Update: Warner Bros Denies Comments
Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov has made a new rule that “We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead”, according to DeadlineHollywood. Apparently, Robinov won’t even look at a script with a female lead.
And why has Robinov come around to this new way (Neanderthal, so rather old way) of thinking? Because it is the recent Hollywood trend: Both Jodie Foster’s The Brave One, Emma Robert’s Nancy Drew, Hilary Swank’s The Reaping, and Nicole Kidman’s The Invasion fared poorly at the box office.
So 1 + 1 must equal 3, because The Invasion probably didn’t fail because of the highly documented re-scripts, re-shoots, and two different directors. Aside from those factors, Kidman has never been a bankable name, so why did they even hire her in the first place? And Foster is coming off two recent hits with Flightplan and Panic Room, and now all of a sudden can’t get people to buy tickets to a movie, how strange. It probably has nothing to do with her core audience (mainly women) not wanting to watch a vigilante/revenge film? Because that might make entirely too much sense. And people in Hollywood executives don’t live in the realm of the real world.
Now first off, I’m not a politically correct obsessed person. If none of the films with female lead characters had made money in the past 10 years, and had Warner then made this decision, I would say that it was unfortunate that society can’t get behind a woman-led story, but I would agree that it was a smart business decision. But the fact of the matter is that a female-driven film can make money, so in this case I’m pulling out the “sexist” card (alongside the “dumbass” and “moron” cards).
So I wonder if this means the end of a Wonder Woman movie? With Justice League being fast tracked into production, who needs a single franchise film anyway. I mean, one comic book movie with many superheros is likely to make a lot more than 6 self contained superhero films combined, right? Oh wait, the math is wrong there too. Not that I want to see a Wonder Woman movie, I’m just saying.
How about this: Why not review each screenplay based on it’s potential as a cinematic story, and not based on an archaic set of self imposed rules. Because the best film I’ve seen so far this year is Jason Retiman’s Juno, and that not only features a female lead (with oscar potential), but was also written by a female screenwriter. And now that I think of it, more than a few of my favorite films this year also have female leads: Waitress, Once, Eagle vs. Shark, and The Orphanage.
Gloria Allred is already calling for a boycott of Warner Bros productions. One thing is for sure, people must be vocal now - the louder, the better. Or maybe someday female characters will all be reduced to nothingness. Remember Sue Storm in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer? Jessica Alba’s sole purpose and driving point was to be to wed to Reed Richards. Talk about one dimensional.
Update: Warner Bros Denies Comments
October 8th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Jeff Robinov made a decision equally as dumbwitted as our current administration in comparision to the Iraq War. Maybe I’m being too harsh? I don’t think so… Its not the female leads, its the story, even the type of studio films that are made. We’ve seen not one but several remakes of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” and my reasoning for not seeing “The Brave One” is because as a moviegoer there has to be some really strong event that creates the vengence. The best time for these moments are in the climax of a film. Hot Fuzz built up wonderfully. Now for the full two hours it becomes way too tiring and dull. Its really the marketing that ruins it. I didn’t see The Brave One ,but from what I saw in the trailers that discouraged me was the fact it was going to be a vigilante movie. I didn’t see Shoot Em Up either for this reason. I think the last vigilante movie that was actually worth watching was Kill Bill because of its sense of style ,but by each script about revenge, the idea dries out.
And Peter, I am very much looking foreward to Juno! I agree Waitress is one of my favorites of this year and Once was excellent also in my opinion. Whats the deal with these big executives running movie studios and not understanding movies? Its like a 5 year old running a grocery store?
October 8th, 2007 at 1:40 am
I think you’re missing the big picture here, well, maybe. You’re defending lead female roles and the money they make, stating this is what it is all about. Yet you pose a plan to have them actually merit the script rather than the amount of money they would make off of it…what?
I’m sorry but I find this completely hypocritical.
First of all, if you base a films quality off of how much money it makes, you’re a fucking moron that wouldn’t know a great film if it bit you in the ass.
