Hey movie producers, stop ruining my movies! Women, do something about this shit!!

The BBQ Pit
41

That’s also what gets most heavily promoted, which might be why it makes the most money.

I believe that another reason your basic shallow action adventure movie with two dimensional characters and one dimensional women make the most money is that they really must be seen in the big chain theaters. Subtle, thoughtful movies with complex characterization and interesting dialogue - especially comedies - are just as enjoyable in older theaters and even better at home. Where, I believe, the profits are lower.

42

Well, then there’s a romance. You can arrive at any point in the romance you want, but there’s going to be a relationship between a man and a woman in there somehow, and you’re going to have a hell of a time turning Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader without his wife being affected by it somehow.

The prequels were horrifically terrible movies but not because of the romance. The romance was botched, but so was pretty much every part of the prequels. A more competent screenwriter could have worked the relationship in there quite nicely.

I agree with Yog in principle that romance is often shoehorned into film in stupid ways, or is marketed as a larger part of the movie than it really is. But having romance in a movie can be an exceptionally powerful tool because romance is such an integral part of the human experience. The audience must care about what happens to the characters, and love and desire give a character a motivation every person can relate to; all humans have a need to be loved. Whether that is* competently *written into the film is a different matter.

43

I think my point wasn’t clear.

It’s not that you don’t ever need romance, it’s that you don’t always need an explicit romance subplot.

His wife can be affected, sure, but it’s not necessary you show them falling in love. That’s my point. You can have romance - they’re already in love. You don’t need a subplot showing them falling in love.

I suppose that might interfere with Lucas’ original intention of Star Wars as a modern take on old radio serials (complete with swashbuckling, swooning princesses, etc), but he did plenty of damage to that on his own.

Ditto the Hobbit movie. For propriety, I suppose somebody decided there needed to be more female characters. Fine. Did they actually have to involve her with one of the characters at all? Worse yet, was an elf-elf-dwarf love triangle even remotely necessary? It’s bad fan fiction pasted on a trilogy of already too-long movies.

“Had to be”? Maybe from your Point of View.

Could be a number of things, including lust for power, love for his unborn children (vs romantic love), thinking he was doing the right thing by overthrowing the corrupt and power-mad cadre of Jedi, blind and fanatical loyalty to the pope…

44

Thanks for saying this. The OP assumes one-dimensional female love interests are shoehorned into movies to appeal to women, but this assumption lies at the heart of the problem he rightfully is ranting about.

What evidence is there that women won’t see a movie unless there’s a female sex/love object thrown in there? If anyone is inordinately attached to this type of portrayal, why wouldn’t it be men? Afterall, it is men who are doing most of the writing and directing. The movies most likely to be greenlighted are those that feature masculine themes or predominately male casts. So why in the world should we assume the pretty little props that represent blockbuster female characters are tokens to appease female viewers?

It’s safer to assume that this phenomenon, just like everything else, is what results when masculinity and masculine interests are treated as the industry defaults. Anything that is “female flavored” is assumed to be for women only and not fit for male consumption, while everyone is expected to enjoy “man flavored” movies (this is such a given that we don’t even consider them “man flavored” even when the cast is almost entirely male). If we’re to change this stifling way of thinking, people (especially men) need to make a habit of seeing movies with more gender-balanced casts. Women can’t be expected to shoulder this alone, because unfortunately, their voices are largely ignored.

Last week, I watched the documentary Miss Representation. It is an eye-opener. Anyone who thinks the OP’s complaint is a non-issue should see it.

45

I would say the same thing to them as I would to people who wanted to see Yoda’s background, or more of how the Sith work and what their civilization was like, or people who wanted to see what Han was up to. There’s a whole galaxy of things that could have been included, but not everything can be included. The first and foremost thing should have been to tell a good story. To me, it seems like the first thing the producers had in mind was to make a love story. Even if that was decided, they should have made it a good one, not one that felt rushed, badly written, and trite (though Lucas’s writing bears most of that). But hey, if he can’t write a good love story, then he shouldn’t have included it. It should have been about wookies and droids

They were both my points. I felt that the romance was pointless and irrelevant, therefore it shouldn’t have been there. If it had to be, then I wished it would have been written better, with better female characters. What we got was the worst of the worst: a pointless and badly written romance with female characters only there because of how they make the male characters change and grow. Could the entire prequel have been about not Anakin loving and losing Padme, but about his mother? Say she accompanies him to Coruscant and helps to guide him as he becomes a Jedi, then gets caught up in the Sith attack and wounded, then killed. Anakin could have turned to the Dark Side with the same motivation. And Luke and Leia could have just come from a one-night stand

You’re right, there’s less women can do compared to their more numerous and powerful male counterparts. Part of this is to just complain though. My original title and direction of this thread was “Women, stop ruining my movies” before I realized it was more the male power players that are probably doing the ruining.

