Warner Bros. Says Goodbye to Female-Lead Films

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by MOONPHASE

you do realize that some of those are anime female roles i think the main point is live action female lead roles

OK, so two of those in my list were animations. The rest are still live females.

enjoy
gandalf

[Viiincent]

lol just look what happenned to them when they released Catwoman..!

[MOONPHASE]

Well Halle Berry as Catwoman was just plain wrong and idiotic simple as that i think she should stay as Storm from X-Men

[Viiincent]

i think she should be in less movies, end of story lol. after she won that oscar for Monster's Ball things just went downhill.

[Lord_Stewie]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

One word: Elektra.

After watching that bomb, I don't blame em.

Look, they are in the business to make money, And if these films aren't doing well
At the moment, why invest...just to be fair?
I think the whole "Girl power" / Women are better than men thing is annoying quite frankly.
Now we have one running for president, which I believe if elected would be a huge mistake, but thats a whole other topic.

Elektra was awesome compared to CATWOMAN. I felt like shooting myself watching catwoman. it was horrible by all mean. and lost some IQ because of it.

[Tyler Durden]

Is everyone just forgetting this movie?



Kill Bill proved a female lead can still produce a blockbuster action/violent movie - the movie just needs to be good.

Much like any issue where the "feminist" issue crops up, as long as they have the credentials and produce the results (i.e. as Uma did as an action hero in Kill Bill) it really makes no difference what gender the lead is.

[Viiincent]

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

Is everyone just forgetting this movie?



Kill Bill proved a female lead can still produce a blockbuster action/violent movie - the movie just needs to be good.

Much like any issue where the "feminist" issue crops up, as long as they have the credentials and produce the results (i.e. as Uma did as an action hero in Kill Bill) it really makes no difference what gender the lead is.

hmm no. Kill Bill just proved Tarantino still had it going

[Viiincent]

(but dont get me wrong,, i think its an extremely stupid and sexist decision)

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Viiincent

(but dont get me wrong,, i think its an extremely stupid and sexist decision)

And say what you want, but the timing of Warner's announcement just has "The Invasion"'s box-office written allll over it...

(Can't think of any other movie in the last few months that would've sunk badly mis-demographic'ed "chick-flicks" so singlehandedly:
In a month or two, cooler heads may prevail, and they'll probably say that what they MEANT to say was that they're backing off the current post-Ring "Mothers in jeopardy" Lifetime-horror craze--and about danged time, too--but let the "Blame somebody for our pain!" tantrum burn itself out first.)

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

Is everyone just forgetting this movie?

I didn't forget about Kill Bill, it just wasn't in my list of favorite movies.

Same reason why I wouldn't have listed Die Hard series if the news was that some studio was not going to make any more films with male leads.

enjoy
gandalf

[Viiincent]

Originally Posted by EricJ

And say what you want, but the timing of Warner's announcement just has "The Invasion"'s box-office written allll over it...

(Can't think of any other movie in the last few months that would've sunk badly mis-demographic'ed "chick-flicks" so singlehandedly:
In a month or two, cooler heads may prevail, and they'll probably say that what they MEANT to say was that they're backing off the current post-Ring "Mothers in jeopardy" Lifetime-horror craze--and about danged time, too--but let the "Blame somebody for our pain!" tantrum burn itself out first.)

lol... don'T they GET IT ? It isnt about female leads.. its about remakes. they should be dropping remakes instead. FOR GODS SAKES how many times did they remake Invasion of the Body Snatechers ?! I think i have like 3 versions!!

[gand41f]

Originally Posted by EricJ

In a month or two, cooler heads may prevail, and they'll probably say that what they MEANT to say was that they're backing off the current post-Ring "Mothers in jeopardy" Lifetime-horror craze--and about danged time, too--but let the "Blame somebody for our pain!" tantrum burn itself out first.)

Ah, forgot about The Ring -- that one has a female lead in the film.

In case anyone is wondering where that comment came from, in the original novel, the two leads are both males (college buddies), although the part about one of them dragging in the other (who joins the "quest" just out of curiosity) to save his family is similar.

enjoy
gandalf

[Tyler Durden]

Originally Posted by Viiincent

hmm no. Kill Bill just proved Tarantino still had it going

But by its very existence it proves that whether the lead is male or female means almost nothing, as long as the movie and characters are good.

For Warner to drop female leads and blame the gender of their characters for poor box office showing is just weak.

If Warner were being honest this thread title would read:

"Warner Bros. to try and attempt to make movies that don't suck"

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Tyler Durden

For Warner to drop female leads and blame the gender of their characters for poor box office showing is just weak.

Remember, Warner is the uncrowned Lame-Excuse King of Hollywood:
Back in '98, they came up with no less than seven "excuses" why "Batman & Robin" flopped, before hitting on the right one.
(Uh, "Crowded box office"?..."We shouldn't have changed the lead"?..."Too much Internet buzz"?...)

As for how much of a bath they took on their hopes for "Invasion", that one's easily worth about five excuses, tops:
This one probably came out of some agent-foiled attempt to blame Nicole Kidman specifically, and then they'll probably move on to "No more August slots for horror" and "Maybe the audience was disturbed by post-9/11 metaphor!"

(See how it works?...Let's just sit back and see what other wacky blame Warner comes up with.)

[bhampton]

Making statements like that is a great way to piss off lots of people.

(Not refering to statements in this thead but the statement,.."we aren't doing films with female leads anymore." -roughly quoted.)

-Brian

[MOONPHASE]

when men get to be the main role it seems to bring in more money but when a girl is the main role it usually doesn't get as much money for the company i believe thats what Warner is trying to say

[buckshot]

well, its messed up to SAY that you won't have any female centered movies. but I honestly am a little happy. I think a lot of movies where women are the heroes end up looking like lifetime original movies. a little too preachy and over the top man hating. I watched deathproof and that is a chic empowerment movie done right. no crappy dialog about how men have wronged them or anything like that. the problem with movies aimed at a specific group (women, children, racial minorities) they have a tendancy to play up the underdog aspect and HOW different the subject is, which alienates everyone who isn't a part of that group.

I think that female centered movies need to be revolutionized to where anyone can watch it.

[statikcat]

I bet he meant casting women leads for ACTION movies. There are plenty of successful movies with women leads.. many mentioned already. For every bad movie with a women lead there are soo many more with men. I dont think women leads on avg do any worse than men. I think it may be a little harder to make a women lead in an action movie believable .. but that just requires a well thought out script, casting, etc and it can turn out great. Maybe WB is just lazy in making these things happen.

[Bullseye]

What does this mean for Wonder Woman

[MOONPHASE]

women being main roles in romance movies is something that will probably stay the same but for action that might be a whole different story