The Official Home of Correct Movie Opinions
|
You are Here » Features » Warner Bros. Bans Female Lead Movies – UPDATED
October 8, 2007
Warner Bros. Bans Female Lead Movies – UPDATED
— Posted by John Campea
First the relevant information. This comes to us from DeadlineHollywoodDaily which is an entertainment business blog run by LA Weekly writer, Nikki Finke, who recently won Entertainment Journalist Of The Year from the 2007 Southern California Journalism Awards. It reads like this:
Ok, before going on too much here I want to be totally transparent and point out that I believe Warner Bros. is the single most ass backwards thinking studio out there (I know there are some VERY good people there… but in my opinion, the ship is run by morons who know no end to the limits of human stupidity, arrogance, ignorance and worst of all a manipulative evil that staggers the imagination. The foul steps of Warner Bros have been well documented around here, and I just wanted to say this upfront so you can interpret my commentary accordingly. First of all, there is no denying that the biggest box office movies by far are the male lead ones. All one has to do is look at any annual box office reports and see the top 20-30 spots are usually reserved for “Men Only”. This however opens up the discussion on what is the CUASE of seemingly exclusive male lead only movies at the top of the box office. One can not simply ignore the fact that most of the movies out there that get green lit are male lead scripts. That’s just the fact. Studios are already making far more male lead films than female lead ones. So with a seemingly 10:1 ratio, it’s no surprise at all that 10:1 of the box office top spots go to men. HOWEVER, it also means that 10:1 BOTTOM spots go to men… but I’ll address that in a moment. One also has to take genre into account when looking at box office numbers in relation to gender. The top grossing films are USUALLY within the genres young male audiences gravitate to. Fantasy, adventure, action, Sci Fi. These are genres that target more of a male audience and also garner the majority of the Box Office crowd. I mean, no matter how good the upcoming George Clooney dramatic film “Michael Clayton” is, I guarantee you it won’t make $100 million… and that’s ok for what it is. So can movies with female leads (the few of them that are actually made) be profitable? According the the backwards thinking Warner Bros brain trust “no”. But real numbers (a concept Warner Bros is unfamiliar with… hence their outrageous, numbers pulled straight out of their ass, claim that 70% of piracy came from Canada.. which was throughouly TROUNCED by each independent study and Warner has since backed off of) suggest that YES, female lead films CAN be profitable. The Devil Wears Prada $124,740,460 domestic It’s funny that one of the examples used was “The Brave One” (with Jodi Foster), which only made about $34 million. Ok, that’s not a good number. HOWEVER, when you look at a MALE lead film with a comparable theme, the Kevin Bacon film “Death Sentence”, both films on the surface about innocent people out for revenge for the taking of a loved one, you see that the FEMALE lead film more than tripled the performance of the male lead film. Death Sentence made just $9 million. So if a studio will outright reject the notion of female lead films because The Invasion (which everyone knew was doomed to fail months before it ever hit theaters) or The Brave One… what do you do with flops like Grindhouse? What about Flyboys ($13 million), or Zoom ($11 million). How about Delta Farce ($8 million) or a real machismo film like The Condemned ($7 million)? Do we say: “Hmmm… male lead films flop. Therefore we hereby will only do movies starring animals, animated characters and aliens”? Obviously not. Films with women as the lead characters are few and far between as it is. 90% fall into the genres that don’t usually excel at box office results… and the precious few that do get action/adventrue treatments are HORRIBLE films to start with (Catwoman, Elektra, Aeon Flux). So to suggest “Women in lead roles is the problem” is short sighted and asinine. And to me, that pretty much sums up Warner Bros. I’ve emailed someone at Warner Bros asking them for a comment, so far I haven’t heard back. IF this report is true (there is always a chance this award winning journalist could be mistaken I guess) then the social repercussions of such thinking sends shudders down my spine, as it should for all of us. Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov must be fired and fired immediately, not just for incompetent business thinking (I’m not going to tell him how to run his business), but for a socially reprehensible move such as banning women. **NEW UPDATE** WB Rep – “Mr. Robinov never made that statement, nor is it his policy.” TMB – “So are you saying it is not now, nor will be Warner Bros. policy to stop producing films with female leads?” WB Rep – “Correct. That is not our policy. A blogger (assumably Nikki Finke) made a statement without giving us the opportunity to first respond.” TMB – “All right, that’s all I needed to know. Thank you for calling me.” Ok, so there you have it. Warner Bros. is now… 3 days after Finke’s article went online, and more than 9 hours after I was trying to get a statement from them… denying that Robinov said anything about stopping making films with female leads. This is of coarse predictable. About an hour ago, a fellow movie webmaster called me and said “You know how this will play out right John? They’re going to finally call you back tonight or tomorrow, deny everything or say they were taken out of context. You just know they were hoping this would just quietly go away over the weekend”. And he was right. I don’t personally believe for one moment that Robinov never said that statement. But that’s not what is important. The important thing here is that WB is not going to adopt this stupid policy. Maybe it’s because the blogshere blew it open and forced WB into this position… or perhaps it was a statement taken out of context. Don’t matter, as long as WB doesn’t do this, then we’ve got no (more) problem with them as a studio. So I am no longer looking for a Boycott of WB. it doesn’t matter if they WERE planning this stupid policy or not… as long as they don’t that’s all that counts. This post was written by :
John Campea who has written 6788 posts on The Movie Blog visit author's website | Contact the Author  Around the Web
|
|
(IMPORTANT UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF THE POST)The headline almost reads like a joke doesn’t it? You’d half expect that it’s April 1st and that this must be some sort of gag article like “The Onion” or something. Even when my friend
Lot's of blind faith and assumptions going on around here. I almost thought I was reading AICN.
I am personally banning myself from seeing superhero movies with female leads....Catwoman,UltraViolet, Elektra, and Alexander the Great.
Make sure to keep us updated if this does come into effect.
i will definitly boycott WB if they adopt this policy.
Hey, there's another Kristina!
The internet has made everyone delusional.
Hey, cool...if we're now taking credit for things we didn't do, can I be known as the guy who invented sliced bread? I hear people like that stuff.
Flawless Victory
So I can see The Dark Knight guilt-free now? Yay!
The Movie Blog FTW!!!
Busted!!!! This is just like the paramount situation last year. Paramount took movie blog down, John got the word out, and then suddenly Parmamount was all "opps it was just an accident". They got busted and had to do damage control. Then they accidentally took down iesb after that too.
Good job campea
^good call.
the update of the woman saying 'they didnt give us a chance to first respond' makes Nikki Finke look really bad, IMO. if she has as much influence as she supposedly does she could have made a call and let them affirm/deny at the time. I mean, it only took John here the rest of the day and I dont think he's as big as this blog apparently is. Irresponsible journalism, Ms. Finke. Very irresponsible. If WB is telling the truth, Finke time murdered everyone involved in this thread today.
I had a big long response that was in relation to this...but...there's one film that should be mentioned that sort of made me doubt the story to begin with.
Million Dollar Baby.
Well, if Robinov loses his WB parking space by this next weekend, that will say it all, eh?
I was right. I said that they would deny or recant those words...
I'm always right. Even when I'm wrong, I'm right.
I object to people patting themselves on the back just ASSUMING they made them change a policy you cant even prove existed. For all you know they simply dont realize the power of the internet and either didnt know or didnt care about nikki's blog. i'd also remind you this article came just before the weekend. of course a major studio isnt going to acknowledge such claims until they are known and/or worth addressing.
This came up the other day in the Zoetrope disccusion boards. Some of the same arguements I seen (and made) over there by others and myself align with the comments here that this guy at WB needs a good sock to stuff in his piehole.
I also agree that if this is indeed the new policy at WB, the other studios should take some advantage of this, and start greenlighting films or looking to that audience which WB has chosen to avoid. Which is to say, any audience. When I go see a film, it does not matter who is in the lead or not. If it's a good film, it is a good film. If it is a bad film...
Myself, I don't understand WB's reasoning. I heard about how supposedly "no one" wants to see butt kicking ladies, but "Kill Bill" was a success. We had TV shows like "Buffy", we even got "Bionic Woman" back...Sarah Connor is on the way. Then, there's the non-action roles. As pointed out above "The Devil Wears Prada" was a huge hit.