But what I do think women can do is to lessen the perception, which I think is true, that women enjoy movies with romance in them. I don’t have the stats, but I’ll be you have a much larger demographic of women going to romantic comedies than men, like disproportionately larger. This kind of thing is within the power of women in general to stop. Stop going to those movies. Don’t give filmmakers the impression that women will only watch romance. Until they realize women won’t just flock to a movie because it has kissing in it, they will keep trying to cater to women by throwing in shallow female characters with no reason to exist except to be rescued or fucked by the men

What I think would help is not to think of romance in the way you’re thinking of, which is that its an integral part of the human experience and should/must be in there as a tool to move along a great story. I would rather that filmmakers see romance as a means to an end, and the end is a good story. Does it call for romance, yes/no? Can romance enhance this story, yes/no? Can it be written well with a female character? If the answer to all of those questions is not “yes” in every case, there shouldn’t be a forcing of a romantic subplot in there just to have one. One can easily be as moved by death, guilt, by hate, by tragedy, loneliness, greed, joy, etc. Romance is but one part of the whole of human experience.

If I were to say, for example, that movies were shoehorning in a death in every movie where it doesn’t belong simply to move people, we would be able to see it as what it is: a pointless plot device. Why does Kermit the Frog need to be motivated by the death of his father to “take Manhattan”? Why does Dora the Explorer need travel to escape the haunting memory of her drowned little brother that she caused by accident? Its not necessary.

46

FWIW, the whole Vesper Lynd plot in “Casino Royale” was lifted almost lock stock and barrel from the original 1953 novel, so blame Ian Fleming if you didn’t like that.

Personally, I have a general objection to screenwriters making stuff up in stories based on novels and other works; editing is fine, and a small amount of rewriting to make it screen-friendly and/or to bring the source material up to date historically or technologically is fine as well, but adding entire subplots (romantic or not) and new characters is aggravating and infuriating when it changes the entire thrust of the story.

This objection extends to the insertion of just about anything gratuitous in the movie that doesn’t get it from point A to point B or develop the character in the process, and the vast majority of romantic subplots in action movies are pretty gratuitous.

47

But what hard evidence is there that women only watch romances? Your average woman is watching the same kind of movies that the average male is. It’s just that your average guy turns his nose up at romantic comedies while women don’t. I don’t see why women need to bend over backwards to prove something to close-minded film execs, when the film execs are the ones most under the influence of gender bias. Women watch all kinds of movies.

You’re essentially saying women are to blame for the casting and writing decisions that the (male-dominated) movie industry makes, because they have the audacity to watch a genre you dislike. But you could just as easily blame men for routinely patronizing movies that eschew fully-formed female characters. They keep making these type of movies because people keep paying for the privilege of watching them. People like you.

As long as men like to see women being rescued and fucked by men, this will be what is in movies. As long as men require movies to feature male protagonists before they consider watching it, you’ll see keep seeing female characters who fail to be stand-alones; they will always be cast as the lead’s mother or sweetheart. What women want has nothing to do with any of this, I assure you. Your tastes are not universally shared by all men.

48

“Won’t”? - probably none. But there is substantial evidence (e.g. this study) of differences in movie preference between men and women.

No, the movies most likely to be greenlighted are those that look like they’ll make money. With women making up slightly more than half the total paying audience, you can be certain that women’s preferences are closely watched here.

49

From your cite:

(bolding mine)

What this shows is that (younger) women see a wider range of films than males do. And yet the OP urges women to prove their open-mindedness to filmmakers, because apparently it is women’s fault that they are stereotyped a certain way. What more can women do, though? It’s not as though women haven’t been complaining for years about this.

50

This is off the mark. The problem is not that women like watching romance movies, it’s that the men in power think that women will not watch something unless it involves a romance. The people (women and men) who like romance movies shouldn’t have to stop watching what they enjoy. The men who make movies should clue in to the fact that women are not androids who only like one thing, and the idea that, fuck, let’s shoehorn this bullshit into this movie because otherwise the ladies won’t give us their money, is wrong.

