear of that, guys??

But yeah, I agree with you, though I wouldn't say Invasion of the Body Snatchers was a crappy old movie. Albeit, I haven't seen it, but it is a classic after all. And yeah, what the hell? Charlie's Angels was huge and so was Tomb Raider, if we're talking big bucks here!

But it doesn't even make sense that they're just focusing on money, I mean, there's no other reason than that they're simply being misogynistic pigs. You cannot use money and monetary success in this argument, because there have been lots and lots and lots of successful movies with women in leading roles. Their argument holds no water whatsoever.

Goddamnit! One of the greatest and most monetarily successful movies OF ALL TIME was the Sound of Music, and IT WASN'T THE NAZIS WHO MADE IT THAT WAY, IT WAS A FUCKING FEMALE LEAD CHARACTER! AND A NUN, TOO!

...Sorry. Didn't mean to blow up, and I'm not blowing up at you, just so you know. ^.^;

[ddrussianinja.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, money is all a producer worries about and it causes their reality to become very warped, especially if they become successful. That's basically why Hollywood's movies suck so much. The producers will focus entirely on making a movie that will make a ton of money instead of making a movie that will win awards.

So his logic becomes twisted and really really stupid because of money and so he blames women for his failure.

Oh and don't worry about it. I've had people blow up more than that on LJ and I have them blow up at me too. It's no big deal ^_^

[sheandhersin.livejournal.com]

Hear hear!

[talkingsoup]

Is we can has our pitchforks and torches now, plees?

[malloryjean.livejournal.com]

You said it, Caroline! When I heard that about WB I was disgusted that they would contribute their failure as a production company to an entire GENDER. Ridiculous.

[talkingsoup]

Well, but of course it's always us wimmins faults. When have the decisions of men been a mistake?

Yyyyeaaah...

[marang.livejournal.com]

Fuck yeah. Epic fail is an apt description.

[talkingsoup]

When the revolution comes, they'll be the first ones against the wall.