The fact that you don't agree with them?
I'll take " In 2012 North American movie theaters showed more movies than ever before, and for the first time in history domestic box office grosses surpassed $10.7 billion" over your opinion.
You say 'slumped' whereas they have been on an upward swing from at least as early as 2009 where " In 2009, the leading Hollywood studios made more films and generated more revenue than ever before, and for the first time in history the domestic box office grosses will surpass $10 billion."
Sorry, but the numbers don't support your claim.
Backs them pretty solidly though.
I don't know what argument you think I was making was but it wasn't "Hollywood is loosing money"
I'm just rolling with what you said, as that is all we have to go one, and what you said was that they were wrong and there was a 'slump in sales'. You then went on to question whether market research was a reliable tool, and suggested your opinion was about as reliable (sure, you are part of the market, but your tastes might not reflect the broader market).
You were corrected on your suggestion that they were making flawed decisions and suffering as a result, yet this just doesn't bear out on the numbers. Their profits have been steadily increasing for the last decade, that's not a fad, that's a trend.
Curiously, lets look at the top 10 2012 and the Bechdel test.
1 Marvel's The Avengers - Pass
2 The Dark Knight Rises - Pass
3 The Hunger Games - Pass
4 Skyfall - Pass*
5 The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Fail
6 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 - Pass*
7 The Amazing Spider-Man - Passed 2/3
8 Brave - Pass
9 Ted - Pass 2/3
10 Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted - Pass 2/3
So not only are they making record profits, it seems Hollywood is actually passing the Bechdel test too. Amazing considering some people claim its all under attack.
Hollywood goes where the money is.
If they were actually giving the audience what they want there wouldn't be any slumps in the movie sales. They like sticking to formulas and are pretty scared of deviation.
Then I suppose we now find they actually are using reliable market research, giving the audiences what they want, and not really suffering the slump you suggested, all whilst making record profits and satisfying the bechdel test all at the same time.
So what was your point again?
and...
You just can't get more official than that, so...
* was a pass, but in dispute.
2/3 pass is that it passed two thirds of the test, which according to the Bechdel testers is 'good enough'.
Take it up with them their test, their rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. 3 is not nearly enough to be useful. 10 is not nearly enough to be useful. I would argue that my example 100 is still not enough to be very useful. This is about cultural trends, about the mythology, world view and self view of a culture. You have to have a HUGE aggregate. And even then, it needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.
Here's the thing. My example wasn't just one movie, but 3+. Secondly, the only problem it shows that exists is that not all movies/comic/whatever include at least two named females, that also talk to each other, that also talk about something that is not men. It does not show, in anyway, that women are not showed in a dynamic light, or that they can not have multiple, meaningful problems, or that they can not be protagonists, or any number of other things that the test is taken to imply. I simply picked star wars because it was noted earlier as being one of the most influential movie series, and every single one of them failed the test. It's also, as far as I know, pretty much universally known, while I have not seen any of the Harry Potters, and I'm not sure that the other movies listed are as well known.
Jess, your answer exactly illustrates why I believe the argument of the Bechdel test is not really an argument.
Because no matter how many examples people will bring to show that it does not work, those who want to believe that it actually shows something important will never let themselves feel any doubt.
Then, it becomes a matter of opinion and belief rather than a matter of fact and reality.
In other words, it is something that might help you feel better about what you believe in, but definitely not something that could be used to actually convince others that what you believe is real.
Blah blah blah Bechdel Test blah.
F!$&ing Finally, Part One: Exodus International disbands
Huzzah!
F#*&ing Finally, Part Two: Morning After Pill Available Over the Counter
Huzzah!
How are children's movies tested? Any number of them don't have women OR men as named characters, or as characters at all -- they tend to focus on cute talking animals and so on. For example, IIRC, the only named human character in Monsters, Inc. is the little girl. Do female-voiced animals and cuddly monsters get counted as women? Or do these movies get left out of the reckoning? Or do they all add to the "fail" statistic?