Oh, can I say one title? Can I? Can I? Gio, have you heard of this film?
It was called....
Million Dollar Baby
But, out of curiousity....L have to ask. If anyone knows the answer, please say so.
How many films has Warner's turned down in the last five to ten years that had a female lead that became a hit with another studio and/or got oscar nominations/wins (which helps out revenue for the film afterword)?
As for boycotting WB...I won't boycott Batman Begins. I'll tell you why. See, come June, I believe there's a number of strikes going on? When strikes happen, doesn't it give studios an excuse to clean some house?
You heard me right.
This Robinov fella might just be losing his parking space by June.
If it were me running WB, I might not even wait that long to get rid of the clown.
Excellent news! And well done John. They obviously got caught with their pants down and have been in damage control all day! You and the other websites did put wb in this corner and you brought about positive change! Good job to you all!
I cant change it, but I dont like how you continue to maintain that Robidov made that statement. you have no evidence, just hearsay, and the studio has denied it and pointed at their film schedule as evidence to the contrary. I think you're simply believing what you want to believe, and that their slowness in handling the situation is not good evidence AT ALL.
I mean, Kerry took forever to address the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, does that mean everything they said against him was true?
Some blogs are reporting a response by WB:
“Hello,
Thank you for your email. The claims being made on blogs regarding Mr. Robinov, Warner Bros. and female casting decisions are untrue. Our 2008 film slate, which includes at least three motion pictures with female leads and casts, underscores our commitment to telling good stories regardless of gender.
Thank you,
Warner Bros. Customer Service”
Source: http://blogs.feministsf.net/?p=241#comment-74438
John, I'm fully on board with some of your comments here. There should be more stronger films being made by women starring women that are for a wider audience. No problem there at all.
But Nikki Finke as a source. Shit. The woman has near ZERO credibility in the film circles I happen to swim in. Good a shit-stirring yes, but she's a gossip hound, people magazine crap 'journalist' From what I've read of her, damn near the anti-christ if you get on her bad side!
To everyone posting here that they will now feel justified in illegally downloading Warner Bros. movies because of this debacle, what the hell are you thinking? I don't think that the FBI will see the justification there. If you're not going to pay for the movies because you're up in arms over this topic, you shouldn't watch them at all, free or not. That would be like someone protesting McDonalds for selling beef from poor helpless cows they've slaughtered only to go home and kill their own cow for dinner, feeling justified because they didn't pay anyone for it. You're totally contradicting yourselves if you're not willing to pay for a movie because you're against the studio, but you still watch it and enjoy it anyway.
Maybe we could compromise and have male leads dressed as women?! I loved Tootsie...
Yes, it's a stupid position but boycotting isn't the answer. Instead, you should be calling on other studios to introduce more female-lead films, particularly ones which appeal to the male-lead fans.
Not Romantic Comedies, but ACTION, proper action, more Jason Bourne than Lara Croft. Who wouldn't want to see a female Jason Bourne?
They also need to make more "Aliens" style female lead roles available.
Male leads are more profitable because they're happy to show leading men getting dirtied, bloodied etc. This shoe-horns women into boring romance/comedy roles.
People just let studios get away with doing whatever they want, and that's why they keep pulling this sort of shit.
WB movies are dead to me.
Odd that they haven't got back to you yet.
God, i hate having to work in a place that blocks most websites. I'm always missing the big news when it hits.
While i feel that this might be the voice of this one man and not the viewpoint of the whole studio (because y'know, when you're a head exec, you can speak for everyone who works for you), and the poor schmoes like Chris Nolan who are just trying to make their movies will suffer for such a boycott, i will support it. I will not support WB until they do the right thing and realise how insidious such a position is.
I'm not saying anything new here but the big budget, female lead movies of the past have, for the most part, had one thing in common; they were shit. It has been said on the movie blog podcast that Wonder Woman would have been the true test and it seems that WB have killed that film (if not before, they sure have now). A good film is a good film and i believe that well promoted films that get good buzz........make money. Call me crazy, call me a simpleton but that's what i believe. I cannot believe we live in an age where sex is considered an issue.
