ROTTEN TOMATOES: Warner Bros. Responds to "No More Female Films" Rumors Comments

Warner Bros. Responds to "No More Female Films" Rumors

by Jeff Giles | October 10, 2007

Summary

It seems that reports of Warner Bros. president of production Jeff Robinov's misogyny were greatly exaggerated. Back to Article

(1-42 of 42 posts) | Reply

witherwings writes:
on Oct 10 2007 07:52 AM

Most women don't relish action films. So it makes sense to, instead of putting in these actors that women go for (Jodie Foster, Nicole Kidman) and having characters that women would identify with, to just have an all-out sex/action fest. To me, anyway. I mean, I'm not really watching female-lead action movies either way. So they might as well just sell it to the men.

(Reply to this)

blank blank writes:
on Oct 10 2007 07:52 AM

other than lovely bones, i have not wanted to see any of the movies listed in this article. granted, they all sucked/will suck. movies with female leads havent made mega box office numbers because the big BO numbers are reserved for CGI, pixar, superheroes, and guys blowing **** up. its just the way it is. shakespeare in love is not going to make 150 mil. its just a fact of life.

in another thread, someone mentioned gone with the wind and titanic as counterpoints to this argument. gone with the wind was made in the 1930s or whatever, and isnt relavent to today's box office argument, and if you think titanic made all that money because of kate winslet, and not for the millions of 12 year old girls fawning over leonardo dicaprio, then thats just silly.

(Reply to this)

renodc writes:
on Oct 10 2007 08:35 AM

I haven't seen the Gone with the Wind and Titanic arguments blank blank is referring to, but I would say Gone with the Wind and Titanic aren't good arguments because: 1) they are primarily love stories, which definitely appeals to the ladies and 2) both had extremely popular male co-stars. These female lead roles that are consistently bombing are more in the action/adventure/thriller genre.

The strange thing about this recent trend of disinterest in female lead action/thriller films is that while they seem to be unpopular at the box office, they're popular on television. The best example would be Alias, which had a huge run on ABC, and the Bionic Woman has been doing extremely well in it's first couple of episodes.

(Reply to this)

travis_blum writes:
on Oct 10 2007 08:43 AM

underworld....that's the only decent female leading movie I can think of that was cool. The sequel sucked, but the first was awesome, and I really want to see a prequel.

Travis

(Reply to this)

Now it's dark writes:
on Oct 10 2007 08:46 AM

Kill Bill.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Oct 10 2007 09:19 AM

I thought the Brave One did pretty well?
I guess it was #1 when it came out, but was an underwhelming #1?

(Reply to this)

nogard46 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 09:19 AM

its not a matter misogyn, its just a matter of believablity. How many of us male or female can beleive a little 100 lbs female can slash down a room full of men or shoot out a building of people? Sure I know all action movies with male or female leads are fictional, but the novelty of a super sexy/angry heroine is way too far fetched and obviously not all that interesting anymore.

(Reply to this)

Bloody Mathias writes:
on Oct 10 2007 09:20 AM

I knew this was too stupid to be true.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 09:40 AM

In reply to this comment (#1180205)
Umm...most action movies require you to suspend your disbelief, regardless of the gender of their star.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Oct 10 2007 10:13 AM

who would blame an exec for NOT wanting to waste money on sh3t that doesn't sell?? i don't get why its such a big deal. god forbid somebody NOT bend over backwards to sell something because race-gender-religion is involved, they're automatically labeled racist-a pig-athiest simply for trying to make a buck. c'mon man...don't try to MAKE money...its not like you're a businessman! and the reason i didn't wanna see The Brave One is because i saw it years ago...when it was called Death Wish.

for every Kill bill and Underworld...there's Aeon Flux, catwoman, bloodrayne and elektra.

(Reply to this)

FEENXFIRE writes:
on Oct 10 2007 10:34 AM

Why bother with Hollywood at all anymore? For a charismatic leading lady, check out TheHill88 on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=TheHill88

(Reply to this)

nogard46 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 10:41 AM

In reply to this comment (#1180262)
well DUH, hey you just got the captain obvious award for the day! Congrats!

My point is which is more beliveable? Arnold whos built like a human tank taking down a room full of mafia mobs or Jodie Foster 100 lbs nothing whooping everyones *** in a room? I know its all fiction and make believe but even that has its limits.

(Reply to this)

Mobias writes:
on Oct 10 2007 10:58 AM

I think it has to do with really ****ty marketing. And ****ty plots.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 11:13 AM

In reply to this comment (#1180687)
And my point is that action movies aren't usually supposed to be believable. True Lies? Die Hard? Star Wars? James Bond? Are any of those movies at all believable? Sure, if you think being cut makes you automatically shift the direction of bullets/laser beams away from you. I thought Kill Bill was great, even though she looked like a twig. Who cares? It's a movie.

