(no subject)

[meganbmoore]

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:

“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 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.

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.

Comments

[alexandral.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I was already 31 when "Titanic" happened so my reaction was "Pretty average film with good special effects". But when I realised that this film won the Oscar I knew I would never trust Oscars again. :D

The film isn't bad but it was probably the most overhyped film of all times.

And yep, Leonardo's role was to die. It is not as if this film creators really wanted to give us a rich girl/poor boy romance, they just wanted to pretend they did.

[meganbmoore.livejournal.com]

There are better* movies to lose faith in Oscars over. The thing is that I have to wonder if it was originally meant to be a poor boy/rich girl romance, or if that became the focus because "it's what people want." It's talked about as a romance, but in the movie itself, the romance is secondary to Rose's character growth.


*substituting the word for "movies I will never in a million years watch and that exist purely to be "quality."