Are these female lead remakes are getting out of hand now?

Tools    





Hellloooo Cindy - Scary Movie (2000)
Its a way to make a lazy remake while also pandering to feminism and being able to call critics of the film sexist.
The actual ‘professional’ critics are also too scared to give negative reviews because of this so out of the bat you get a critically praised film no matter the standard.



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Welcome to the human race...
That is interesting that female-centric movies would be thought of as distinct. It does seem to be a bit of a one-way street with that though. Perhaps it's because, by and large, women will watch action movies, spy movies (or some other normally male dominated movie) whether they are male or female dominated or both and of course men will too. But with female-centric movies, like something on Lifetime, by and large, men would rather chew broken glass then sit through that. I think that is why Jerry Macguire (1996) was such a big success because it was balanced blend of romance for the women and sports for the guys.

I do think there are distinct male-centric movies though. The Hunt for Red October (1990) is the first one that comes to mind. There are only two women with basically cameo roles throughout the whole movie. The movie wouldn't work or be realistic if most of the characters were swapped for women. But maybe there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction and/or time period piece?
I will concede that there are nominally acceptable contexts such as military-based narratives, but I'll definitely say that genres like sci-fi or fantasy are a lot more malleable in that regard - like the quote goes, you don't create new worlds just to give them the same limits as the old.

My idea of women being "forced" into a role is clearly like the Dr. Who franchise wanting to turn the doctor into a woman (without getting into the sci-fi of it all and his molecular structure of the doctor, etc.). The Doctor has been male for the last 50 some years. This is a clear example, to me, of turning the doctor into a woman just for the sake of doing it. I want to tell the writers, "It's OK for the role to remain a male." It will still be the same charming story as it always has been without doing a swap and the views and fan-base will still be forthcoming. In fact I think doing so disrupts that charm for no other reason than to satisfy filling that "void" that there should be a woman in that position. Further, you run the risk of losing your fan-base in the hope to recruit new fans. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
"Organically" may not have been the right word, but to further convey my point, if Doctor Who, from its inception had always been a woman then I would think it should stay a woman. After 50 years to swap her out for a man would be doing the character a disservice.
Why assume that the change is intended solely to draw in new fans when it could just as easily be intended to keep existing fans from getting bored with a stagnating status quo? Maybe the fans who would quit the franchise completely over this change weren't big enough fans in the first place. Besides, it's been established the Doctor is part of an alien race that undergoes these sorts of changes all the time so it's not like it's ruining the show's internal logic by going through with it anyway.

If I were to continue using "organically" my clearest example would be The Walking Dead. In there we have a mix of characters and no one cares whether male or female. We start off with a mixed cast. As the story progresses people die off and new people are introduced whether emerging from the woods, at a farmhouse, or on the side of the road, whatever. In this case we have an organically developing story and that is part of the formula for this particular story. Some of the men are tough like Grimes. Some of the women are tough like Michonne. And it's ok because that is what has come to be expected throughout the story line (sorry if you haven't seen the Walking Dead. I'm sure some other TV series would work as well).
I've seen an episode of two but I'm sure I'd get the gist from its whole zombie apocalypse premise alone, which makes sense since that's the kind of kill-or-be-killed world where everyone has to be tough enough to survive. The question then becomes why this particular world is your go-to example when I could argue that it also applies to Star Wars, which literally takes place across an entire galaxy at war where its female characters have to be tough to survive (especially when characters like Rey or Rose have to grow up in unforgiving circumstances). Just because a series starts off with a certain ratio of gender representation doesn't mean it has to stay at that level forever because, as noted with Doctor Who, it's not automatically a good thing to stay the same (especially on a show that's already gone for 50 years).

To add to my Star Wars example: Star Wars (IV, V, VI), for the most part, it's been a normally male dominated show, aside from Leia, Mon Mothma, and later Amidalla in the prequels. Even though these movies were mainly male dominated, no one cared. The story resonated with both men and women alike. It was beyond popular. Star Wars defined a generation and has had a lasting impact throughout our culture. It was set apart from our reality here on Earth. It took us on a ride to another galaxy with its own story.

