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

Tools    





While you are not incorrect in your numbers, you may be forgetting advertising costs and kickbacks (percentages) to both the actors/directors and the movie theaters.


Because of these factors, just because the movie made more in total box office proceeds than it cost to produce does not mean that it made a profit.

I might be forgetting 210 million dollars in costs and kickbacks..c'mon.


And kickbacks go both ways Oceans 8 basically had four commercials in it(Cartier, Hotel, Met, Vogue) and a lot of product placement.



https://productplacementblog.com/tag/oceans-8-2018/



A system of cells interlinked

Why?

I feel like this could use further elaboration, but I figured they all served their purposes within the narrative - Rose and Holdo are key foils for Finn and Poe respectively while Phasma always struck me as a flat character by design who Finn fights as part of his arc.
They were used as key foils, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea or good writing, and it made for a lackluster movie. Both Finn and Poe's characters were effectively trashed and put on the back burner for less interesting and (IMO) less important characters. Those two character threads represent some of the biggest missteps of the movie. For a film that managed to perhaps the most visually arresting of all the Star Wars stuff, the issues with these characters, combined with the useless casino planet subplot (both of which seemed designed to take specific social jabs), made it all the more frustrating of a watch for me. There is a more subtle way to use social commentary - I kept getting pulled out of the film by these characters.

I will say that from reading your posts in the other thread, I dislike the film a bit less than I initially did, but I still find some pretty glaring weaknesses with it.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



When The Doctor appeared as a British, white male thirteen times in a row, why in the world would you assume that it was random? The basic facts would show that it was anything but random; that Britishness, male and white was part of who he is.
You're thinking along the same lines as I did. There was that constant until now: male and white but with randomness of age, size, appearance, accent and personality. The Britishness is really as much of a disguise as the Police Box. Labelled as British in the TV Movie the Doctor's response is the vague "Yes I suppose I am".

Alternating sexes is a piece of new series continuity (2005 onwards) where the notion has infrequently been seeded into the show with the ultimate aim of it becoming standard. The female Master was a dry run, played by Michelle Gomez, and has been very successful. Now it's the Doctor's turn.



Welcome to the human race...
They were used as key foils, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea or good writing, and it made for a lackluster movie. Both Finn and Poe's characters were effectively trashed and put on the back burner for less interesting and (IMO) less important characters. Those two character threads represent some of the biggest missteps of the movie. For a film that managed to perhaps the most visually arresting of all the Star Wars stuff, the issues with these characters, combined with the useless casino planet subplot (both of which seemed designed to take specific social jabs), made it all the more frustrating of a watch for me. There is a more subtle way to use social commentary - I kept getting pulled out of the film by these characters.

I will say that from reading your posts in the other thread, I dislike the film a bit less than I initially did, but I still find some pretty glaring weaknesses with it.
When I called Rose and Holdo foils, it was also meant to reflect how their individual development is also meant to inform the development of Finn and Poe - as such, I don't see how Finn and Poe are "trashed' merely by being challenged by Rose and Holdo to be better than what they are at the start of the movie or by failing to meet said challenges (to say nothing of DJ acting as an evil/amoral counterpart to Rose that also makes Finn question his choices for the wrong reasons). That's a key element of character development, after all, which is I have trouble thinking of them as either uninteresting or unimportant or imagining what the film would be like without them.

As for the casino subplot...what can I say? Some anvils need to be dropped, and it's not like subtlety is all it's cracked up to be either.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



A system of cells interlinked
When I called Rose and Holdo foils, it was also meant to reflect how their individual development is also meant to inform the development of Finn and Poe - as such, I don't see how Finn and Poe are "trashed' merely by being challenged by Rose and Holdo to be better than what they are at the start of the movie or by failing to meet said challenges (to say nothing of DJ acting as an evil/amoral counterpart to Rose that also makes Finn question his choices for the wrong reasons). That's a key element of character development, after all, which is I have trouble thinking of them as either uninteresting or unimportant or imagining what the film would be like without them.

As for the casino subplot...what can I say? Some anvils need to be dropped, and it's not like subtlety is all it's cracked up to be either.
There are probably better ways to foil the characters than relegating one to prop status (Finn) or using one as a whipping boy (Poe). Especially since both the characters used for these purposes were making decisions worse that the one's made by Finn and Poe, which led to poor results in both cases. Rose knocking Finn off his heroic run into the giant gun in a effort to allegedly teach him to save people they love, while simultaneously allowing a bunch of people they loved to be killed was ridiculous. Hey, at least we have fun parody videos that point out this exact problem, like this one:




Holdo's emasculation of Poe was senseless, and again, rang hollow with her questionable actions during and after the fact. Meanwhile, she reduced the rebellion to one old freighter with a handful of freedom fighters on it. Good thing she was in charge!



