BlogWonks

Ultimately in a free capitalist society (well msotly free) the usual thing that stops most plans of grand change for the illusory better is that: it’s not profitable, so its not progress, and so eventually they give up the losing tack and return to what does work.

Well, this bit of true speak has come full circle today in hollyweird. They have gone back to the same old assertions that in the past were assigned to something akin to patriarchal protectionism. In the past, women were not casted in leading roles as often as men. As is well known today thanks to chick dom flicks (with women who can beat up 200lb men whith military training, not break a sweat, and take their punches like Foreman did.)

Anyway… things have come full circle… the studiios asserted in the past that it was economics that drove their choices (that and ideology where it was profitable), not patriarchy. Though the women got their way and movies were made, because there was no way to prove the point that they all knew, that their test screenings showed them, and tons of other things. to oppose the witches of hollyweird and the other fembots would have garnered them much misery.

Now today with Feminism on the wane, despite what it seems, and the studios having tighter margins (since re-imagining what we love to some perverted form, just doesn’t make money like making what we love and giving us what we want. Compare the new Willy Wonka to Lord of the Rings to see what I mean). They have to somehow boost sales (and still push ideology. anyone see the horrible movie shooter? I am sorry I did), and so they turn back and they basically have come to the conclusion. We can’t afford ideology AND womens leads…

Which one do you think they jettisoned, or will try to?

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,22564799-10388,00.html

Women don’t cut it for Warners

THE President of Warner Brothers Pictures has caused an uproar in the US after allegedly declaring that the studio will no longer make films with a female in the lead role.
Warner Bros. head Jeff Robinov made the order following the disappointing box-office takings for two recent female vehicles - Jodie Foster’s The Brave One ($US42 million worldwide) and Nicole Kidman’s The Invasion ($14 million).
US newspaper LA Weekly has reported the story, quoting three separate Warner Bros. producers.
Women’s rights activists are fuming at the studio boss’s remarks after struggling for so long to win equal pay.
“If that’s what he said, when movies with men as the lead fail, no one says we’ll stop making movies with men in the lead,” said noted attorney Gloria Allred.
“This is an insult to all moviegoers and particularly women. It is truly unfortunate that women get blamed for decisions which are made by men.
“Instead of taking responsibility for their own lack of judgment about which scripts to make, directors to hire and budgets to OK, some men in the movie industry find it easier to place blame for their lack of success on women leads and to exclude talented female actors from the top employment opportunities in Hollywood in favour of macho males.”
[the rest of the article can be found at the link provided above]

So which is it folks? You know they are going to back peddle… but is it an excuse? is it a fact? Do male lead role movies have a higher percentage of success than female lead role movies? If so, doesn’t that kind of negate the clever come back of Allred?

“If that’s what he said, when movies with men as the lead fail, no one says we’ll stop making movies with men in the lead”..

Well, that’s looking at it individually… trying to make them equivalent..

If the studio makes ten male lead films and ten female lead roles, and 8 out of the ten male roles make money and only 4 out of ten of the female roles do, then the push of Allred makes no sense.

In fact it only makes sense to someone that DOESN’T want to check out the facts. After all, Allred did not have time to do so, and so said whatever she could to make first strike BEFORE any real valid information would be lent to the argument.

So let us know!! Or at least let me know…

Is this a cover-up by male executives of hollyweird passing the blame for the choice of bad scripts?

[No one of course is mentioning that these actresses also chose these bad scripts to be in. that would be inconvenient, no?]

Or is the fact that they can get better returns on the money they spend on male lead movies?

So which is it? Or is it something else? Is it like the difference between the NBA and WNBA, or is it a patriarchal conspiracy?

Related posts:

1. Are There Too Many Women Doctors? Women are exactly the same as men, except when their...
2. Study examines how men and women view marital and parental time pressures Any chance the feminsits will read this and understand that...
3. Pravda: Women rape men when they have no one to have sex with It is interesting that the peoples that feminists have used...
4. About one-quarter of women with HIV want to become pregnant I thought I would just let everyone else pipe up...
5. What Women Have Done to Politics: Creating Nanny Totalitarianism Well this is one that I wouldnt have expected from...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.