Given the large number of movies geared towards children, the answer to this could change the "pass/fail" statistic by quite a large margin. For example, if all-animal movies fail, and 2/3 of movies overall do, then it would appear the statistics are similar to where we'd expect them to be: 1/3 pass, 1/3 fail, 1/3 for children (and N/A). On the other hand, if talking animals get counted as the voice-over actors, then the overall bulk Bechdel statistics are pretty disheartening.
I'm not saying that the problem exists because the Bechdel says it exists. I don't need anything besides my ability to pay for a movie to see that the problem exists. The Bechdel test is just an indicator that helps demonstrate it exists.
What's needed is evidence that it's even a "problem" at all. Movie-makers produce movies that generate money. If your favored type of character interaction isn't showing up in movies, maybe your tastes aren't popular enough to generate the big bucks.
Solution: Make your own movies. YouTube stardom awaits!
Except there is little evidence to suggest that they are trying to do new things to generate money. They were honestly suprized when women went to go see Twilight. Its a major reason Twilight had a crap budget. And there was talk of it being a fluke until Hunger Games came arround and proved them wrong again.
You can't say a style of movie doesn't make money when you don't even attempt to create, advertise, or promote that style in the first place. You have no baseline to make that claim from.
Since I'm placing bets, my bets on children's movies:
Way more pass, 'cause way more women. In particular, mommies.
I bet, in general though, that way more of them pass. More than likely there's going to be a little boy and a little girl and, at some point, the little girl is going to talk to her mommy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, lots of people have gone to the lengths of typing out the three requirements of the Bechdel Test, but no one has actually linked the comic. (Or if they did, I missed it and apologize.)
[Grumble]Always leaving the hard work for the goblins, frickin' pinkskin scum...[/grumble]
Since I'm placing bets, my bets on children's movies: Way more pass, 'cause way more women. In particular, mommies. I bet, in general though, that way more of them pass. More than likely there's going to be a little boy and a little girl and, at some point, the little girl is going to talk to her mommy.
Yeah, like in Chicken Run and Ice Age and Happy Feet. Sure, not all children's movies are muppet- or toon-centric (we get an occasional gem like The Sandlot) but enough of them are that it could potentially skew the stats one way or the other. PBS did a bunch of research during the early days of Sesame Street that indicated kids tend to tune out and lose interest in a show when adults of either gender are talking. They perked up a little bit when kids were talking, and paid the most attention when animals or monsters were talking. So, does Big Bird count as a man?
P.S. Wallace and Gromit, my personal favorite, fails. Curses!
|
Im not sure anyone was surprized that a lot of women saw Twilght or the Hunger Games. I think that a lot of people underestimated just how many teen age girls would force their boyfriend(s) to go see it (Twilight) or (again Twilight) that massive numbers of people equals that it must be a good movie or well recieved/we want more.
I also believe that the two leads in these movies specifically have been (by the general public) heavily criticized for being extremely poor representations of women, Hunger Games being way too perfect and just too good, while Twilight, well the issues are over the place, often directly contradicting each other.
But that's not what I'm saying, Wolf.
Its exactly what you're saying. Case in point...
I'm not saying that the problem exists because the Bechdel says it exists. I don't need anything besides my ability to pay for a movie to see that the problem exists. The Bechdel test is just an indicator that helps demonstrate it exists.Try to follow this line of argument from the evidence to the conclusion. Draw it out. Its either circular or the Bechdel test is irrelevant.
To say I observe something and to say that something else serves to confirm what I observe is not circular, any more than saying "Oh, I think there's radiation here", and pulling out a geiger to check.
So yeah, the ratio of men that like giant robot movies is greater than the ratio of women that like them. But there are still women that like giant robot movies! And enough that I believe that if they made a decent giant robot movie staring women (who wouldn't even have to be dressed like strippers) they woyuld still pull in some good money. And part of that money would be because of men.