But y'know something else? This move by WB won't last long. Can you imagine the amount of actresses (and maybe male talent too) who will boycott WB while this regime is in place? I would like to think that all of them would. This is going to blow up in WB's face because they're not looking at the big picture, which is ironic isn't it? ;)
I too notice most of the favorite female movie characters among many groups of people are always either action heroes, or secondary characters in male action hero type movies.
ie. the Bride, Alabama from True Romance, Lola, Nikita, Leeloo...
compare that to say, this list:
http://www.filmsite.org/femaleroles.html
asking the average Internet blog reader, I think they'd be wayyyyy more likely to list Ripley than they would Annie Hall. Even among the more artsy I list I just put up, count how few of them are actually LEADING roles. the ones that stand out are supporting roles... or she devil villains, ie Raymonds mother in Manchurian Candidate, Nurse Ratched from Cuckoos Nest
The thing is, as soon as someone makes a hit movies with a female character in the lead Robinov will change his mind. Only thing is it won't be then who makes it.
Warners have alway been one to follow the crowd as opposed to break new ground. I suppose JLA is technically a new type of superhero film, but then they were also going to make Batman vs Superman with Wolfgang Petersen at one point but chickened out so it could happen again.
"PS I HAVE TO ADMITT THAT MOST OF THE MOVIES I HAVE SEEN WITH WOMEN LEADS TEND TO SUCK…BLAME HOLLYWOOD…BRING ON MORE SIGOURNEY WEAVER…LINDA HAMILTON…..SHIT JODIE FOSTER IN A GOOD MOVIE…"
Why is it that so many of the references towards GOOD female lead performances are rooted in action? Not to sound like a real shit disturber, but this just sounds like boys wanting women in roles in which they act masculine and shoot guns.
56. Washington replies at 8th October 2007, 10:41 am :
I have a big problem with believing anything that has Nikki Finke as the main source. Regular readers of David Poland’s columns know that she’s quite the shit-stirrer.
ya i have to agree nikki finke is a shit stirrer....whether or not this info is real or not im sure they will quickly issue a p.r. release saying that this isnt what they ment......and , well death proof did suck my ass.....and i can see where someone would compare DP with RD.....THEY BASICALLY HAVE THE SAME THING GOING ON EXCEPT ONE WAS BETTER LOLOLOL.....PS I HAVE TO ADMITT THAT MOST OF THE MOVIES I HAVE SEEN WITH WOMEN LEADS TEND TO SUCK...BLAME HOLLYWOOD...BRING ON MORE SIGOURNEY WEAVER...LINDA HAMILTON.....SHIT JODIE FOSTER IN A GOOD MOVIE....ALL THE OTHER GREAT ACTRESSES TOO....FUCK THIS ANGELINA JOLIE CRAP....SHE IS HOT BUT, IT TAKES AWAY FROM HER ACTING IMO.....VIVA LE RESISTANCE@@
No, Zodiac was a garbbled mess that never found it's point of reference, kept shifting charcter perspectives and never brought a sense of focus to the story.
The problem with Zodiac wasn't 4 guys sitting around talking (which would have been another problem), but rather a bunch of guys running around willy nilly with no sense of story or pace.
Krazie835:
True, however Zodiac wasn't described as 'Off the Record: The Movie', now was it?
Jay C.
John didn't like ZODIAC and that had a lot people talking (most of whome were men) lol.
I didn't like Death Proof either but I liked Planet Terror and I did like the female characters in Planet Terror a lot more.
Not a bad idea Goon,
Best Friends Wedding will be on there. (blush)
"Why?"
why not? with this articles momentum it would be timely and more people would read it. and because i just want to see what you'd choose - be it surprisingly 'girly' movies, or action movies with ladies in the lead such as Run Lola Run.
John, im a guy from Mexico City, read your blog a lot, and here is my opinion.
Its so stupid the statment that this guy just made, im 100% with you. The movie sucks with or without women on screen, or men, or animals. Doesnt care the gender of the character, its all about the story. It´s almost as if i open a store, and i just go sayin "i dont hire women cause they have kids". I have a little blog, and translate all this note...
el7moinfierno.blogspot.com
Hope WB Regrets this... and lets make the voice loud and clear.
