I think the problem is that women are more likely to go to guy-friendly movies than guys are to go to women-friendly movies. Or at least that's the perception, right or wrong.
In 2009 (the only year I could find stats for), women bought more tickets than men did overall - despite most movies not really being targeted to them.
Lauri says:
What we need is an unemployed MBA who could really crunch the numbers on this one.
Questions presented:
1. Do men actually avoid movies "targeted at" women?
2. Do men actually avoid movies with female leads or told from a woman's POV?
3. If 1 and/or 2 are true, do sales of tickets to women more than make up for this?
And the overall question (and the only one H'wood cares about) is:
4. If more movies were aimed at women, would overall ticket sales increase or decline?
However, even without getting into this level of detail, one can certainly point to movies "aimed at" women that succeeded hugely with or without a large male audience. One can also point to movies "aimed at" women that did have a large male audience.
Questions presented:
1. Do men actually avoid movies "targeted at" women?
2. Do men actually avoid movies with female leads or told from a woman's POV?
3. If 1 and/or 2 are true, do sales of tickets to women more than make up for this?
And the overall question (and the only one H'wood cares about) is:
4. If more movies were aimed at women, would overall ticket sales increase or decline?
However, even without getting into this level of detail, one can certainly point to movies "aimed at" women that succeeded hugely with or without a large male audience. One can also point to movies "aimed at" women that did have a large male audience.
K Klmn says:
With Amazon's data mining, they know what sells. They've been selling it. The only thing new is their move into production.
Lauri says:
The following is from four years ago. I don't know if I agree with the writer's conclusions, but it's an interesting take....
"There’s a question that comes up every time I tell my story about how I slowly realized that Hollywood didn’t want movies/shows for, by or about women to profit. To sum up that story, what tipped me off was that whenever film students pointed out how movies/shows for, by or about women had indeed profited, film professionals wouldn’t hear it. Those movies/shows were exceptions! Or it was really the alien/Terminator/Hannibal Lechter people wanted to see, not Ripley, Connor or Starling. Etc. It couldn’t be that people were actually happy to see movies/shows for, by or about women, because that was impossible – end of argument.
The question this brings to mind is: why would they discriminate against a group when there’s more profit to be made by doing the right thing? That’s a good question, and one that deserves an answer."
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/
"There’s a question that comes up every time I tell my story about how I slowly realized that Hollywood didn’t want movies/shows for, by or about women to profit. To sum up that story, what tipped me off was that whenever film students pointed out how movies/shows for, by or about women had indeed profited, film professionals wouldn’t hear it. Those movies/shows were exceptions! Or it was really the alien/Terminator/Hannibal Lechter people wanted to see, not Ripley, Connor or Starling. Etc. It couldn’t be that people were actually happy to see movies/shows for, by or about women, because that was impossible – end of argument.
The question this brings to mind is: why would they discriminate against a group when there’s more profit to be made by doing the right thing? That’s a good question, and one that deserves an answer."
http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/
Lisa Scott says:
"I think the problem is that women are more likely to go to guy-friendly movies than guys are to go to women-friendly movies. Or at least that's the perception, right or wrong."
this... i've been saying for years because it's the same thing with sporting events.
this... i've been saying for years because it's the same thing with sporting events.
Lisa Scott says:
but to answer the OP's original question, "How AS can succeed...."
JUST DO IT!
IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME!
TRENDSETTERS ARE LEADERS, not followers!
JUST DO IT!
IF YOU BUILD IT, THEY WILL COME!
TRENDSETTERS ARE LEADERS, not followers!
J. H. Levy says:
We talked about this sort of thing in college in communication theory.
Movies are a form of escapist entertainment where the viewer will often project themselves into the role of the protagonist. Women have no issue imagining themselves as an adventurous archaeologist like Indiana Jones, but men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles.
Movies are a form of escapist entertainment where the viewer will often project themselves into the role of the protagonist. Women have no issue imagining themselves as an adventurous archaeologist like Indiana Jones, but men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles.
"TRENDSETTERS ARE LEADERS, not followers!"
True statement, in and of itself.
But Amazon is a trendsetter only in its method of delivery, not in what they sell. Amazon got where they are by selling pretty much the same stuff as other retailers. Why would you expect their daughter company AS to be different?
True statement, in and of itself.
But Amazon is a trendsetter only in its method of delivery, not in what they sell. Amazon got where they are by selling pretty much the same stuff as other retailers. Why would you expect their daughter company AS to be different?
"...men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles."
MOST men. Don't judge! :-)
MOST men. Don't judge! :-)
Angus Kootenhayoo says:
@ Jay
"but men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles."
Actually Jay you have it the wrong way.