Hollywoood keeps banging out these flop summer "blockbusters" with male leads and the idea is just "that's how it goes in movies", but if there's a female lead and the movie flops, the idea is "women can't open pictures". There's a crazy confirmation bias where successful movies that are women-centric are "flukes", and successful movies with male leads are a winning formula.
There's a n interesting article here that talks about movies today without the much despised Bechdel test that still manages to make a good point, IMO.
Regardless, I don't think my opinion is going to change, and neither is the opinion of anyone who disagrees with me. I think I've said all I really can, so I'm going to give myself permission to step away from all this joy and go do something I like.
Wow, Kirth, three kids' movies with no mommies!
Harry Potter.
I'm up five.
EDIT: Kirth's edit diminished the sting, making me feel ashamed of myself for responding with snark.
:(
P.S. Wallace and Gromit, my personal favorite, fails. Curses!
That's not really surprising though, as there are typically two main characters and only one of them has speaking lines. It would fail, regardless of their genders.
It looks like they're counting animals/toons as male or female as appropriate, whether by voice actor or other indicators. At least anthropomorphic ones.
OK, cool, that answers my question. One would wonder whether Bart Simpson would count as a man or a woman (given the voice actor), but The Simpsons passes easily anyway.
But they all have mommies.
Julie Walters, baby, you're still hawt.
...Gore Vidal, obviously......Jason Statham...although, he needs to pick better material...Beck, but not Jack Black...
Michael Caine, but not with a beard...
To say I observe something and to say that something else serves to confirm what I observe is not circular, any more than saying "Oh, I think there's radiation here", and pulling out a geiger to check.
You know there's radiation there because of the geiger counter.
You know the geiger counter works because its detecting radiation where you think it is.
There's a hole in the bucket dear johny.
If you want to check for a lack of female characters, depth, plot, or characterization you should concentrate on direct observation, rather than a short cut that can be rather iffy.
And enough that I believe that if they made a decent giant robot movie staring women (who wouldn't even have to be dressed like strippers) they woyuld still pull in some good money. And part of that money would be because of men.
You do not pull in "good" money when you can pull in "great" money. It is not a dichotomous men go yes/no its a matter of HOW MANY people go. Stripperific armor is going to draw in more male sci fi fans than it turns off.
Hollywoood keeps banging out these flop summer "blockbusters" with male leads and the idea is just "that's how it goes in movies", but if there's a female lead and the movie flops, the idea is "women can't open pictures".
Smaller sample sizes tend to run into that problem.
There's a n interesting article here that talks about movies today without the much despised Bechdel test that still manages to make a good point, IMO.
re the article: its summer. Summer male movie time. *grunts and slams club*
They put up Bridesmaids, we went. They put up Pitch Perfect, we went. They put up The Devil Wears Prada
Bridesmaids-Box Office:$169.1M
Pitch Perfect Box Office:$65.0MDevil wears prada Box Office:$124.7M
The best on the list Bridesmaids, has a 90% fresh rating on rotten tomatoes. It earned roughly the same as grown ups, (Box Office:$162.0M) with earned a NINE percent fresh rating from rotten tomatoes (as well it should, since its just some comedians filming their families on summer vacation and acting juvenile)
To make money as a girl movie you have to be really, really good. To earn money as a guy flick... you don't. The people in hollywood know full well that 90% of everything is crud, but with guy movies that crud still makes money.
|
|
I would think that for the most part that is because women are the target audiance for home television much much more than in theaters. Honestly Im not even sure that men are the target audiance in theaters either as much as family, especially mother + children, outside of certain genres that naturally mostly cater to a more gendercentric audiance by nature. Horror, action, war, and sci-fi/fantasy. That being said, I do not recal X-Men (1, 2, Origins), Serenety, Silent Hill, Pearl Harbor, or the Lord of the Rings being sausage fests, personally. But then again I wasnt really specifically looking when I saw those movies.