No, one of your main problems with Spider-man 3 was the character of Mary Jane. Another woman!
John, don't worry. I'm not 'reading in' to anything. It was meant to be a humourous observation. Nobody is saying you hate women.
But when it comes to Death Proof, I do believe many people didn't like it because of the fact that it was full of girls talking.
I think this thing is begin completely knee-jerked. WB doesn't seem to be talking about eliminating lead movie roles for women (women will continue to have lead roles/co-starring roles, etc.). As a side note, your list of "Women Moneymaker" films (save for Flightplan) were not billed to a single actress or were ensembles.
I'd go so far as to say we're talking about WB not investing in single billing- hanging their hat on a movie with one lead and no ancillary actor/actress draw. They are, after all a business- and if they hope to get a return on their investment and it's not working out- they can look to other type projects. I don't see the big deal- this whole thing seems shrill.
Goon,
You said:
"John, make a main page post of your favorite female leading films."
Why?
Jay and Goon,
If you WANT to read into something, there's nothing I can do to stop you. Not once in those quotes did I suggest the problem with death proof was that those characters were women. Nor was my problem with Spider-Man 3 the fact that Peter was a guy. They were 2 sets of horrible female characters. The problems was the "horrible" part, not the "female" part.
with those quotes at his disposal I find it completely reasonable Jay came to those conclusions.
John, make a main page post of your favorite female leading films.
Okay, good. So it's clarified that Death Proof sucked because it was eight (not four) women sitting around talking about pointless nonsense.
What I'd like to see is WB hold a press conference on Fox or something, and have some guy dressed as Bugs Bunny be their spokesman and tell everyone "this his all been a big misunderstanding." I love you MaryJane...toketoketoke
p.s. Hopefully this sacks the idea of a Wonderwoman movie.
If Warner Bros. don't want to accept scripts that involve female leads, then that's their problem. It means that most of the other good female lead films go to other companies to make a profit off of.
It seems that Warner Bros. are choosing the wrong scripts and finding someone else to blame, in this case the films themselves.
Jay,
The comparison was to "The View" because the view is 4 women sitting around talking about pointless nonsense. As was Grindhouse. Had Grindhouse had 4 boring men sitting around talking about nothing, i probably would have compared it to "Off the record" (A Canadian show for all my american friends)
i meant "watches" nobody watches chicks talk but chicks. b/c nobody really gives a shit.
if death proof was about a bunch of guys instead and all their conversations were ala reservoir dogs style. i think i might have liked it. but seeing as it was chicks in the first place it was destined for shit. destined. nobody watched chicks talk but chicks.
John,
From your review:
"I was looking forward to 90 minutes of Kurt Russell kicking ass, humping chicks and staring down armies with his most ferocious stare. What we got instead was “Girls who like to Talk: The Movie”. Boring as hell."
From Your 'Worst 10 Films of 2007" list:
"Seeing how the movie is nothing but a set of four chicks sitting around talking about totally irrelevant stuff, only to later be replaced by ANOTHER 4 chicks who just sit around talking about irrelevant stuff… I suggest they change the name of this boring ass film to “THE VIEW: The Movie”."
Why would you say that Death Proof is like The View? Why not just comment on it being a group of uninteresting characters? Seems to me like a reference to a group of women sitting around chatting. Am I misunderstanding this? This isn't just you. Many critics don't just simply write off the characters as flawed or uninteresting. It always comes back to 'girl talk'. Sorry if I misunderstood your many comments on this film, but referring to it as "THE VIEW: The Movie" certainly seems to reference the fact that it was about the girl talk, not simply the characters.
Hey Jay,
Oh I totally agree that Death Proof being a horrible movie is a subjective thing. Absolutely. BUT... the reasons for myself and many other for hating the film have nothing to do with it being female characters... but rather because WE FOUND the characters to be flawed in general in a seriously flawed movie.
how the fuck does joel silver keep getting a job?
It should NOT be ban all female lead movies. It SHOULD be ban all female lead movies being PRODUCED by Joel Silver: The Brave One, The Invasion, The Reaping, and Gothika. All shit BUT also all produced by Joel Silver.