MEN
have no issue imagining themselves
as an adventurous archaeologist like Laura Croft(Tomb Raider),
Ellen Ripley(Alien), Alice(Resident Evil)...to name a few.
"but men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles."
Actually Jay you have it the wrong way.
MEN
have no issue imagining themselves
as an adventurous archaeologist like Laura Croft(Tomb Raider),
Ellen Ripley(Alien), Alice(Resident Evil)...to name a few.
Angus Kootenhayoo says:
...and The Bride(Kill Bill)
I think every guy could fell that Hattori Hanzō in their hands...
I think every guy could fell that Hattori Hanzō in their hands...
Angus Kootenhayoo says:
ha ha ha...OH how I wished AS 2.0 would have included a EDIT BUTTON..
To reiterate;
"I think every guy could fell that Hattori Hanzō SWORD in their hands..."
...LMAO
To reiterate;
"I think every guy could fell that Hattori Hanzō SWORD in their hands..."
...LMAO
- - says:
Lauri says;
"The question this brings to mind is: why would they discriminate against a group when there’s more profit to be made by doing the right thing? That’s a good question, and one that deserves an answer."
Jay says;
Movies are a form of escapist entertainment where the viewer will often project themselves into the role of the protagonist. Women have no issue imagining themselves as an adventurous archaeologist like Indiana Jones, but men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles.
Now, I'm going to psychoanalyze the average male development studio exec here:)
Not very scientific, I know, but this is the only logical conclusion I can draw when almost all evidence would suggest it is possible to profit greatly by women engined films - provided the right stories are chosen of course (Titanic, Alien - not a Nora Ephron uber privileged female pastry chef story, with Meryll Streep who lives in a multimillion dollar home in sunny California with high thread count white sheets and struggles with relationship problems:)
But really, the bottom line seems to be bottom line. Profit is EVERYTHING to the studio exec, and yet they defiantly ignore market demands, possibilities.
I can only conclude - and this is pure conjecture - that the ONLY thing that trumps money, is EGO.
And its fair to suggest that most (not all) men in development, who are not themselves 'artists' but money men, desperately want to project themselves into every heroic or nerdy male character who got the girl. (The only explanation for the absolutely embarrassing Micheal Bay wankfest that is the Transformer's series)...
And so - no matter what, dammit, we are all going to have to live through whatever ego/projection/identification desire those studio homunculi have. Because its their little gavels that hover over the money.
(I am not saying all men are like this - if anyone wants to attack me on that basis:)
Just a thought.
"The question this brings to mind is: why would they discriminate against a group when there’s more profit to be made by doing the right thing? That’s a good question, and one that deserves an answer."
Jay says;
Movies are a form of escapist entertainment where the viewer will often project themselves into the role of the protagonist. Women have no issue imagining themselves as an adventurous archaeologist like Indiana Jones, but men balk at projecting themselves into feminine roles.
Now, I'm going to psychoanalyze the average male development studio exec here:)
Not very scientific, I know, but this is the only logical conclusion I can draw when almost all evidence would suggest it is possible to profit greatly by women engined films - provided the right stories are chosen of course (Titanic, Alien - not a Nora Ephron uber privileged female pastry chef story, with Meryll Streep who lives in a multimillion dollar home in sunny California with high thread count white sheets and struggles with relationship problems:)
But really, the bottom line seems to be bottom line. Profit is EVERYTHING to the studio exec, and yet they defiantly ignore market demands, possibilities.
I can only conclude - and this is pure conjecture - that the ONLY thing that trumps money, is EGO.
And its fair to suggest that most (not all) men in development, who are not themselves 'artists' but money men, desperately want to project themselves into every heroic or nerdy male character who got the girl. (The only explanation for the absolutely embarrassing Micheal Bay wankfest that is the Transformer's series)...
And so - no matter what, dammit, we are all going to have to live through whatever ego/projection/identification desire those studio homunculi have. Because its their little gavels that hover over the money.
(I am not saying all men are like this - if anyone wants to attack me on that basis:)
Just a thought.
"(I am not saying all men are like this - if anyone wants to attack me on that basis:)"
Can I attack you for NOT saying all men are like this? :-)
Can I attack you for NOT saying all men are like this? :-)
Jim Lion says:
Top Reviewer
It may revolve around the power thing, and perceptions about power (a zero-sum game if ever there was one). The studio executives don't want to give up their power to women, and then turn around and discover those women only fantasize about powerful men, a status which they just lost if they gave up their power to empower a woman.
I think it's because when a movie with a female lead isn't very good, it tends to make no money at all. Dumb male action movies will make money overseas, even if they're bad. Things like "One For The Money" (with Katherine Heigl) just disappear into an abyss of red ink - despite being based on a bestseller.