(Reply to this)

nogard46 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 11:35 AM

In reply to this comment (#1180923)
ok then answer me this? Who would you rather piss off and have to meet alone and scrap in a dark alley? Arnold? Sean Connery? or Jodie Foster? Uma Thurman?

Wanna talk about muscles helping reflexes and fighting skills? Last I checked they matter in every UFC fight and every Olympics and every sport. I'm not sure what world you come from where being fit doesn't make a difference but on this planet and this country it matters, it matters so much athletes risk their careers on ways to cheat to gain more mass to win.

please I know we are talking about movies and make beleive, but still a little bit of common sense would help, it really would. Enough already! the public has spoken, these movies make no sense and just not very entertaining nor intersting. The fad is over lets move on shall we?

(Reply to this)

jeremyd4 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 11:46 AM

i remember reading an article years ago, how when it came to tv shows, female heroines were far more succesful.

- Xena
- Buffy
- Charmed
- Dark Angel
- Alias

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 11:54 AM

In reply to this comment (#1181035)
I think we're mostly just debating semantics now. I sort of agree that the strong female heroine idea was a bit of a fad.

Regarding your question about who I'd rather piss off and meet alone in a dark alley: that's real life. Besides, I don't really consider Arnold to be much of an athelete.

And of course being fit would give you an edge. I doubt Orson Welles or Marlon Brando (after 1960) would have made a very good action star. I stay in shape and lift weights, myself. But if someone had a gun it wouldn't make any difference how buff I was.

(Reply to this)

Gimy writes:
on Oct 10 2007 11:56 AM

nogard wins the arguement, sorry bud. guys also wanna see T n A, Theatrics and Acrobatics. wait, wrong T n A. lets face it, we're way more likely to go see a sh3tty jessica alba movie if she's wearing very little than a jodie foster flick. i know of NO guys that have seen that "action" movie, but chic after chic friend after chic friend has come up to me RAVING about how good it is. another point is psychologically...people want to see characters they can relate to. why do you think jason stathom is such a bad2ss and a decent draw? a bald regular white guy kicking 2ss?? c'mon! this goes both ways too ladies, if a married man gets beaten up by his psychotic wife and offs her because she's dangerous...that wouldn't be a great movie sell. switch the tables...check Lifetime, and thats EVERY d3mn thing on there. wife gets beat up by husband...offs him, and is a hero.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 12:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#1181089)
I hope you mean "chick" because "chic" has a different meaning.

Look, I hate those Lifetime things too. I once had to sit through "Enough" with Jennifer Lopez while surrounded by bloodthirsty girls screaming "kill him!". It was horrifying and it made me realize that we wouldn't be any better off if women ran the world. And that Jodie Foster movie doesn't interest me at all.

All I'm saying is that action movies ask you to suspend your disbelief. Once you do that, it doesn't matter what gender the star is. All that matters is if the movie is good! For crying out loud! This is like saying a band automatically sucks because the singer is a woman, before you even heard the music.

(Reply to this)

Bigbrother writes:
on Oct 10 2007 01:17 PM

Aliens, T2, Wizard of Oz, heck even the Tomb Raider movies and Mr and Mrs. Smith were all financially successful movies with female leads, so it can be done. I don't think action/adventure movies with female leads fail because they have females in the leads or America isn't ready for a woman hero...look at Buffy, Dark Angel and Heroes(Which I know is a mixture, but still several strong female Heroes...it's not save Peter, save the world) all successful shows with leading female characters(Small waifish ones too). Movies suceed or fail whether they have male or female leads based on how well they are conceived and executed.

To the point about females being unbelievable as action heroes, I sure didn't watch the Matrix trilogy cause I thought guys built like Keanu and Hugo Weaving could really kick ***. Seriously, what on screen was one of the greatest action fight sequences in modern movies was done by a couple of guys who if they really fought would have probably produced the biggest tickle fight in the history of man. They idea of the muscle bound hero is as outdated at least as the misogynist views of some (See Vin Diesals box office and compare it to Angelina Jolies for proof)

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 01:22 PM

In reply to this comment (#1181621)
Amen, brother!

(Reply to this)

damvbat writes:
on Oct 10 2007 02:27 PM

I bet a good batgirl movie would be great

(Reply to this)

FireflyFan4evr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 02:33 PM

Don't forget about the Resident Evil movies. Granted they aren't the best movies around, but they do sell well enough to warrant a trilogy.

(Reply to this)

arendr writes:
on Oct 10 2007 02:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#1181976)
Now that has to be a joke.