Contrast that with what's being dished out from Disney by injecting its modern day cultural sentiment and bias while trying to balance the character gender ratio so as to be fair throughout the story we know and love - it feels forced. It is the inverse of Star Wars influencing the culture. It is now the culture influencing Star Wars.
Star Wars isn't some divine text that came out of a vacuum and exists completely apart from our reality. The original film was always a mixture of cultural influences, whether cinematic ones (samurai movies, Westerns, Flash Gordon) or real-life ones (the Vietnam War, Watergate) and its sense of internal politics has evolved over the years to accommodate real-world developments (as evidenced by the prequels' Bush-era political commentary or the neo-Nazi iconography of the First Order). Saying that "no one cared" about the lack of female characters is still rather presumptuous and the series' popularity with all genders doesn't mean that it is completely above criticism in this regard. If the increase in female characters "feels forced" in recent installments, it's only because previous installments set such a low bar (intentionally or not) that literally any increase is going to be noticed (especially when Last Jedi has more main female characters than the first six films put together and it's still only a handful).
__________________
Way too much stupid talk on the forum. Iroquois, I’m thinking about you.



I liked Ghostbusters and Ocean's 8.

They will reboot Dexter making him a black girl.
If it's in Miami, it'll be a hot Hispanic chick...and that's just fine with me.



Why assume that the change is intended solely to draw in new fans when it could just as easily be intended to keep existing fans from getting bored with a stagnating status quo?
To my mind social responsibility is the main factor. It's expected of those working in the industry to represent society accurately and it comes into the decision making. Maybe it will draw in new fans but I think it's there primarily for fans that have come in during the new series.

Maybe the fans who would quit the franchise completely over this change weren't big enough fans in the first place.
I'm smiling because the final straw for me was actually when they did it with the Master . I hadn't been happy though for several years over various aspects of how the series was being written and run, so I decided to call it a day. Bear in mind that I was a classic series fan long before the new series came into being, so it's perhaps a question of one being incompatible with the other.

Besides, it's been established the Doctor is part of an alien race that undergoes these sorts of changes all the time so it's not like it's ruining the show's internal logic by going through with it anyway.
It's been established in the new series. The earliest example being in The Doctor's Wife where the Corsair is described as having male and female incarnations.



Its a way to make a lazy remake while also pandering to feminism and being able to call critics of the film sexist.
You're as cynical as I am .
Perhaps so ^^ I still think about how Angry video game nerd James Rolfe was being callee sexist for refusing to see the new Ghostbusters even though none of his reasons he gave were because it had a female cast. He apparently didnt even know about the controversy until after it had blown over. Too busy working and trying to support his wife and daughter.



Perhaps so ^^ I still think about how Angry video game nerd James Rolfe was being callee sexist for refusing to see the new Ghostbusters even though none of his reasons he gave were because it had a female cast. He apparently didnt even know about the controversy until after it had blown over. Too busy working and trying to support his wife and daughter.
Oh God . Well this is it – there'll often be the assumption of sexism where really that's far from being the case.



I can see two sides to the situation though, on one hand I think you need to concede that modern blockbusters are overwhelmingly based on existing properties with built in fanbases, properties that often tend to be male dominanted so if you don't shift things somewhat you greatly limit the potential for more balance.

Equally though I do think Hollywood as picked up on the idea that you can cynically piggyback on politics to cover for poor quality film making. Ghostbusters and the Starwars sequels for me are just bad films and I think would have been called as such much more without the politics involved.

Really though these films aren't "feminist" for me, something like Aliens or recently Fury Road are feminist and do actually have something to say politically. The Force Awakens has nothing to say politically at all, its just empty tokenism cynically covering for hackish poor quality film making which if anything harms the cause it claims to support.



What does Aliens and Fury Road have to say politically though?



This might just do nobody any good.
What does Aliens and Fury Road have to say politically though?
Seriously?

One features a corporation exploiting the deaths of others and risking its workers for the acquisition of presumed valuable property. Cameron himself has said the he drew from the debacle of the Vietnam war for the marines’ failure in confronting the Xenomorphs. Fury Road has demagoguery, the withholding of natural resources, dehumanization of one’s own military force and of the opposite gender and that’s before you get into all the climate destabilization stuff.



Well I feel the politics in those movies are put in the background in favor of action scenes. Fury Road is mostly a big chase sequence which is not bad at all, I just don't feel it's as politically charged, cause the politics are put in the background, and not explored as much. But I guess they are still there, compared to some movies. But it's not like they built to big political pay off and had a huge message in the end, that turns the audience on it's political ear.

One thing I felt about Fury Road, when it came to feminism, is that it feels like the women's make up was too good for slaves trying to escape, and they needed to look more messy and less kept. But the make up still stays on too well it seems, and I felt it was cause they wanted the women characters to still look pretty, even though it's a post-apocalyptic wasteland. The main female character (Charlize Theron), doesn't look all pretty in make up, but some of the others do.

