Yes?
Why?
^Here’s an example of the sort of responses many people might make when faced with the question of whether to buy a ticket to a female-lead superhero movie. No one (or virtually no one) is going to say 'I think I’ll pass because female-lead superheroes make me uncomfortable.’
Instead, they’ll say things like ‘it won’t be compelling’ or 'it’s just not my thing’ or ‘I *find something lacking in such movies’ *or any of a number of other ways of explaining their decision not to buy a ticket.
This is human nature. We may not even know why we choose not to patronize some particular movie. But the reasons, conscious or unconscious, are rarely random. They reflect trends.
Surely none of this is shocking or surprising.
It’s neither shocking or surprising. Just a load of bullpucky. Your reasoning suggests that all the factors that influence the success of a movie —
[ul]
[li]skillful director[/li][li]popular / talented actors[/li][li]emotionally gripping plot[/li][li]smart writing[/li][li]astounding effects[/li][li]positive critical reviews[/li][li]existing fan base[/li][/ul]
— are negated because the lead actor has boobies.
There are certainly men’s rights-types who will stay away for the reason you cite. I’m thankful that in this day and age, they’re a fringe group.
Men’s rights types?
Both companies have released female-lead comic book movies in the not-too-distant past (Elektra and Catwoman), and there have been plenty of other comic-book-esque action movies with female leads (Tomb Raider, Underworld, Aeon Flux). Gender relations haven’t really changed much since them, so if Hollywood was willing to make such movies before, it’ll be willing to make them again.
It’s not shocking or surprising, just ridiculous. Yes, we aren’t always conscious of what drives our preferences but avoiding a female super hero movie because of hating Hillary is probably limited to, well, limited to you. The fact that you are blithely projecting this feeling onto others is probably a good example of the feature of human nature you’re describing, ironically.
There’s never a shortage of emotion when issues relating to social hierarchy arise. The emotion is an excellent indicator of the fact that this matters (and in a big way).
And, of course, online as well as off, the surest indicator of seething emotions is the presence of personal insults.
Humans! It’s probably essential to efficient living that we be so predictable; even so, one always hopes to encounter originality.
You’re right; such movies do get made.
I can’t think of one that was a big blockbuster success, though. Certainly none of those you name has risen to the box office heights of The Avengers, the Iron Man movies, the Dark Knight movies, and the Spider-Man movies, to name but a few flicks which trounced the above-named movies at the box office.*
I’m curious about how people reading this thread interpret this fact. What’s the reason, or reasons? Pure chance (that the female-lead movies happened to have had bad writing or bad acting, etc.)? Something else?
Underworld and Resident Evil are BOTH franchises that have had many sequels, a sure indicator of success. I’m not at all convinced of the notion that there is any problem with a female-lead superhero movie succeeding.
That said, after watching the first Thor movie I lost all interest in superhero movies. They’re just too fricking shallow. Avengers was nice for the special effects … nothing much else … I’d be OK if superhero movies just went bye-bye as a group, personally.
What personal insults?
Regardless, I could see he-man woman haters club members not wanting to see a female superhero as well as disliking Hillary. That doesn’t mean they hate the super hero because of Hillary.
Salt did $293 million on a $110 million budget, which (a) is pretty solid as blockbusters go, and (b) was a better return on investment than Batman Begins. (I mean, yes, Begins came away with a higher gross overall – but not, y’know, higher enough to offset the extra $40 million they spent making it.)
So far as I can see, no one in the thread has argued this (the underlined bit. My own claim was about discomfort being generally connected with free-floating anxieties, which is far from being equivalent to “hate”). But perhaps you were just making a general comment.
Anyway: as mentioned by others, there are some female-headlined film franchises that have turned a profit (though none except The Hunger Games have cracked the top-box-office list). It’s interesting that the comics world hasn’t been able to provide such successful properties, though–despite the fact that several comics heroines have the advantage of decades-long familiarity.
As an offhand guess: Selene in the Underworld series and Alice in the Resident Evil series aren’t presented as “superheroes” as such–as people who are in the business of fighting crime (as with Wonder Woman, Supergirl, Ms. Marvel, etc.). Instead, Selene and Alice find themselves in a world of trouble and fight their way out (to generalize broadly). Similarly with Ripley and Sarah Connor.
Something about being a female ‘dedicated fighter of evil’ sits less well with movie audiences, than does being a female ‘intrepid survivor.’
I think it’s just that action heroes fit in better with society’s vision of men rather than women and so a female super hero just doesn’t “feel right”.
So maybe I upped the ante with “hate Hillary” but I still think even “free floating anxieties” about Hillary being a reason people stay away from female super heroes patently ridiculous.
For your perusal:
While it’s true that no action movie with a female lead has made as much at the box office as The Avengers, I don’t think it’s really relevant. Almost no movie, in any genre, has made as much as The Avengers. You’re basically arguing that since the most successful comic book movie ever happened to not have a female lead, Hollywood will never dare to make a movie with a female lead.
Well, if the Wonder Woman movie is terrible, I expect President Warren will demand an investigation.
Because it is a fucking ridiculous idea.
I’m British. I grew up under Thatcher. She was a strong woman and the world didn’t end.
ETA:
You’ve basically rather embarrassingly let your own prejudices shine through (newsflash: the rest of the world doesn’t always feel the same way as you) and come off looking like a tit.
The evident emotion in your post seems markedly out of proportion with the context.
(Which is a not-uncommon occurrence in discussions involving social hierarchy.)
#ad hominem
This can be a difficulty in text-based communications. Emotion or the lack thereof isn’t conveyed very well, so it can be easy to misjudge another’s emotional state.