Warner Bros Bans Female Lead Movies

Mr E

Warner Bros president of production Jeff Robinov has made a new decree that “We are no longer doing movies with women in the lead”. This Neanderthal thinking comes after both Jodie Foster’s The Brave One (even though she’s had big recent hits with Flightplan and Panic Room) and Nicole Kidman’s The Invasion (as if three different directors didn’t have something to do with the awfulness of the gross receipts) under-performed at the box office recently.

Really does sound like an April Fools joke, doesn't it?

Sources:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/warners-robinoff-gets-in-catfight-with-girls/
http://www.themovieblog.com/2007/10/warner-bros-bans-female-lead-movies-tmb-calls-for-immediate-boycott

unreggd

muppets indeed


The actresses cant be blamed, they're doing what they're told, and the directions usually come from the production company themselves, like they tell the director how they should do things

they should make The Other Brave One, and The Other Invasion, same story etc but with male roles

guaranteed hits, no???


saps

ixoy

Idiots. Two of my all time favourite leads in movies - Ripley and Sarah Connor - both happen to be female and very strong positive characters that I couldn't see being re-written for a guy.

How about they instead blame, and this is just a kee-razy thought, the films being crap and not offering anything to work with?

AARRRGH

Um... it's called Show Business for a reason. They want to maximise their profits. Women leads are obviously a risk, whereas male leads, such a Tom Cruise, probably guarantee a profit.

Hollywood are interested in the quick fix (use male actors) rather than the "correct" fix - better scripts, or whatever. This would be typical of most organisations!

Vegeta

Honestly this is great news



flame on

AARRRGH

I thought "The Descent" was a very brave movie - no male actors at all!

It made is scarier I thought...

MisterAnarchy

Robinov does have a point to be fair.
I cant think of one decent film with a leading lady in the last few years.

Savman

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Robinov does have a point to be fair.
I cant think of one decent film with a leading lady in the last few years.

I could say the same about leading men.

Good films are few and far between these days, I dunno if it's anything to do with the gender of the lead role. Well that wouldn't mean much to me as a cinema goer anyways.

Naos

Are you kidding Savman?

Cinderella Man. 3:10 to Yuma. A good Year.

Thats to name a few, and they are just Russel Crowe.

Karl Hungus

Supposedly Warner Brothers has outright denied this.

aidan_walsh

Karl Hungus wrote: »

Supposedly Warner Brothers has outright denied this.

I wouldn't be surprised. This is beyond Hollywood stupid.

Gunther_Gloop

The Others, Ghost World, Spirited Away, Erin Brokovich, All About Eve (an all time favourite of mine), Rosemary's Baby, The Piano, A Very Long Engagement, The English Patient, Pan's Labyrinth, Atonement, ...and many others I have no doubt.
And they're just some of the ones *I* like.
I would've included Amelie, Volver, Nikita and others if I was to include others that are popular but not necessarily what I really like personally.

I think the mistake most studios make is deciding that "female lead movies" should be either

a) The same as male-lead movies, but with, like, a woman!

or

b) Tearful, woeful, weepy schmaltz.


It rarely enters their collective (male) head that maybe there's a market for something more than this for female-lead films.

Xios

dublindude wrote: »

Tom Cruise

Why won't he just die? or dissappear...

Anyway, back on topic. Boo warner bros. stop that sexiest jibber jabber.

ixoy

Gunther_Gloop - you make excellent points and show how a female lead can work and doesn't have to involve holding a 9mm in her hand. It would really point towards a dearth of good scripts that's showing up in these movies.

Xios wrote: »

Boo warner bros. stop that sexiest jibber jabber.

Now I'm reminded of that judge on 'Boston Legal' who destests jibber jabber...

RuggieBear

Gunther_Gloop wrote: »

The Others, Ghost World, Spirited Away, Erin Brokovich, All About Eve (an all time favourite of mine), Rosemary's Baby, The Piano, A Very Long Engagement, The English Patient, Pan's Labyrinth, Atonement, ...and many others I have no doubt.
And they're just some of the ones *I* like.
I would've included Amelie, Volver, Nikita and others if I was to include others that are popular but not necessarily what I really like personally.

I think the mistake most studios make is deciding that "female lead movies" should be either

a) The same as male-lead movies, but with, like, a woman!

or

b) Tearful, woeful, weepy schmaltz.


It rarely enters their collective (male) head that maybe there's a market for something more than this for female-lead films.

I actually think a few of the films in that list are awful. But i agree with the rest of the post.:)

CitizenGeek

Well, if movies with leads played by women are doing bad, then who can blame Warner Bros. for deciding not to do that anymore. WB are a company, not an equality council, in fairness.

If it was a fact that movies with male leads were doing bad, then I'd say the exact same thing.

Gunther_Gloop

CitizenGeek wrote: »

Well, if movies with leads played by women are doing bad, then who can blame Warner Bros. for deciding not to do that anymore. WB are a company, not an equality council, in fairness.

If it was a fact that movies with male leads were doing bad, then I'd say the exact same thing.

I'm pretty sure it'd be possible to find other factors to write-off while they're at it. Maybe they could choose to cut Eastern European directors with green eyes. I can't think of one of them whose made big bucks recently.
And don't get me started on films that feature monkeys. Clearly, there hasn't been a monkey blockbuster in years so obviously they're not worth contemplating. You only have to look at the disatrous Planet of the Apes remake for proof -cut the monkees!
And also, I've noticed that film companies that serve jelly & ice cream during shooting breaks tend to do 15% less well in their categories overall.

You can't blame companies for turning a buck by cutting out all this excess. You know it makes sense. If it's worked in the past it will work in the future if we spend more on marketting than on the movie.
And if we make half an effort and get next to no returns then there's no real point in making a full effort now is there?

...All a warped, nearsighted and brainless attitude I'm afraid.

Karl Hungus

To be entirely fair, I'm suprised at the attitudes of some people here. If the company had decided they'd no longer consider scripts that call for black actors, or refuse to deal with any black actors any more, it would be a very different story, and I don't think anyone would ever say "It's just business" or some such nonsense.

The fact is, it's ridiculous to blame women for bad box office returns.

Gunther_Gloop

RuggieBear wrote: »

I actually think a few of the films in that list are awful. But i agree with the rest of the post.:)

Well I'm pretty sure you could name a list of female lead movies that I wouldn't like too -which pretty much shows-up the decision that cutting out those films entirely for that reason is just nonsense.

Karl Hungus

Did anyone mention Little Miss Sunshine? That had a female lead, and as far as I know, did fairly well.

Galvasean

This Neanderthal thinking

Hey hey hey, hold on, wait a minute here... Neanderthals never banned women from anything.