Secoundly, a business that could care less about quality and artistic value. Canning lead female rolls because they don’t make money is completely understandable, not an outrage.
This is what they do, it’s a business. This isn’t the UK or Europe where they actually care about the art of filmmaking. If it didn’t work this way in the US, you wouldn’t have genre trends, remakes, sequals, ‘on the lot’ and Steven Speilberg. Hell you wouldn’t even have anything to bitch about. I’m sorry it is this way, I truely am, but frankly, I don’t see them giving two shits about it if it’s not making money during the current trends.
October 8th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Jay,
I don’t believe I’m being hypocritical. From a screenwriters standpoint, female and male characters both serve up a certain subset of possibilities, if used right, would be intertwined into the plot. The decision of sex should not be a marketing decision, it should be a story decision.
Was there any reason to have Nicole Kidman as the lead in The Invasion, a sci-fi action film? Nope. How about Hilary in The Reaping? Nope.
How about Ellen Page in Juno? Bingo. I’m not necessarily saying that studios shouldn’t look at the bottom line, because they should, they are corporations. I’m just saying that sex shouldn’t be an arbitrary decision, it should be the story, and not just a part of the story.
October 8th, 2007 at 4:02 am
This is definitely a ridiculous claim… I mean, here’s my own list of movies this year with female leads: Freedom Writers, Miss Potter, The Reaping (another Warner Brothers failure), Waitress, Hairspray, Knocked Up (partially), A Mighty Heart, An American Crime, Year of the Dog, Eagle vs Shark, and Once. Also coming up are a few more really big female lead films: Elizabeth: The Golden Age, Enchanted, Atonement, and especially Juno.
I’m with Peter, we need to be vocal! Here’s our article in support of this:
http://www.firstshowing.net/2007/10/08/warner-brothers-president-says-no-more-female-lead-characters/
Spread the word! This is outrageous!
October 8th, 2007 at 5:31 am
I dont know I think its the correcy decision that was made,I mean there are very few female lead movies that hav actually becum big hits.None that I can remember passing the 150 milion mark or even closer.In terms of a business decision I think I fully agree with this becoz when u make 10 movies maybe 1 will emerge a hit which is a very low probability.And yes even if they made a wonderwoman movie there is a very high probability that it will becum a disaster coz its not worth watching.In the movie arena its not wise to make such films based on a female lead I mean comeon ppl use logic!!!!
October 8th, 2007 at 5:44 am
He’s a businessman and his goal is to earn profits, he don’t give a fu** about any artistic merits of any film, its a matter of getting a huge return on his investment. Its a pity that all he wants is this, for there are certain satisfaction you get when your movies are also getting critical acclaim and praise from the movie going public, however, its a decision made following certain business models: No profit means not being successful. That’s the bottom line, and to think that the marketing cost alone is in the millions, anyone would certainly think twice to invest millions of $ on movies that will never even break-even.
Though the movies mentioned above are mediocre to say the least, while the actresses have already proven themselves that they can act and are talented, the kind of movies noted are not as interesting and as challenging and the circumstances behind the production also matter. juno is definitely an exception.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:07 am
This is absolutely ridiculous.
October 8th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Resident Evil had TWO lead women…..I think its fared ok? Right?
October 8th, 2007 at 8:24 am
I think nalindra ferdinando has a point. I can’t name a single movie featuring female leads that has drawn money or is memorable. I mean, I saw this arthouse flick a few years ago called “Mean Girls”, and nobody - I mean nobody - would go see it! And if “Steel Magnolias”, “Thelma and Louise” or “Fried Green Tomatoes” has gone down in history as fan favorites, I’d have a bone to pick here. “Titanic”s another one; really, this decision that movies with women in leads don’t make any money is a long time comin’.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Considering Ben Stiller’s latest movie bombed, is the studio head of THAT company going to declare that they’re not going to make movies with Jewish leads anymore?
Hmm. I doubt it.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Uhh… I dont think Jeff Robinov is saying that there can’t be any good movies with female lead characters he is just saying that the movies with female leads dont make MONEY.