To make money as a girl movie you have to be really, really good. To earn money as a guy flick... you don't. The people in hollywood know full well that 90% of everything is crud, but with guy movies that crud still makes money.Ahh, so really the issue is that stuff guys like is crap, whereas stuff girls like is high-quality but doesn't earn money. Got it.
Its definitely an issue. I don't think there is a the issue.
Ahh, so really the issue is that stuff guys like is crap, whereas stuff girls like is high-quality but doesn't earn money. Got it.
More accurate to say that guys tend, on the whole, to be less discriminating. I can watch Bogie and Mary Astor in The Maltese Falcon and accept that it's an excellent film, and enjoy it. But I can also watch The Expendables and American Pie: The Naked Mile and enjoy them, and realize at the same time that they're crap.
A lot of stuff supposedly aimed at women is insultingly ulta-formulaic garbage (just about any "romantic comedy" is interchangeable with any other one, just swap out the actors, setting, and gimmick). But a lot of that stuff tanks, comparatively-speaking (the excrutiatingly awful Bed of Roses grossed something like $19M and probably cost half that much to make in wages and flowers alone), whereas guy-oriented crap like the aforementioned Expendables ($103M) will still net large revenues because testosterone-crazed fools like me will go see it two or three times. That's not to say female-oriented crap can't do well; each of the Twilight movies pulled in a respectible fraction of that on their opening days alone.
And the people making these movies know all this, and bank on it, and sometimes even tell the audience as much point-blank (witness the scene in Expendables where Jason Statham tries to start a conversation about feeling rejected by a woman, and Stallone cuts him off with "That's pushing the boundaries of OUR relationship too far!" So they go and blow up a city instead.) With the massive success of "Twilight," Hollywood finally learned that teenage-girl-oriented films based on YA literature can be big, and proved it with "Hunger Games," so I expect we'll see a lot more like that in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They were honestly suprized when women went to go see Twilight. Its a major reason Twilight had a crap budget. And there was talk of it being a fluke until Hunger Games came arround and proved them wrong again.
No idea what you're talking about. Why would they be surprised that women went to see Twilight? The studio bought the rights to the movie because the novel was immensely freaking popular...among women and teenage girls. That was their target demographic. And 37 million dollars is NOT a crap budget, it's much higher than most comedies or romance movies get.
But it's funny you should mention Twilight, because despite being written by a woman, and having some female protagonists, it doesn't have the best depiction of women OR their relationships. In fact, Twilight is basically a justification for sexual predation!
They were honestly suprized when women went to go see Twilight. Its a major reason Twilight had a crap budget. And there was talk of it being a fluke until Hunger Games came arround and proved them wrong again.No idea what you're talking about. Why would they be surprised that women went to see Twilight? The studio bought the rights to the movie because the novel was immensely freaking popular...among women and teenage girls. That was their target demographic. And 37 million dollars is NOT a crap budget, it's much higher than most comedies or romance movies get.
But it's funny you should mention Twilight, because despite being written by a woman, and having some female protagonists, it doesn't have the best depiction of women OR their relationships. In fact, Twilight is basically a justification for sexual predation!
Twilight's success suprized the s*~+ out of movie execs and owners. Theaters around here were scrambling trying to get more screens open after the initial opening sold out so much.
37 million is a crap budget for the genre and level of special effects. Your comparing it to comedies and romance movies, but not to things that actually require modern CG. They budgeted it relative to a children's movie like the City of Ember, and not the blockbuster that people knew it would be.
And yes, the book/movie does get trashed by feminists. That doesn't mean its not popular with and geared towards women. I don't think feminists know the female market any better than movie execs.
They were perhaps surprised by the LEVEL of success, but not that it was popular with women, as you suggest. They had already optioned the second book 9 months before the first film was released, and had said they planned on making at least three films. You don't do that if you don't expect the first film to be a success!
