(no subject)
Nov. 4th, 2008 12:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Someone please rescue me from exploring The Hathor Legacy's archives. I am currently trapped in this post (regarding whether or not female audiences are "listened to") and the links in it to other articles.
A couple quotes:
When women dropped over half a billion to see Titanic, frequently citing Kate Winslet and/or her character as their reason (and the special effects in more than a few cases), it was dismissed as a fluke. The biggest gross-earner of all time, and we’re not allowed to learn anything from its success because it was just a fluke. And why was it a fluke? Uh, something about when it was released, and what else was out, and er, stuff. Conventional wisdom. Don’t question it.
On the DVD extras for Firefly, a Fox sci-fi series that was troubled from the get-go and cancelled after 15 episodes, Chris Buchanan (president of Mutant Enemy, creator Joss Whedon’s production company) said:
But you know, back to Titanic for a moment. Err...when it came out I was one of the masses of teenaged girls who were "ZOMG! Best romance ever!" (leave me alone!) And then I got over it and went into the seemingly-required "that movie and Leonardo DiCaprio suck and are overrated!" phase...and then I got over those. Now I like it for Rose. And the special effects.“The initial results - they made the network nervous. The men didn’t respond as strongly as they thought they would, and the women responded more strongly.”
BUT! a spoilery question!
Was Jack fridged for Rose? Ultimately, his main purpose is to show her that she can do what she wants: break out of her sheltered little world and live her own life by her own merits. That accomplished, he dies, and Rose moves on to a more fulfilling life, and other men.
ETA: This and a comment remind me of a thought I've had a few times but never put enormous thought into. Does it seem to anyone else that attention to women and movies comes in waves? Like, you have the 30s-50s, where parts of various movies-if not entire movies-seem to be specifically geared towards women, not just in terms of romance. And then it's like studios went "Hey! All women need is to have a woman there. We'll just tuck her into the background and focus on the guys. Who are more interesting anyway. All women want is a romance anyway." And then you get to Sci Fi and fantasy getting popular, and somebody notices "Hey! I think some women like this stuff!" and we get Heroines. And then studios got deja vu and went "Hey! All women need is to have a woman there. We'll just tuck her into the background and focus on the guys. Who are more interesting anyway. All women want is a romance anyway." again.
Leia: Politician, rebel, soldier, leader. Dictates her own life and fate. Says "stuff you" when men object.
Padme: Politician, leader, sometime-fighter. Starts awesome, ultimately reduced to a source of Anakin's angst.
Both spawned from the same brain, just a couple decades apart.
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 06:58 pm (UTC)But now that the ticket prices have gone through the roof and people attend only once in a while instead of every week, the whole slant is towards the damn blockbusters, and I suppose the studios' thinking is, "She'll go with him to see the little-boy power fantasy, but he sure won't go see the chick flick with her. Do the math." :P
The first time I tried to watch Titanic on TV, I couldn't even stick it through to the special effects because I thought the writing was so bad! I have no opinion on DiCaprio, though I like Kate Winslet in general. Then years later my kid got interested in the disaster, I rented the DVD for him, and we just SKIPPED the boring parts and watched that puppy go down! :D
no subject
Date: 2008-11-04 07:02 pm (UTC)This has reminded me of a Theory of mine, which I shall now edit into the main post.