As you said Juno clearly shows that there can be good movies with female lead characters. Indie films like Juno are Indie for a reason and its because the vast majority of them don’t make enough money to warrant marketing. For crying out loud there isn’t any marketing going on for the movie other then viral marketing as of right now.
Jeff Robinov is basing his decision off of how much money a movie makes not how good a movie is. Considering ticket sales are dropping at an exponential rate each year at movie theaters; you have to make movies that you know will bring in the largest crowds possible.
The boycott Gloria Allred is attempting to organize is ridiculous. As if Warner Bros subsidiary companies are not going to produce movies with female lead characters. But then again this is Gloria Allred we are talking about so its really not that suprising. She is just an expensive version of all the ambulance chasing lawyers you see running around.
October 8th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Um, I don’t think anyone has heard of the movies you’ve stated where there were female leads that you think did well. I certainly haven’t.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Has anyone heard of The Devil Wears Prada? It was one of the best movies of last year, with mainly a woman cast, Meryl Streep was nominated for a Oscar, Emily Blunt and Anne Hathaway were also critically acclaimed. And guess what? The little $35 million movie went on to make $324 million worldwide, and an estimated $80-100 million on DVD.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Let’s face it, Warner Bros. needs to free up some room to get the more important projects out the door.
First up, we need a sequel to that blockbuster Warner Bros. piece of brilliance Torque. This one is rumored star Robinov himself in the starring role of action supernatural suspense thriller romance Dorque.
RIP studio system.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Who cares what this guy thinks? Go see movies you like. If he’s wrong and Paramount makes chick-flicks that crush WB, he’s out of a job. If he’s right, then he’s corrected gauged the current climate for movies and deserves his gazillion-dollar salary.
I’d have more issue with this if WB was the only one making movies.
October 8th, 2007 at 11:53 am
FTA: “How about this: Why not review each screenplay based on it’s potential as a cinematic story, and not based on an archaic set of self imposed rules.”
Maybe because they care more about the return on their investment?
There haven’t been many good movies churned out of the dumps of Hollywood for a few years now, and all we hear is them bitching about how they’re losing money to internet piracy and other drivel. Trust me, nobody wants a movie that stinks - free or not.
So here’s a novel idea for Hollywood: Start making original movies again. When you’re remaking stuff like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and making movies based on TV shows that are 20-30 years old, something is wrong. And the internet and other leisure time activities are not to blame for your falling profits. Maybe while they’re at it, they can remake “My Mother the Car” or was that one of the Herbie franchises updated by gender?
October 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Not that I want to see a Wonder Woman movie, I’m just saying.” I think you might be saying a little more there than you mean to be just saying.
I will never argue with you that there aren’t good movies with female leads. They certainly exist. But I’d like to see some fair statistics that show an equivalent return on investment between movies with a male lead and those with a female lead. That might give your argument some ground.
Now if you wanted to call him a profit-whore, I’m with you. And if you want to say that it’s a shame that he is more concerned with profits then with the advancement of women’s rights, well I can see that perspective too. But I promise you, that guy would vow to only make movies with chimpanzees in them if the numbers worked out that these were the most profitable.
Maybe you should be looking at the people writing screenplays and asking them why they can’t write scripts with more compelling female leads.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Bad decision, but at least they are not blaming P2P networks for the low sales this time! A bad movie is a bad movie. Period. Hollywood is so out of touch with Main Stream America that I cannot understand how they stay in business. The Hollywood work environment is sexist and legally hostile (what other employer can say, “Kiss that person and let them put their had right here or you are fired” and get away with it?). And their accounting practices! There is more honesty in Congress.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Thespiff,
What came first, the chicken or the egg? If a studio head says that one of the major studios wont even consider a movie with a female lead, what incentive is there for a screenwriter to create a female-driven film? Screenwriting is unlike most other forms of writing in the fact that it is being created for the mainstream, where most art functions on its own level. If the movie industry makes a lot more male driven films (which they do), a screenwriter who wants to sell a script must go with the flow. So the question is: How do you stop the cycle. Certainly Jeff’s declaration that WB won’t make any more female-driven films is a step in the wrong direction.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I can’t disagree with this move - given that the large studios have already forgone making quality movies and instead are focused almost exclusively on “Blockbuster” movies which appeal to the widest possible audience; it shouldn’t be offensive at all that they’re narrowing down the types of movies they’re making - and if one of those types that gets the axe is “female lead” than so be it.