Unless it was just me?



This might just do nobody any good.
The film’s feminist viewpoint and message is undercut because the women look too pretty?



I felt the filmmakers were too concerned with the prettiness of some of the characters for such a post-apocalyptic wasteland where they wouldn't have access to make up and hair highlights like that most likely, yes. So that in itself made it feel undercut to a degree for me.



This might just do nobody any good.
Well, considering that the characters of the wives are meat to be Immortan Joe’s “trophies”, it’s not totally beyond grasp to assume that he goes out of his way to make them look pretty. To “preserve” them in some way.

In any case, it’s an odd argument to make. Why would a female character’s appearance make or break the argument the narrative has them deliver?



Well, considering that the characters of the wives are meat to be Immortan Joe’s “trophies”, it’s not totally beyond grasp to assume that he goes out of his way to make them look pretty. To “preserve” them in some way.
That's exactly what I was going to say. They'd have access to things that the rest of Joe's cult wouldn't.



This might just do nobody any good.
Regarding what you said about the message falling into the background, you realize that the chase that drives (pun intended) the narrative is entirely politically motivated. As in that the characters are only on the run because Furiosa decided to save the wives from their lives as the sex slaves to a tyrannical cult leader who proclaims himself to be a god and uses that influence to subdue the masses. The message doesn’t fall into the background or take a backseat (another pun intended) to the action at any point. It’s the very fuel of the movie (that’s three now.)



Welcome to the human race...
I can see two sides to the situation though, on one hand I think you need to concede that modern blockbusters are overwhelmingly based on existing properties with built in fanbases, properties that often tend to be male dominanted so if you don't shift things somewhat you greatly limit the potential for more balance.

Equally though I do think Hollywood as picked up on the idea that you can cynically piggyback on politics to cover for poor quality film making. Ghostbusters and the Starwars sequels for me are just bad films and I think would have been called as such much more without the politics involved.

Really though these films aren't "feminist" for me, something like Aliens or recently Fury Road are feminist and do actually have something to say politically. The Force Awakens has nothing to say politically at all, its just empty tokenism cynically covering for hackish poor quality film making which if anything harms the cause it claims to support.
I suppose it depends on how you define politics in relation to cinema as an art form and how much they are connected to a film's overall quality. I daresay that saying "more people would think this film is bad if it weren't for the politics" doesn't work if you consider that said politics might actually be part of what makes the film good (or at the very least better than it would be otherwise). Hell, if you removed any trace of feminism from Aliens and Fury Road then they'd certainly be a lot worse too - sure, they'd be technically decent, but would they still be the classics we know and love? Of course not.



Oh well I just thought the politics were a stepping stone to hold the action scenes together but nothing more. Which is fine, I just didn't think of it as a political themed movie. It felt more like a sub-theme, and nothing more.

I think sometimes people will see a theme in a movie, but they think that the movie is all about that, when really a lot of times it's just a sub-theme. Like for example, I didn't think much of the first Alien movie, and in film school, a classmate told me that I got it all wrong, and that the movie's theme was about rape, and I missed all the rape themes.

Now I know there may have been sub-themes of rape, but he talks like the movie deals with the subject like on the same level as a movie like Mysterious Skin, or The Accused or something like that.

So I just felt that Fury Road, didn't deal with the subject on a deep level or anything, which is fine, I just didn't take the feminist qualities as deeply, because of it.



This might just do nobody any good.
Like for example, I didn't think much of the first Alien movie, and in film school, a classmate told me that I got it all wrong, and that the movie's theme was about rape, and I missed all the rape themes.
You don’t have to look too hard.



Yeah I know you don't have to look too hard, but the point I am trying to make is, it's not as big in the themes, as some others like some of the classmates, make it out it be.

It doesn't deal with the psychological consequences of rape, and it doesn't deal with the psychological and social subject matter and themes, the same way others movie do, where it's a bigger theme, such as Mysterious Skin and The Accused. Just like how movies like Fury Road and Aliens do not deal with their political themes, very heavily, the way other movies with bigger themes might.

Alien uses rape to fuel hide and seek horror sequences, the same way Fury Road and Aliens just uses political drive to fuel action sequences. Now not having heavy themes in a movie is not a bad thing, but let's not kid ourselves, when these themes are not really dealt with and just being used for fuel for action.