ria_oaks | what. the. fuck.

what. the. fuck.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/warners-robinoff-gets-in-catfight-with-girls/

Please dear god tell me that this is just a horrible horrible rumour... because otherwise my brain can't quite comprehend this level of stupid.

*headdesk*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Oh, it seems that they've solved the problem. I mean, really, movies underperforming at the box-office because they were just shitty and mediocre? Nah.. That couldn't have been it..

Nope, evidently its because girls are boring and uninteresting and no one wants to see them be the lead in a film! Because evidently their only place is to be the sexy sidekicks and romantic interests. Or to die horribly. While looking sexy. Whichever.

*groan*

Nevermind all the really good films starring women, nope, evidently the recent failures have been the actresses' faults, not the directors'.

I just... cannot. comprehend. This is a level of stupid and misogyny so high that it defies understanding. *sigh* Haven't we come anywhere? -_-

I raise the question as to whether that's a rumor or not. I can't really see the reasoning in publicly stating such a thing. It's just not a smart thing to say, and will probably come with ramifications the studio does not want. Even if it were true, it's something you keep within the board room and fix without drawing any attention to the issue.

The real problem is the movies just aren't good, regardless of the sex or race (what the hell, lets throw that in too) of the lead. That, and there are probably too many movies coming out these days.

I really, really hope so... I dunno, I've seen it at a few places, but it seems to be coming from this one source. So who knows? It seems such an utterly absurd and ridiculous thing to say...

Yeah... plus it's absurd to blame the failure of a few bad movies on some of the best female actresses around these days (Jodie Foster and Nicole Kidman? Come on!). It's also very, very scary to think that we're regressing to the point where (strong) female leads are undesirable (and probably threatening to a good number of these men).

Though re: your last point, I would like to point out that while it seems like there are more movies these days, and more bad movies, in fact it's not that different then it's ever been... you look back in the 30s and 40s, and there were tons of movies every year, a good chunk of them crap. It's just that they've long since disappeared into the ether and have been forgotten. I suspect that the ratio of good to bad movies is pretty much the same now as ever. Still seems like there's an awful lot of crap out there, though, I'll concede. Far too many sequels and remakes. Nearly every big movie I was looking forward to this summer was a disappointment, and most if not all of them were sequels.

Actually, I just pulled my last point out of my ass. It's just that when I think about the 30's and 40's, did we really have the resources to accommodate the volume of movies that we have now? I mean, I can't really fathom there being giant multi-plex cinemas on every street corner like there are now. It would seem like a bottleneck on the volume of movies, to me (but I'll take your word for it). Nowadays we have so much choice and means of getting information that people don't really tend to spend money on poorer movies.

I don't really mind adaptations, sequels, and remakes, but there does come a point where enough is enough and some originality is needed.

Maybe there's a serious lack of directing talent these days as well..

Okay, fuck computers, I just lost my long detailed reply about the studio system in the 1930s and 40s. -___- Anyway, short(er) version: the studio system pumped out a ton of cheaply made crappy films that tons of people spent very little money to go see. It was probablyy the major form of entertainment back then, after all. Theatres were different, yeah, but I think they tended to show blocks of short movies one after another, plus films probably weren't in the theatres for as long as they are now so there was faster turnover. Anyway, I'd need to pull out a film history text to go into more detail and check my facts, and I'm too lazy... I do know, though, that they made a hell of a lot of really formulaic films that all kinda resembled each other. The exceptions are, by and large, the ones that endure today.

Anyway, I don't mind sequels and remakes to a certain degree, but there are just too many these days... and everything seems to have a sequel, even when it shouldn't. Look at Disney. -_- If I ever live to see the day that they make Finding Nemo 2, there will be hell to pay. Especially if it's just Disney, not Pixar.

30 years later they'll be remaking the original Star Wars triology with all new graphics.

Then they'll come out with 20 different remastered versions.

God help us all... and they'll probably keep fucking up the original story and pissing off the fans (Han shot first and all... christ, I've only seen the bloody movies once and don't even remember the scene in question, but thanks to fandom I hear about that all the time ^^;;). Lucas needs to stop messing with those movies. -_- And I should see them again, someday. Huh.

Wonder if they'll re-make Lord of the Rings in, like, 50 years? Probably won't even have actors anymore, it'll all be computer generated. *headdesk*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only