I feel no one really wants to see a female lead Terminator or an all female Expendables. I don't want to, and I asked all my male and female friends and they all said no.
Then why start a thread?
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Welcome to the human race...
There are probably better ways to foil the characters than relegating one to prop status (Finn) or using one as a whipping boy (Poe). Especially since both the characters used for these purposes were making decisions worse that the one's made by Finn and Poe, which led to poor results in both cases. Rose knocking Finn off his heroic run into the giant gun in a effort to allegedly teach him to save people they love, while simultaneously allowing a bunch of people they loved to be killed was ridiculous. Hey, at least we have fun parody videos that point out this exact problem, like this one:
There was no guarantee that run would've worked, though, especially when Poe - who originally got a whole squad of bombers destroyed at the start during a similar situation - realises (thanks to his own arc involving Holdo) that trying to take out the gun is a waste of resources and people so he calls off the attack, which Finn ignores in much the same way that Poe originally ignored Leia's orders. The comparison I'd make is to the "let it go" at the end of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which also involves one character convincing another that love is better than the supposed gratification of a fatal victory.

Speaking of YouTube, it sucks how it's been poisoned by all these damn Last Jedi videos that regurgitate the same sh*t over and over again about how they'd "fix" it or whatever and it's just...why.

Holdo's emasculation of Poe was senseless, and again, rang hollow with her questionable actions during and after the fact. Meanwhile, she reduced the rebellion to one old freighter with a handful of freedom fighters on it. Good thing she was in charge!
I'm sensing a pattern between "heroic run" before and "emasculation" here...but anyway, I question what actual choices she had in this situation where the Order quite simply started off with superior resources and firepower (and wasn't helped by how Finn and Poe's attempt to save the day behind her back only made things worse).



Welcome to the human race...
Then why start a thread?
Because OP wonders why these movies keep getting made if moviegoers (supposedly) don't want to watch them.



I don't know how out of hand they're getting, but I did watch Oceans Eight last night and loved it.
I have it in my Netflix Q & expect to like it.

Because OP wonders why these movies keep getting made if moviegoers (supposedly) don't want to watch them.
You’re speaking for him?



A system of cells interlinked
I'm sensing a pattern between "heroic run" before and "emasculation" here...but anyway, I question what actual choices she had in this situation where the Order quite simply started off with superior resources and firepower (and wasn't helped by how Finn and Poe's attempt to save the day behind her back only made things worse).
This brings up another issue. How is it that The Empire was defeated, and then we get to see all the big parties on all the worlds while the Ewoks play music from The Lion King, but somehow the remnants of the Empire become The First Order and are suddenly a superior force with all the resources and another even bigger and deadlier Death Star by the time we get to The Force Awakens.

That doesn't bother me as much. as I am usually fine to just lose myself in the mythology of it all and enjoy the story. I find it harder to do that in TLJ though.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack this thread with more back and forth on TLJ - I feel like we covered all this already in the TLJ thread.



This brings up another issue. How is it that The Empire was defeated, and then we get to see all the big parties on all the worlds while the Ewoks play music from The Lion King, but somehow the remnants of the Empire become The First Order and are suddenly a superior force with all the resources and another even bigger and deadlier Death Star by the time we get to The Force Awakens.
I know, I wondered about that too. Maybe we were just overly optimistic .



This might just do nobody any good.
This brings up another issue. How is it that The Empire was defeated, and then we get to see all the big parties on all the worlds while the Ewoks play music from The Lion King, but somehow the remnants of the Empire become The First Order and are suddenly a superior force with all the resources and another even bigger and deadlier Death Star by the time we get to The Force Awakens.
I know, I wondered about that too. Maybe we were just overly optimistic .
I can’t imagine any situation in which a faction of right-wing fanatics could conceivably return to power through the manipulation of iconography aimed at a younger generation or with the promise of purpose and heroism, even during a time period perceived by many to be an era of peace and progress.

Not. At. All.



I think that might be because male is so frequently treated as the "default" gender that you can easily swap in women to play the characters and it won't be too different, but female-centric narratives tend to emphasise gendered specifics to the point where you can't just straight-up rehash them with men. Maybe that's why nobody tries to do all-male remakes of female movies - because that would genuinely lose what makes those movies distinct whereas there are countless movies where the characters' (male) gender is purely incidental.