37 million is not a crap budget for a movie with special effects most people can achieve in about 10 minutes on their laptop. You compare it to the budget of City of Ember which required a massive set to be built and the payment of actual talented actors! Are you trying to compare the production values of Twilight to that of Ember? Because if you do, you'll see that Twilight had a huge fat wad of cash thrown its way compared to other films with similar effects demands: like comedies and romances.
If, as you say, the budget is only so low because they expected it to fail, why did they only throw 50 million at the sequel (most of which is eaten up by increased fees to cast and crew making the production budget virtually equal).
Yes, I'm comparing Twilight to romance movies...because it's a romance movie.
For a little comedic relief, here's The Oatmeal's suprisingly accurate description of how "Twilight" works. He wrote it about the book, but goes on to comment on the movie as well.
WARNING: Not politically correct. Likely offensive to many of the fine readers of this thread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a little comedic relief, here's The Oatmeal's suprisingly accurate description of how "Twilight" works. He wrote it about the book, but goes on to comment on the movie as well.
WARNING: Not politically correct. Likely offensive to many of the fine readers of this thread.
Honestly it's the "100 year old vampire trolling for jailbait at the local high school" that gets my heckles up.
My friends and I were discussing this last night.
Dracula was a vampire and, according to many, the personification of Victorian-era sexual predation. He was suave, charming, rich, and wanted to whisk women away to his castle to live as his slaves. But he's the villain, and he explicitly controls peoples minds, suggesting that people who want to destroy all ties with their family are brainwashed. He dies at the end, and those that vanquished him are the heroes.
Edward has all the same basic traits, but he's a "good guy", so the whole series becomes an elaborate justification for sexual predation. However, since the books are written from Bella/Pants' point of view, it's entirely possible that she is, indeed, brainwashed/Dominated (in PF terms) and when the text is read under that assumption it becomes clear how weak-willed and mindless she truly is.
The Blade DVD has an excellent documentary about the history of Vampires in fiction and their use as metaphor, and its transition from Dracula to I Am Legend to Ann Rice. That this vile, blood-sucking sexual predator (Cullen) is sold to young women as the protagonist is indeed twisted and disturbing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
Typical politician. Course she is on a tightrope there, forced with addressing the failings of society, and yet still appease her mostly male co-workers and campaign contributes. What's interesting is the comments. Pretty telling really.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the BBC is an extremely feminist organization in media, and that type of political idea would be extremely against the grain. I found it pretty telling that the older woman with the actual experience was rebuking the one for quota and forcing people to hire undesirable employees based on gender from an position of experience and practical wisdom, whereas the other position basically lacked any reasoning besides we want. I would be interested in hearing why you feel the way you do though, and what comments you are referring to.
I stumbled on this video kind of randomly, which I thought was interesting.
I, too, found this clip pretty interesting.
I'm not sure how any of this is considered radical feminism though.I think both of the women interviewed exemplified the problems with both sides of the debate.
If imposing quotas, not draconian quotas like 50% of all X positions but quotas nonetheless, for a short term will help break the glass ceiling I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. Again, not as a long-term thing but immediately and to shore things up.
On the other hand, the woman from Cosmo has her head in the sand re: women in science. Women ARE far less interested in the sciences. I'll be g#@~+~ned if I know why, whether it's nature, nurture or both, but specifically when it comes to postgraduate studies, the numbers of women studying science, technology and engineering precipitously drops.
I'd also like to remark that the comments are likely more to do with the channel the video was posted to than anything else. I'd be shocked to see those comments on, say, the BBC news YouTube channel.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't for the life of me find the article, but I did read a story about a higher education institution that worked on changing its manner of approaching, teaching, and mentoring female STEM students (I believe it was computer science, but I can't be sure) - and they now have a very good ratio of men to women in the program.
Also, How It Works and Girl Toys/Boy Toys.