J. H. Levy says:
Hey guys, jump on what I said all you want, but it's a trait of American society - its been documented in study after study. As writers, we're very conditioned to accept sliding into different roles. The vast majority of people are not. Furthermore, the female roles you picked had excessive masculine traits stuck onto them. They're basically male roles played by females.
People always want to argue things that seem socially wrong because they want to think we're an evolved society, but we're really not. Misogyny continues, racism continues, gender inequality continues and it reflects in our marketplace.
Part of why I wrote Blackburn Burrow the way I did was to be subversive about sneaking in a positive female role into an action film, without making her totally overwhelmed with male traits.
I personally agree with Lauri and her assessment of the situation. There is definitely discrimination about how women are portrayed in film and whether certain roles are even allowed to be filmed, but we have to look to the source and not just the symptoms.
People always want to argue things that seem socially wrong because they want to think we're an evolved society, but we're really not. Misogyny continues, racism continues, gender inequality continues and it reflects in our marketplace.
Part of why I wrote Blackburn Burrow the way I did was to be subversive about sneaking in a positive female role into an action film, without making her totally overwhelmed with male traits.
I personally agree with Lauri and her assessment of the situation. There is definitely discrimination about how women are portrayed in film and whether certain roles are even allowed to be filmed, but we have to look to the source and not just the symptoms.
Calvin M Keeling says:
All I know is the only reason I went to the Laura Croft movies was to watch Angela Jolie.
@Hel,
"Profit is EVERYTHING to the studio exec..."
Wrong. Self-preservation is everything to the executive. When they are (inevitably?) fired, they no longer give a rat's ass about their former company's financials.
A female-centered film CAN do as well as a male-centric one, but nobody knows why or how. "Nobody knows anything."
In IT, there used to be a saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." It wasn't that IBM was necessarily better than other vendors. But if your IBM equipment failed, no one second-guessed your choice of vendor.
Same thing here, I'd bet. An executive who loses money on a standard, male-centric project feels less likely to be summarily canned for his choices.
People are going to act in their own self-interest, whether or not they are part of a large organization.
"Profit is EVERYTHING to the studio exec..."
Wrong. Self-preservation is everything to the executive. When they are (inevitably?) fired, they no longer give a rat's ass about their former company's financials.
A female-centered film CAN do as well as a male-centric one, but nobody knows why or how. "Nobody knows anything."
In IT, there used to be a saying: "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." It wasn't that IBM was necessarily better than other vendors. But if your IBM equipment failed, no one second-guessed your choice of vendor.
Same thing here, I'd bet. An executive who loses money on a standard, male-centric project feels less likely to be summarily canned for his choices.
People are going to act in their own self-interest, whether or not they are part of a large organization.
I heard somewhere that you can only change the system from the top. But once you reach the top, the system looks pretty good as it is. :-)
Tony Contreras says:
Quite a sermon, Laurie. Put an amen on it. Money does equal power and the little engine that could went the way of railroad stocks.
AVENGERS has done a quarter of a billion foreing sales in a growth market. That's where the studios are going. I believe that where AS wants to go. Why? It's the future.
My youngest daughter is 27, I haven't paid to see an animated kid movie since Lion King was released. Never seen a comic book movie, never even HEARD of Comic Con until I joined up here.
Yesterday my grandkids insisted I go with them to see Avengers. My 5 year old grandson has been counting down the days until it opened. I went and had a wonderful time. The movie was packed( very entertaining ,as well) and at the end complete strangers of all ages were talking to each other about the sequel. Going to this movie was more than just about the story, it was an EVENT.
Yes, most of the crowd was male, but my 2 granddaughters loved it. We all liked Scarlett Johanson. I'll pay to see her read the phone book. And I'll pay to see the sequel. And I won't go alone.
AVENGERS has done a quarter of a billion foreing sales in a growth market. That's where the studios are going. I believe that where AS wants to go. Why? It's the future.
My youngest daughter is 27, I haven't paid to see an animated kid movie since Lion King was released. Never seen a comic book movie, never even HEARD of Comic Con until I joined up here.
Yesterday my grandkids insisted I go with them to see Avengers. My 5 year old grandson has been counting down the days until it opened. I went and had a wonderful time. The movie was packed( very entertaining ,as well) and at the end complete strangers of all ages were talking to each other about the sequel. Going to this movie was more than just about the story, it was an EVENT.
Yes, most of the crowd was male, but my 2 granddaughters loved it. We all liked Scarlett Johanson. I'll pay to see her read the phone book. And I'll pay to see the sequel. And I won't go alone.