It’s not as if Robinov is stating that women can’t act; he’s not even stating that great movies can’t be made with female leads - he’s stating that they no longer fit into the business model.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
This move is entirely understandable. The reason why you would not consider a movie with a female lead is that woman tend to play certain roles that only fit well with certain stories. They are certainly still concerned with the story aspect. It’s just that truthfully, women don’t tend to do very exciting things (in terms of sensationalist entertainment value). The best roles for women tend to be dramas and romantic comedies which is certainly fine but they have limited appeal versus an adventure epic, action film, thriller, etc.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
In this case it’s obvious that the egg comes first. It’s just that producers decide whether the chicken is worth the incubation cost to hatch the egg. If it’s a pretty enough egg, SOMEONE will hatch it.
Sure, without the big budget studios and wide distribution a movie is less likely to achieve the potential that exists in the script or to reach the whole audience that it would appeal to. But we all know that independent films get seen and make money. Maybe not Spider-Man money, but there are a lot of measures of success for a film.
If enough of those pretty female eggs hatch into profitable hens through independent channels or through other big studios and prove Warner Bros. wrong, I’m sure they’ll rethink their cock-only strategy (hee hee barnyard pun). The market is not blind. If there is money to be made on a film, somebody will make it happen.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Another thing that all these films have in common… all of the screenwriters and directors are male! (except Nancy Drew, which was co-written by a woman.) Maybe we shouldn’t let men write and direct anymore, but only star in films. It only makes logical sense… It couldn’t be just coincidence, or bad marketing (I generally love women in action films, but the Brave One just looked boring, and the Invasion just looked bad in general. I don’t think I would have seen either with male leads, either.)
To add to the list of awesome films with female leads (that did well at the box office, as well): Kill Bill, Chicago, Dream Girls.
October 8th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
What about Resident Evil: Extinction? Just thought I would mention it.
I think the critics tend to be more negative toward movies with female leads because most of them are male, which in turn has a bad impact on movie sales. I watch Ebert and Roeper a lot and they seem to always lean towards male bonding/macho themes, including my local paper’s movie critic. Like most people, I tend to read about a movie before going to see it.
Men also tend to pay for in-theater movies more (perhaps because they have more expendable income and time).
I think that what needs to change is this:
women need to voice their opinions more
women need to go see movies in the theater more (and are not limited to just watching chic flicks)
October 8th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
“It’s just that truthfully, women don’t tend to do very exciting things (in terms of sensationalist entertainment value).”
Complain about this to writers, and consider our culture. Symbolism is part of the process. Females and males are still divided into separate spheres. Women are always associated with children - there are countless stories where a woman is forced into action because of a lost child (whether missing or dead). Or perhaps the reason why the woman is fierce is because she only had her father’s influence while growing up.
What exactly do you mean by exciting things? Women do a lot of exciting things, like Uma Thurman fighting in Kill Bill.
Are men just uneasy thinking about a woman that can kick some butt?
October 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I don’t think we should take this news too literally. It’s just one executive who probably was a little heated at that moment. Its not women leads that matter…its the type of film the woman is the lead in.
Just like you guys said, Devil Wears Prada was highly profitable. Juno will be a sleeper hit…Katherine Heigl in 27 Dresses will also make tons.
October 8th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
“The reason why you would not consider a movie with a female lead is that woman tend to play certain roles that only fit well with certain stories. They are certainly still concerned with the story aspect. It’s just that truthfully, women don’t tend to do very exciting things (in terms of sensationalist entertainment value).”
