You make some good points, but I’m not sure how you figure Silence of the Lambs to be an “all female action movie.” Aside from Starling and her roommate (who didn’t get much screen time), and of course the victim and her mom, all the other major characters (Lecter, her boss at the FBI, and Jame Gumb) were all men. Great movie, for sure, but doesn’t really fit the criteria I was mentioning.
I’ll be honest, I haven’t seen any of the other movies you mention except Hunger Games, but from what little I know about them, none of them except Charlie’s Angels (and maybe Kill Bill?) are all-female ensemble movies, are they? Sure, they have kick-ass female leads, but that too isn’t what I’m referring to. And as you pointed out, Charlie’s Angels did have the sexual component. What I found refreshing about GB2016 is that it didn’t, because it didn’t need to. Nothing wrong with sex, but Hollywood and movie audiences need to learn that women can be action heroes without necessarily being conventionally sexy.
Yep, sequels to action movies often bomb. Look at the sequels to Under Seige or Speed. There’s all sorts of reasons for that, but I don’t think that the sex of the leads has much bearing.
Never saw SALT or Lucy, they sound like more examples of successful female-led action movies.
But by that standard, none of the James Bond, Rambo or Lethal Weapon movies were male action movies either. Which is a fair point if you look at it that way, but it makes it even less likely that Ghostbusters bombing had anything to do with the sex of the leads. In fact it just highlights that very few single -sex action movies are ever made and hence, presumably, very few succeed.
No, they’re not. But applying the same standard you applied above, there aren’t very many all-male ensemble movies. Even the original Ghostbusters wasn’t an all male movies, since Sigourney Weaver’s had top billing and her character had more screen time than a couple of the male leads.
You really need to define ensemble movie and then define single-sex to get a sensible answer to this.
You might have a fair point if that’s how you choose to define it. But it really just highlights how rare single-ex ensemble action movies are. Master and Commander is really the only one I can think of. So if single sex ensemble movies are rare for either sex, then the failure of this particular one hardly seems remarkable or attributable to *which *sex it is.
I would expect that there are more all-male ensemble action movies because many war movies are all male for reasons of historical fact. I’m not sure that tells you anything. But then, I suspect there are more all-female ensemble romance movies such as Sex in the City or Beaches. And once again, I’m not sure that tells you anything.
I sure don’t see this how illuminates the reasons why Ghostbusters failed or the willingness of audiences to watch female-led action movies. Basically, single-sex ensemble movies are rare no matter how you define it. But we know that Charlie’s Angels and Kill Bill were all-female ensemble movies and they did very well. That alone seems to refute the idea that the reason people didn’t watch Ghostbusters was because eit was an all-female ensemble action movie.
As does virtually every male action movie. Suave spy uses their sexual attractiveness to manipulate their adversaries or is sexually manipulated by an adversary is a spy movie cliché. It occurs in literally every James Bond movie as well as pretty much every movie other action movie I can think of. It also occurs as a major plot point and source of humour in the original Ghostbusters.
So you are essentially asking for an all-female ensemble movie, when all single-sex ensemble movies are rare. And then you want it to be an asexual action movie, when asexual action movies are even rarer. At this stage I want to ask if you can name a single all-male, ensemble asexual action movie.
As noted, the sexual aspect was a major plot point and driver in the original Ghostbusters. So you are basically saying that the new version has completely removed this critical plot point of a beloved movie. And then there is some mystery about why it bombed.
And yet male actions heroes *are *invariably conventionally sexy. Do you think the audience also needs to learn this about men?
It seems to me that the exact same standard is being applied to women and men here.
We need to see what the response is to the all-female remake of Ocean’s Eleven and the others that are past the planning stages. Right now the big news is that The Magnificent Seven is being remade without all seven being white.
The one that comes immediately to mind is The Expendables (definitely the first one–I can’t remember if it was the second or third that had the female Expendable as part of the group).
It’s not quite the same, though. I’m having a hard time articulating what I mean, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that all-male action movies are marketed primarily at men, and so are most of the all-female ones. Charlie’s Angels couldn’t just be competent at what they did–they had to be gorgeous, scantily clad, and male-gaze-worthy. The Ghostbusters aren’t male-gaze-worthy. They don’t wear makeup, they wear frumpy jumpsuits, and they don’t give a damn what men think of them (though likewise they don’t dislike men–they just give them the same amount of attention when they’re working that men in male action movies give women). Does that make sense? I’m not sure I’m getting across what I’m trying to say, so sorry if it doesn’t.
I don’t necessarily want it to be asexual–I just want sex to be a background consideration. Most people in real life aren’t making cow eyes at each other while they’re doing high-risk, high-stress work, and if they’re lusting after each other, they keep it in their pants and do their job until they’re off duty. I just want the women (and yes, I said women–as in more than one, competent at their jobs and not obsessed with men) to do this as much as the men do.