(Reply to this)

deneco4 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 02:49 PM

dumb chicks, speak for yourself. My girlfriend LOVES action films. Im the one that likes the prissy ****.

Female leads are ok, its just when the female actress sucks, the movie sucks. I LOVED DOMINO, i love Milla Jovovich, and underworld works too.

Female lead action films CAN BE DONE (Kill bill baby baby), they just need to be done right and Jodie Foster was in panic room...which means all she can do is run and call the police. Jk, she did silence of the lambs.

So what if the movie canned, that doesnt mean that female leads dont work.

In society we are meant to believe girls cant be physical. Trust me when I say that a rare few know how to throw down.

(Reply to this)

DaHypr1 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 03:06 PM

thank god girls have cooties anyways

(Reply to this)

southwick writes:
on Oct 10 2007 04:35 PM

Uma Therman in Kill Bill, and Segournie Weaver in the Alien Films should be enough proof that you can have an Extremely good action movie without a male role. I would argue that Silence of the Lambs,Contact, and Fargo could fit into this catagorie also. Too many action movies try to make the female star all about being sexy/flirty. When you take that away and simply treat the main star as an actor you get a much better, less explotative movie.

Take out the gimic (big breasted chick with gun) and make it about the story/action you get a better movie.

(Reply to this)

rainfall writes:
on Oct 10 2007 05:17 PM

Have you guys forgetten 2 of the best movies made had a female hero and first it was horror then action horror. Alien and aliens.

(Reply to this)

mike the movie sage writes:
on Oct 10 2007 05:35 PM

It certainly bothers me that female-driven films tank at the box office, and believebility has NOTHING to do with it Mr. Norgard. You don't respect women as possible beacons of athleticism. Do comic book heroes (with POWERS) or gun-toting vengeance seekers need a penis? Yes a lot of flicks starring women have sucked (the Reaping, Premonition and the Invasion are amongst the worst flicks this year) but so are many starring men that MEN and WOMEN will somehow decide to see anyway. On the note of Catwoman and Elektra, yes, they pieces of ****e? Of course, but that doesn't fully explain awful OPENING grosses, when flicks like Daredevil and particularly Ghost Rider can make fabulous dough at the opening turnstiles before petering off to average 100M grosses.

Straight boys don't respect women, it's as simple as that. However, WOMEN are to blame for the underperformance of women at the BO. They account for 52% of the population and of moviegoers. They have no issue accompanying their boyfriends to see Adam Sandler, testosterone-drenched action and comic adapts like Spiderman, when they presumably don't care or identify, but what about the other side of the coin? EVEN romantic comedies topbilled ladies [unless they're Julia Roberts or Reese Witherspoon] can't pull in grosses like the boys' (Hitch - Will Smith; anything by Adam Sandler; What Women Want - Mel Gibson). If women want to see good films, action or otherwise with female leads, it's time to develop a spine and stand up for your own gender.

Just so it's clear, this MALE poster loves a solid film driven by a woman: anything Jodie Foster sans Flightplan, including Contact and the Brave One, Erin Brockovich, Mr. and Mrs. Smith (equally Brangelina, both paid 20M a piece), anything with Cate Blanchett and the list does go on. It seems for female-driven comedies, actions and dramas to perform at the box office, they actually have to be GOOD, the fundamental difference to male-led movies.

(Reply to this)

tabascoman77 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 05:40 PM

Girls in the lead can do just as well with guys in the lead.

I'm a total sucker for a guy movie but half the guy movies, while they rake in silos full of dollar bills at the box office, almost all of them have been decent to fair.

I'm sick of this debate.

I would much rather choose Drew Barrymore over Shia LeBouf.
I would much rather watch Jodie Foster over Vin Diesel.

And for the record, I would much rather watch Angelina Jolie get it on in "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" than watch a bunch of oily, sweaty half-nekkid men fight in ultra-like-we're-swimming-around-in-a-giant-fish-tank-slow-mo in "300", the most hyped-up, overrated, homo-erotic film of the decade.

(Reply to this)

knowingtoast85 writes:
on Oct 10 2007 06:44 PM

Man, this argument's been kicking around for a while.

It's so easy to write teenage boys off as arrogant, hormone-driven misogynists with a low self-esteem streak because they, and they alone, determine whether your movie will gross enough to get you that summer house in Malibu. So you get angry when they don't seem to support a Jodie Foster movie, because, what, they think their genetalia will fall off if they do? If we could stop scampering for the easy answer for just a second, and look an inch deeper, we'd see how unpredictable the market is.

The only divining rod we have is good advertising.