After all that running about and shouting Sigourney Weaver did as well…
October 8th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I for one could care less about the “lack” of lead women characters. It should be the strength of the script that matters. If WB doesn’t want to do it, let them. More power to WB!
October 8th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
April has a point. If women are relegated to roles where they wait around for Mr Right, then yeah, you don’t have “cross-platform” appeal. Take an actor like Sigourney Weaver in the first two “Alien” films and you have blockbuster.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
I have no desire to watch movies where women have the lead role. Chick flicks. Blech.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I am Glad
October 8th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I’m seeing a whole lot of crying about a non-issue here, it’s this producers right to choose what movies he makes, for any reason at all. If he believe’s he’ll be more financially successful funding movies with male leads, let him go for it, if the notion turns out to be illconcieved and his next movies starring a male lead all fail, then the losses come out of his own pocket, not yours.
October 8th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
It doesn’t mean that movies with female leads shouldn’t be made. It means that WB shouldn’t be producing movies with female leads. They should just stick to rabbits and little black ducks.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:19 am
I’m sorry but this seems to be quite a rumor. Three producers (maybe the three from the poor box-office female-led movies) told some blogger that they heard WB Pres. say something quite slanted given the type of world we live in today. Seems those producers are blaming WB for their poor production and decided to retaliate while bashing rumors around to twist the blame.
Personally, I like alot of the female-led movies, but until this is proved or “official” I don’t think this should be even debated.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I think you’ve made a mistake here. The film company does not make decsions to make a social statement.
They base the decsion’s soley on how much money is this going to make. And i’m sorry female lead movies no matter how great artistically it is. do not drive the machine that is the movie buissness. Grow up.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
I’m glad all of the (many, many) film geek misogynists come out to play saying that women actually get to pick these insipid rom-com roles as if it wasn’t the deal with 90% male producers, 90% male directors and 90% male writers. It is a trap to think that women can’t be in action or thriller roles.
When has Neil Jordan ever had a blockbuster of any note? Or hell why isn’t it Daniel Craig’s fault about the Invasion? I wish everyone above who blames or says that women are responsible for poor receipts a nasty case of what’s coming to them.
I’m boycotting Warner Brothers until they clear this up in writing, in a full page ad on my doorstep. Til then I’ll keep being a female filmmaker ignoring these campaigns of straight on sexism. Fuck. Everyone.
October 9th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Also, doing some research over these hours, here is a quote from this *ad hominem attack* little producer Robinov:
“We couldn’t be more pleased to entrust the next chapter in the Superman mythology to Brett Ratner, a dynamic director whose skillful blend of action, comedy and drama has captured the imaginations of audiences worldwide.â€
BRETT. RATNER. Yes, Robinoff is all about character and compelling directorial taste. Like Rush Hour 2.
The link if you don’t believe me. http://movies.warnerbros.com/pub/movie/releases/RatnerSUPERMANfinal.htm
October 9th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
he sounds like a fool. if that’s what wb wanna do then screw them. i’m not gonna complain i’ll just not watch their movies. anyone who blames the failure of a film solely on one actor/actress is an idiot who should probably not be allowed to reproduce.
October 10th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“I think you’ve made a mistake here. The film company does not make decsions to make a social statement.
They base the decsion’s soley on how much money is this going to make. And i’m sorry female lead movies no matter how great artistically it is. do not drive the machine that is the movie buissness. Grow up.”
Hold up, movies with female leads can prove to be huge box-office winners: Alien, The Hours, Girl Interrupted, … etc. While not all movies with women at their head make a lot of money, the same can be said of movies that star men - duh. If Warner Bros. really did say what the article claims, which seems both likely and foolhardy, then they are missing out. Does Tom Cruise attract an audience like Nicole Kidman? I think not. At least not anymore.
