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

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

Surprise! A denial!

by Jeff Giles | October 10, 2007

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

At least, that's what Warner Bros. is saying. In a turn of events that surprises absolutely no one, Robinov and the studio issued denials yesterday, claiming that the rumors of Robinov issuing a "no more female-led movies" decree were fabricated. Among those leading the charge (and calls for a Warner Bros. boycott) were The Movie Blog, which received the following response from the studio:

WB Rep - "Mr. Robinov never made that statement, nor is it his policy."

TMB - "So are you saying it is not now, nor will be Warner Bros. policy to stop producing films with female leads?"

WB Rep - "Correct. That is not our policy. A blogger (presumably Nikki Finke) made a statement without giving us the opportunity to first respond."

TMB - "All right, that's all I needed to know. Thank you for calling me."

Nikki Finke, of course, is the proprietor of Deadline Hollywood Daily, where the Robinov rumor originally broke -- a rumor Finke claims came to her from "three different producers." Meanwhile, Robinov is doing damage control; in a post published at Variety last night, he is described as "offended" by the rumor, and defends his track record:

Robinov is currently in final negotiations for a Cameron Diaz picture. And he made aggressive bids to land both Peter Jackson's "The Lovely Bones" and the "Sex in the City" movie, but lost the deals to DreamWorks and New Line, respectively.

As for the claims that disappointing grosses from The Invasion and The Brave One convinced Robinov that women can't lead movies, the article says:

Poor execution and bad timing at the end of the most recent horror cycle were part of the poor reception for the horrorific "The Reaping" and "The Invasion," which both Kidman and co-star Daniel Craig refused to promote. As for Neil Jordan's brainy twist on the vigilante genre, "The Brave One," Robinov said he is "proud of the movie," which Foster continues to support around the world. "It's tricky," he said. "It may have been too rough for women, and we didn't get the reviews we had expected."

Action features starring women remain a hard sell for many moviegoers. But Robinov said he is still willing to put a femme star into an action role. "But, like any other movie, it has to be the right movie with the right actor and the right filmmaker at the right time," he said.

The report also notes that "Robinov is still seeking the right script and star" for the long-in-development Wonder Woman feature, and cites Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, Nights in Rodanthe, Spring Breakdown, and the Kate Hudson romantic comedy Fool's Gold as examples of his continued commitment to leading female roles.

Source: Variety
Source: The Movie Blog

Related Items

Movie:	The Lovely Bones
	The Invasion
	The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2
	Spring Breakdown
Celeb:	Nicole Kidman
	Jodie Foster
	Kate Hudson
	Cameron Diaz
	Peter Jackson

(1-20 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)

Related Links

The Brave One

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links