51

Xema, thanks for posting this link because it contains some interesting material. Like this

This supports what I asserted earlier. Men favor movies starred by men, while women are less gender-biased. If things are to change, it’s quite critical that men step outside of their comfort zones and embrace male and female presentations. Women do this, so there’s no reason guys can’t.

52

First off, as a man, I can enjoy a well done romance in a movie, even if I generally don’t care for the sappy romcoms. Sure, there’s some movies that can be done fine without romance, but the fact remains that romance is a BIG part of the human condition, and leaving it out because it isn’t strictly necessary is as silly of a decision as shoehorning one in. They have a place in a lot of films, but the problem is they’re often either played up or just done poorly.

For instance, without defending the Star Wars prequels, I think Anakin having a romance was absolutely necessary. What should have been compelling about it was the forbidden aspect of it, that she was trying to be a leader, that he was essentially a monk in a religious order. There was also the line from the original trilogy of Leia recalling her mother as sad, which they unfortunately crapped all over. Regardless, we needed to see Anakin as part of his training, it was an integral part to his relationship with Obiwan, and so his love interest would have had to have been introduced at some point in the story. I get that George Lucas was trying to make it tragic, that his desperation, his fear, of losing her is what turned him, it’s an important part of what leads to the dark side from the original trilogy. Yes, the romance was terribly executed, along with a lot of other aspects of the films, but it had to be in there. The argument here shouldn’t be that it should have been removed, but that it should have been done better. I would have liked to have seen her continue her political role more strongly in the second and third film. I’d go more in depth, but that’s really best placed in a thread on how to fix those films.

Now, I haven’t seen the new Hobbit yet, but a good example of a recent unnecessary love triangle as I see it would be Jane Foster (interestingly, also Natalie Portman) in Thor. I think her character is completely superfluous, and apparently had Jamie Alexander not gotten injured on set, they were going to play up the love triangle between Thor, Jane, and Sif. I would have rather seen Sif be a more major character, and leave it just kind of unstated that they may or may not have affection for one another, but their comradery as soldiers, and her loyalty to him as her prince, puts their duty first.
Unfortunately, putting all of this on women is ridiculous. Movie studios make films that the demographics want to see. Part of the problem is, men are less inclined to see a film about a strong female lead. When we go to see an action film, we expect it to be hyper-stylized, when the action hero is a muscled-up bad-ass, and he’s out to save the damsel in distress. This is part of why Hollywood is scared to pull the trigger on more female leads, because this is what we, the audience, have said we want, by buying the tickets.

This is particularly why we haven’t seen any female superheroes of note go anywhere. Even in the recent Avengers film, Black Widow is still over-sexualized and the least useful next to the completely useless Hawkeye. I had actually been excited over the prospect of a Wonder Woman appearance in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman, strong placement in Justice League, and possibly her own spin-off film. I think she’s a fascinating character, and the tie-ins with Greek mythology are awesome. However, I’m not sure what we’ll end up with when they cast a world-renowned actor as Batman, and then a virtual unknown model as Wonder Woman. I fear that sort of casting means they felt they needed that level of acting to get us to buy Batman as being a real threat to Superman, and I agree it’ll be a tough sell on film, but that they’re not really concerned with trying to make Wonder Woman their equal as well.
Anyway, my take is, romance in movies is fine, it’s all over every other form of art, music, poetry, fine arts, TV, so it should be just as present in film. I’d like to see it done better when it’s in a drama. I’d also like to see more women in roles that aren’t just the romantic interest. But in the end, the best way to fix this is to support movies that do this. Gravity is an excellent recent example and, frankly, it didn’t even occur to me until I read this thread, precisely because it was so well done that it just worked.

53

Were they towt that in school?

54

Maybe he’s part schnauzer.

55

There’s 2 issues here: one is the type of movies women watch, and other other is the type of movies producers think women watch. I don’t have the gall to ask women to change their viewing habits just for my benefit, they can watch what they want and I can watch what I want.

But if the impression that women only will watch romance is erroneous, then there’s only women who can, by their reviews, comments, support, and money, change this mistaken belief by producers. They have to take the lead on this because men are already thinking they know what women want, so why would they listen to other men who says they know what women want? So only women can tell them.