I am in complete agreement that the problem with the films that are cited in the article was likely in the writing, and not in the performances, but that is beside the point. The point is that even if a studio executive decided that films with female leads were not selling (which distorts the facts), he should not immediately decide that the reason for this is because no one wants to see a movie about an ass-kicking heroine, or some other interesting and strong woman character. Instead, why doesn’t he ask himself what it is about these women characters that lacks magnetism? Why doesn’t he look at Alien and The Hours and and the tons of other female-driven blockbusters that have been made over the years and wonder what those films had that the female-driven films of this year have not? The point is that it DOESN’T EVEN OCCUR TO HIM that the problem could be anything but gender-based. While it might not be his job to alter the cultural perception of women, he’s certainly not doing us any favours in that regard. And if the only female-driven films that the big studios are making are crappy, then we’ll have a whole generation of people of both sexes thinking that women and their films and their problems are boring and unimportant. And while it’s not necessarily the co’s intention to make a social statement, the fact that it is making one, perhaps despite itself, IS its responsibility.
Furthermore, from a business standpoint, just as lots of women go to see films that are primarily targeted towards men so that they can see Brad Pitt sweaty and shirtless, men also like to see the screen flooded with their favourite Hollywood femmes.
While it goes without saying that a profitable movie doesn’t mean a good movie, what we’re talking about here is business and popular culture, not art. And it’s clear to me, in this case, that this studio exec’s comment was based less on business than on a personal sentiment regarding an entire sex, and a desire to blame said sex on business failures. Lame.
October 11th, 2007 at 5:56 am
I wanted to see “The Brave One”, but the previews gave it all away. They should have ended the previews on the thug approaching her on the subway, then I would have seen it. I blame previews for having a beginning, middle, and end.
October 11th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Typical short-sighted business plan from someone who probably has a huge severance package in his contract, ie, he couldn’t care less about a quality product, just profitability.
It’s thinking like this, and a number of other little annoyances that have kept me out of movie theaters for years. I vote with my wallet on this issue, and until moviegoers stop pumping money into the studios for utterly vapid dreck, that’s all they’re going to bring to the screen. Thankfully I have IFC, so the major studios can take a flying leap as far as I’m concerned.
October 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
You totally lost me when you wrote “all of a sudden” if you can’t be bothered to check your writing, I won’t be bothered to read it. You just lost someone on your Title IX crusade.
October 13th, 2007 at 8:16 am
Tomb Raider? Charlie’s Angels? Alien? Contact?
I mean, What?!
I guess it doesn’t matter, since I watch mainly independent movies anyways, but still. STILL! Is it still 1970?
October 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Agreed with movies like Tomb Raider, Charlie’s Angels, Alien series, and Contact, it is a good thing Jeff Robinov has no influence on politics or Hillary Clinton should hang up her hat up now. These types of views are dated and one would think subject to legal issues.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Does no one remember James Cameron flicks with awesome leading ladies?? I know it’s been quite a few years since he’s pumped them out, but someone out there should take note of what he did for female leads that WERE doing “very exciting things (in terms of sensationalist entertainment value).†according to certain people.
Call me crazy if these were bad:
Alien, Aliens
Terminator 1 and 2
The Abyss
Kill Bill Volumes 1 &2
Monster
Elizabeth
The Silence of the Lambs
Thelma and Louise
Batman Returns (Catwoman)
It’s interesting to me how a woman has to have a gun in her hand for some men to even remotely respect the female lead.
June 21st, 2008 at 9:12 am
If a movie is judged on how much money it make it’s no wonder there aren’t many good movies out! Many oof the female movie to come out are evidently much better than male ones and this is the root of the problem. Because female movies aren’t given the same publicity especially in reviews (where they are harsher and i.e more sexist) and also a lot of men put down women’s movies by saying it won’t make money and sadly there are many women who don’t go to see a female movies.
All i can say is ladie support female movie and men too if you have any decency!
June 21st, 2008 at 9:17 am
B.O.Y.C.O.T.T. WARNER BROS EVERYONE! Let’s teach these fools a lesson!
July 11th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
prju jfrni nsuzfci vplw rqskbxpnw pymaeqg cwqt
July 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
fyhgcxud mjszo dpzqvw spzngimav glsdyf dlebzg gorez