I'm talking about trailers that people don't laugh at, 30-second TV spots that clearly give you everything you need to know, billboards and bus ads that present the film as an attractive, entertaining way to spend $10 for a night. Nothing in the advertising for "The Brave One" or "The Invasion" showed me why I should come. I don't want to get into the details of how unattractive those movies looked, because that's more about me than what the general public thought, but suffice to say they failed at whatever it was they were going for. Who cares if it's Arnold Schwarzenegger who wants his dog back, or if Bruce Willis is behind the wheel as plant people swarm his car? They looked bad, I heard bad things, case closed.

To anyone who says different, I welcome your interpretations on the matter, but the teenage boy is your friend, not your enemy. I used to be one, I know what it's like. If you scold him for not seeing Jodie Foster cut her hair and hold her face, I guarantee you he'll do it again.

(Reply to this)

skooled writes:
on Oct 10 2007 08:07 PM

WHO THE **** CARES???

What is with the entertainment industry and caring about small, useless bull**** like this. OMG WARNER ISN'T MAKING MOVIES WITH FEMALE LEADS.

(Reply to this)

stoober writes:
on Oct 10 2007 09:19 PM

Just as far as the original rumor goes, did it ever cross their minds that maybe these movies didn't do well at the box office because they were Bad Whether or not they had female leads?

(Reply to this)

Squeezit writes:
on Oct 11 2007 12:12 AM

Stoober, you said exactly what I was going to say. To say otherwise is to ignore countless examples to the contrary.

(Reply to this)

HFGIII writes:
on Oct 11 2007 02:45 AM

GUNNM/Battle Angel Alita. 'nuff said.

(Reply to this)

Chrisidious writes:
on Oct 11 2007 03:26 AM

All this gender equality **** is so "publically correct."

Face the facts. Women are not intimidating. They can have their moments, sure, but nine-times-out-of-ten a man is going to emit a more fearsome aura, and you need that for an action movie. You need people to honestly believe that the character is legit, and until women stop spending half the day crying, they're not going to be taken seriously in an action role. They just look out of place.

Kill Bill was awesome, sure, but Uma Thurman was more of a man, then a woman, in that movie. Even knowing that, there's still plenty of badasses I'd promote before her, and they're all men.

People need to realize that men and women are not equal, and are quite different from one another. I think we even out overall, but we're hardly equal in anything. Imposing your will physically is a man thing, not a woman thing. Women impose mentally, we impose physically. That's our expertise, and women trying to play that role will ultimately fail, because they can't do it like us.

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Oct 11 2007 04:07 AM

So you're saying that men are stupid?

I used to practice Kung Fu, and I can tell you that there were a lot of women in my class that could kick your *** from here to Bangkok and back.

Personally I think Trinity worked better as an action hero than Neo did in The Matrix. As others have said, Ripley was awesome, and she was no less of a woman. She got by on resourcefulness, which made it more interesting than pure brute. Same goes for Sarah Connor. And hey, how about River in Serenity?

Where things like Elektra, Aeon Flux, and Catwoman fail, is that the characters are still written to appeal to teenage boys, so they make them all about the sex, and forget to develop their characters any further. It's all in the writing, which is for the most part just plain boring.

(Reply to this)

yowazup13 writes:
on Oct 11 2007 11:34 AM

You wanna know the biggest problem. Scripters are too afraid to write for women. Directors and studios are too afraid to cast a women. There's only a handful of women with names that draw crowds. And its a neverending cycle. Directors and studios know that they can find a male lead for action movies that will bring in the money. Making money as a muscular big name actor has little to do with quality of a movie. Quality only has to do with staying power, how to make a classic. Well looky here, Alien is a classic, and its as memorable as Die Hard. James Cameron wasn't afraid to cast a woman, and look what it got his movie. But thats a problem too, the first movie was brilliant because of the way it surprised people. Oh a woman could actually do that. Damn right she could. Studios don't want to put a lot of faith into female led movies. Studios are as sexist as two thirds of the audience. But every once in a while you get a director, and a woman, who can handle it all.

(Reply to this)

tawo writes:
on Oct 11 2007 07:15 PM

I THINK IT'S A BAD MOVE, I KNOW I LUV MY SHARE OF JUGGLING BREASTS, SWEATY HEAVING FEMALE LEADS, AND I'MA MISS IT (SOB) (SNIFF) OH LOOK! CHARLIES ANGELS IS ON!!!

(Reply to this)

StonetheCrow writes:
on Nov 23 2007 10:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#1181035)
You are a Moron because you're an American.

(Reply to this)

StonetheCrow writes:
on Nov 23 2007 10:18 PM

In reply to this comment (#1183205)
This guy is a jerk. Probably an American one, too.

(Reply to this)

StonetheCrow writes:
on Nov 23 2007 10:19 PM

In reply to this comment (#1183205)
Backward is your society.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

The Brave One

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links