To be fair, I don’t know exactly what gave producers that impression, maybe its cultural bias, maybe its something else, but whatever it is, the producers have it in their head that they needed to not only add a female elf into the Hobbit, but make her do some traditionally female things like fall in love. In doing so, the producers not only ruin a movie with a pointless subplot that didn’t need it, they also reinforce the stereotype that women will only come watch if something like that is put into the movie.

Well I don’t know what they can do besides stab movie producers. Which I’ll support. Maybe I should also encourage male viewers to watch more romance? Or less action?

Other than having the target demographic show, through their money, that they are wrong, I don’t know any effective way (other than stabbings) to get the message across that romance shouldn’t be forced into every movie.

56

Oh, I think it works perfectly. Anakin’s that D&D character with an18 intelligence and about a 6 wisdom. He’s at once a prodigy and so tragically short-sighted his heart just can’t master his head. It’s his downfall AND his salvation. Touching. And James bond is a sociopath who just happens to be on British Intelligence’s payroll–usually. That he can go through women like toothbrushes–sometimes killing them, sometimes dumping them, always (except once) forgetting them–just reinforces him as a paradoxical character.

But yeah, WTF with Tauriel? That was useless, even if she was fun to look at. Even making Legolas a douchebag and a son of a douchebag works fairly seamlessly with his intro to Fellowship. I mostly accept what Jackson is doing with the movies with respect to giving Silmarillion & Appendices back stories, but Tauriel seems to have been written in as a vapid ‘just because.’ I will cut someone if Bard loses any credit at all for getting the kill shot.

57

You are still stuck on the idea that producers create shallow romantic subplots to specifically attract women viewers.

Again, you are assuming that women have anything to do with this subplot. Can you explain where you’re getting this from? Is it possible that you are projecting your own biases on to the producers? This plot device is so rooted in our storymaking culture that to ascribe its ubiquity and popularity to women is, in a word, absurd.

If you’re a regular moviegoer, make it a point to see movies that feature female leads and gender-balanced casts. Encourage your friends to do the same. Don’t badmouth movies just because they aren’t brimming over with testosteronic images. Don’t assume all dramas and romances are uninteresting and stupid. Just because a movie appears as though women would especially enjoy it, don’t write it off.

And stop seeing movies that feature one-dimensional female characters surrounded by full formed men. That is what you’re complaining about, right? Oh wait, you think this has to do with romance. Hopefully you can see that this is the same issue.

You are the target demographic, dude.

58

Are you seriously suggesting that the women in James Bond movies are put there to appeal to women? I haven’t seen any of the recent Bond movies, but in the older ones it seems pretty obvious that the women are mostly there as eye candy for (straight) male viewers and to make Bond seem cool and studly because he gets to score with one beautiful woman after another. With very few exceptions Bond is not in love with or even in a serious relationship with these women.

I suspect that no woman in the world has ever thought “You know what would make this series of movies more appealing to me? If the hero could have casual sex with a bunch of hot younger women with implausible names.”

59

As a man, I’m sad that Skyfall was Judi Dench’s last role as M. I’ll watch movies simply because Judi Dench is in them.

Thinking more about the latest Hobbit, I don’t really mind that Legolas is there. After all, he lives there and while Tolkien wasn’t very focused on the Teleri living in Mirkwood there’s no reason not to put the character in and give Orlando Bloom some screen time. For that matter, I’m not really against this new Tauriel character in terms of “she’s not in the book” but in all the reports of how badly the character is handled and the creation of a pointless love triangle subplot.

It seems to me that there’s a balance regarding adding/changing things due to the demands of the medium and that Jackson has been a lot more on the poorly-handed side of things with these Hobbit movies.

60

I just saw The Hobbit last night. I didn’t mind Tauriel–I kind of liked her, actually. She was competent and strong and she didn’t seem tacked on. The only part I didn’t like was the love triangle–I could see how she’d be attracted to Legolas (and him to her) but having her attracted to Kili seemed forced (not that he wasn’t attractive, but…yeah. He’s a Dwarf, she’s an Elf…it’d never work!)

I thought Thranduil was hotter than Legolas. :slight_smile: (Fun fact: the actor who plays him is 2 years younger than Orlando Bloom. I guess Elves are the only ones you can get away with that with. :slight_smile: )