There’s a lot bigger spectrum of what’s considered “sexy” in men than in women. For example, many women consider Patrick Stewart (old and bald), Ian McKellen (old, big nose/ears), and Benicio del Toro (IMO an extremely weird-looking guy) to be very sexy. (I happen to agree about Stewart and McKellen, btw! ) Hell, look at Peter Capaldi in Doctor Who! He’s odd-looking, but a lot of women (including me) think he’s sexy. Name me any weird-looking, old, or conventionally unattractive women that large numbers men lust after. I want more conventionally non-lust-worthy women to be cast in action movies.
BTW, before anyone accuses me of being an old stick-in-the-mud: I love looking at beautiful people in movies, both men and women. The only thing that bugs me is when women are included as nothing more than ornaments and sexual objects for men’s attention if that isn’t the kind of movie it’s supposed to be.
Indeed. Or the All female version of Deliverance. Or the all-male version of Steel Magnolias.
That’s as ludicrous as making a version of Seven Samurai without all seven being Asian.
Infovore, I’m not getting it. James Bond or is constantly making eyes at women while they at work doing high-risk, high-stress work. In contrast, the characters of Charlies Angels or Kill Bill is that are not. Like any male action star, especially Bond, they are more than willing to use their attractiveness to manipulate their adversaries, but they aren’t doing so out of lust especially.
And your second comment is equally puzzling. Saying that you want movie women to be just as attractive to men as movie men are to women is fine. But to then say that men have a narrower band of attractiveness, but you want women outside that band in movies seems contradictory to your admission that all the men in action movies are attractive to women.
Have we forgotten what movie we are talking about? I know I’ve only seen it once but I believe this is the movie where a big plot point was Kristen Wiig making “cow eyes” at Chris Hemsworth while doing high risk, high stress work.
Yeah, but it was played for laughs, nothing came of it when she realized he was dumb as toast, and she got over it fast. If the roles were reversed, one of the Ghostbusters would have ended up with female-Kevin by the end of the movie.
Yeah, I think I’m gonna step out of this discussion, because I’m doing a terrible job of articulating what I’m trying to say. I’m not even sure I can get it straight in my own mind! All I know for sure is that I enjoyed GB16 because it was refreshing to me to see a movie about a group of women who were focused on their work and their cameraderie rather than getting men. I hope there will be more such movies in the future, and that GB16’s box-office failure won’t convince Hollywood that the formula doesn’t work.
Aside from that…yeah, my arguments were kind of a muddle.
I just saw it, and I loved it. They kept enough of what made the original work, and changed enough that it wasn’t just a tired re-tread. They gave a coherent explanation for why everything was happening now, when it hadn’t happened for centuries earlier. But those aren’t the main reason I loved it. The main reason I loved it was that they did a great job with the characters. I was able to like and appreciate all four of the leads, and found that they made sense as a team.
And after seeing the last two pages of this thread, I’m not even going to touch on the gender relations angle. Suffice to say that the movie was great regardless of the ado about it.
This movie was by no means perfect, but I enjoyed it a lot because I liked the main characters and it was fun to see them together. I liked them all so much that I almost wish they were on a TV show instead – not even necessarily a Ghostbusters TV show, they could have some other sort of business or team – so I could check in on them on a regular basis.
In other news, I saw that the DVD/Blu-Ray release has been announced (scheduled for October 11) and will feature both the theatrical version and an extended cut that’s 15 minutes longer. As I mentioned upthread, I thought the biggest weakness of the movie was that it felt like a couple of significant scenes had wound up on the cutting room floor. In terms of actual running time I’d generally prefer a movie to be under two hours rather than over two hours, but I am curious to see the longer version and whether it fills in the gaps I perceived in the theatrical version.
I just got done watching the extended version on blue-ray.
That was a fun ride. I mostly wanted to see it because of Melissa McCarthy and Leslie Jones but man, Kate McKinnon stole the show as the crazy wild-eyed scientist. And Chris Hemsworth playing so against type was a lot of fun too.
Just an all around good, fun, wholesome, full of calcium movie.
Does it feature the dancing-in-the-streets scene so obviously cut from the theatrical release? Or the fight they probably had that split up the team just before the denouement?
Since most of my entertainment options are delivered digitally, I may end up skipping ever getting a Blu-Ray drive. Maybe the whole dance number will be leaked to YouTube.
I really can’t wrap my head around how anyone could find this movie genuinely funny. Surely on some level people have convinced themselves to like it just to spite straw-manchildren, that, granted, do exist and are terrible blights, but hardly represent the average detractor. It’s just a shit movie.
(He doesn’t cover this angle and still has an hour of material)
) Hell, look at Peter Capaldi in Doctor Who! He’s odd-looking, but a lot of women (including me) think he’s sexy. Name me any weird-looking, old, or conventionally unattractive women that large numbers men lust after. I want more conventionally non-lust-worthy women to be cast in action movies.
