I think we were talking about the improbability that a female super-heroine film could be made successfully. You said that it wasn't impossible and I said that it was improbable (i.e. not very likely at all although there could be a very small chance). I don't see how that proves your point.
You're talking about a female-driven movie succeeding (financially I presume). I'm talking about a
good female-driven movie succeeding. In other words, performs great critically and monetarily.
Furthermore a lack of interest does not necessarily equate to a film being bad. Like I said before one of those films had recognition at Caans.
It was submitted at Canne's. It was received poorly, as far as I know. Anyone that's seen it can see why, that is one mess of a film. I just wiki'd it and apparently it was based off a comic strip, so maybe you had to be a fan of the material. I just simply did not "get it". Wasn't for me.
Well by the way you are acting, it sure looks like it is a question of passion.
How am I acting? Passion is involved in some form of course, but it means nothing when you can't transmit that to the script, and eventually to the silver screen.
History has shown that these films do not do well at the box office. Pursuing the cause of making one just because there is a remote chance that it could be successful is a very risky proposition. I am sure that a lot of studios are just waiting to see if another studio is willing to try it to see if he will be successful or not, yet not willing to risk it on their own.
I'm not really doubting the history. At the same time I can't give the history much credit when it hasn't done much for the subgenre in the first place. Crap will always get crap, doesn't mean everything through sheer association is the cause of it.
Did you see all of those films I mentioned? I doubt it
Mighty presumptuous of you. What is the point of asking questions when you're going to make up your mind anyway? If you have to ask, of the films you mentioned, there are three I did not watch
all the way; Tank Girl, Elektra, and Sheena. I simply could not get through them because I was bored to death, but I did watch at least half the movie.
and hence you are basing your comment on either the results of the box office or the fact that I said they weren't successful. That is subjective (i.e. your perception based on a superficial observation). I am not assuming that.
I'm basing my comments off my viewing experience, and taking into account their general response from the moviegoing audience.
You said that all of those films were crap, and I showed you two example where one film was basically an Academy award winning film that was repackaged as a futuristic vampire movie
Again, I must ask you how a good film being remade, somehow makes the remade film good. In spite of influence, you have to judge each as a separate entity. I don't give a damn if it was repackaged, it was still a major disappointment to me. I was actually looking forward to the film because I liked Equilibrium.
Hell, Gus Van Sant's Psycho was a
shot-for-shot remake of a very revered Hitchcock film. I'm sure I don't need to reiterate how that one turned out.
and the other had mention at the Caans Film Festaval. They weren't necesarily crap. It could very well be that not enough people were intrested.
I won't hold public interest against them, because it usually takes a breakout film to get people to look at the subgenre with a newfound eye. But my stance still stands, I didn't find any of those films you mentioned to be noteworthy in the least.
So you are trying to tell me that following up a film like "Superman" with "Supergirl", "Batman" with "Catwoman", "Conan the Barbarian" with "Red Sonja", "James Bond" with "Modesty Blaise", or "Daredevil" with "Elektra", is a shaky foundation and the time it was proposed? I don't think so.
I'm not interested in what they're spin-offs of. I'm referring to the foundations of the respective films, in their own right.
Each of the films you listed have larger followings than any of the female superheroine films already made and more than likely a Wonder Woman film (You will find a lot more kids going to a POTC film than a scantly clad woman fighting monsters). Not a good example.
Again, that's beside the point I am making. Before those films were made, whatever factor they ended up changing was not expected by the audience. Pirates was predicted to be a bomb very early on in production because no one believed a pirate movie would be relevant in the modern age. No one predicted TDK could actually have a legitimate Oscar campaign for Best Director or Best Film, despite not getting the nominations in the end. No one could have predicted a comic book role had a shot at turning up at the Oscars, let alone snagging the trophy.
This is not about name recognition, solidified fanbase, etc. This is about turning out a product that is a "first" of it's kind, and changing perspectives of what to expect from that area of filmmaking.
You said:
Proove it buddy. Don't make statements like that and think you can get off scott free without showing any proof that that is the case. I have shown a 50 year history that prooves otherwise.
Prove...what? I just finished saying there was no such x-factor to speak of. You want me to give you proof of nothing? That doesn't make sense. This is the equivalent of a Catholic going up to an Atheist and saying: "PROVE God doesn't exist, buddy. I dare ya."
Lemme repeat: burden of proof lies on the positive claimant. The positive claim being "there IS an independent factor (based on gender alone) preventing female-driven movies from being successful". That is
your position and claim, thus it is
you that has to present the proof.
So basically AMELIA is crashing and burning.
No pun intended.
Seriously.
We're talking about a movie that features Amy Adams, probably one of the most beloved young talents across several age ranges...a story about one of the most famous female adventurers of all time...failing at the box office. Big time. Is it because the film is completely awfully written and executed? Based on reviews, I very much doubt it. Now, you can argue that no one cares about Amelia Earhart, but...
Erm...are we looking at the same reviews?
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/amelia_2009/
15%
That is
beyond atrocious, especially for Oscar bait.
Like the characters in Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, and Catwoman, and how many other female-driven movies? Ostensibly because UNDERWORLD is a fairly thin, straightforward film without much depth to begin with. There's a direct correlation to how much depth a film has, and how cliche a lead role is, and how much depth is written into the role.
Not disagreeing. But when it comes to female action movies, such (lack of) depth is prevalent in practically every single project. It's a huge stain on the subgenre, which is why until a standout film is made, everyone will continue to stray away from a bold attempt at proving the stigma wrong.
IIRC, you love Watchmen. As do I. But can we really say that film, as it was cut by Snyder, would have EVER seen a greenlight, much less the light of day, if it weren't for the success of TDK? That project was in massive limbo because of little interest, and I feel like that's where we're at with WW.
If WB is leery of the whole "female action film" thing, I think the solution is probably to introduce Wonder Woman in a JLA film and build off that.
That would be the safe bet, but it still doesn't help build confidence in a solo WW film. On the offchance that JLA is a huge hit, you can just as easily argue that it was due to other factors (such as Supes and Bats) that were the roots of success. So you're back to square one on that front.