But where exactly do you draw the line between a story "naturally having women" and "going overboard"? In one sentence, you think it's "going overboard" to put women in powerful roles in order to make the audience think it's quote-unquote normal (your quotes, not mine), then in the next you say you have no problem with women taking these roles as long as it's done "organically" even though that appears to be a very nebulous standard (and, if you're going to provide examples of how you think it's forced, you should also provide examples of instances where you think it is "organic"). Using Last Jedi as your clearest example of forced diversity is questionable because there are only about half a dozen women of any major prominence in that narrative (which is more than balanced out by the male characters anyway).



Why?



I feel like this could use further elaboration, but I figured they all served their purposes within the narrative - Rose and Holdo are key foils for Finn and Poe respectively while Phasma always struck me as a flat character by design who Finn fights as part of his arc.

To answer your first part:


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?




Secondly, I'll try to further explain what I was meaning:



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.


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).



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.



I think the problem with them is that when cashing in on an old idea, you are not getting any supporters. I'm all for more female diversity, but it should be movies with ORIGINAL ideas. New heroes, new action stars. It's been done in the past, and it can be done again. This has all to do with Hollywood scrambling after excuses to still put out millions of remakes, and nothing to do with actual diversity.
100% agree with this. The recent gender reversal trend to me isnt about diversity at all, it's about making films for women, but Hollywood is so insecure about make a film that might flop, instead of simply making something original, they have to go down the reboot route. Im not for one minute saying there are no good films made any more, but the vast majority of good exciting new films these days are indies with investment. Hollywood is basically becoming a sequel/ reboot machine. I was driving past a local cinema the other day, where they still have an old fashioned 'now playing' board outside, so i always have a glance when I stop at the traffic lights. About 3 weeks ago, 10 of the 12 films listed were sequels, reboots or franchise films. Is this all the 'summer blockbuster season' is now? Just more of what we've seen before?

I watched Ocean's 8. I didnt enjoy Ocean's 11, and basically only saw 8 because my friend wanted to see it but I enjoyed it a lot. Basically nothing in that story needed Ocean's 11's existence for the story to work, it was a very tenuous link to the original work, that could easily have been cut from the story without hurting the film. But Hollywood, scared of taking the risk of making a female-centric heist film, already a genre rarity, instead made one with a tiny link to an existing franchise. It is highly likely that the film still would have succeeded, especially with the star power involved. But it was still a risk they always refuse to take. To use a video game example, there are a lot of similarities between the Tomb Raider and Uncharted series. The female led Tomb Raider obviously has been around much longer, but when Uncharted came out, there was nobody calling it 'Tomb Raider for boys,' or a 'male led Tomb Raider.' It was just a great game series in it's own right.

Diversity and representation matter, and unfortunately, there is a large ignorant movie watching demographic, who simply have no interest in any story that does not represent them. As such, basically any film that doesnt feature a mainly white male cast is instead seen as a niche that white men wont necessarily watch. I think I read that Girls' Trip was the highest grossing film of all time that featured a predominantly black female cast. Black Panther is the third highest grossing film in the MCU after Avengers Assemble and Infinity War. The audiences are out there, but the only way they can make it in the big films is when it is done as a specifically *insert non white non male minority here* led film. A black film. A girls film. A gay film. An Asian film. More often than not, when these minorities appear in your blockbuster male dominated franchises, they are there to fill an expected stereotype. The gay sidekick trope. The magical Asian or black man. The dead lesbian. The femme fatale vs the virginal plain jane. They are there to be the butt of a joke, to fill a role for our heroic male lead.



In fairness, there's no real purpose in having this alien's supposedly random changes of appearance coincidentally make it look like a white man thirteen times in a row.
But aren't white men evil?
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



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?.
The Thing (1982) is another example.

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.
That would be intriguing wouldn't it – I wonder which would have been the bigger jolt ?

My thinking about it runs basically the same. I remain of the opinion that the Doctor should have stayed male. Parallel to that (imagine the tension) I concede that the series has outgrown itself to such an extent that it's no longer sustainable to keep the Doctor confined to one "type". What if there were 30 Doctors in twenty years' time, all "skinny white men" to quote Christopher Eccleston? In the classic series we knew that Time Lords could only regenerate 12 times, but with the series' resurrection that had to be thrown out of the window pronto. Someone compared Jodie Whittaker's arrival to that of Patrick Troughton. Troughton was the first 'replacement' Doctor, taking over from William Hartnell and it had never been done before. It certainly is as critical a moment for the series.



I can’t imagine any situation in which a faction of right-wing fanatics could conceivably return to power through the manipulation of iconography aimed at a younger generation or with the promise of purpose and heroism, even during a time period perceived by many to be an era of peace and progress.
Sounds like the Republican party.



This might just do nobody any good.
Hmm. The "Not. At. All." is, really, pivotal to my post.
__________________
This post was not worth it.



Its a way to make a lazy remake while also pandering to feminism and being able to call critics of the film sexist.