20ag07 said:

---

What did you see a woman cast in that a man should have been.

---

That isn't the right question. It isn't like you take the exact same project and replace the girlboss with a dude. You just stop trying to make so many girlboss projects. Cinemas can't take another decade of this *****

Quote:

---

That isn't the right question. It isn't like you take the exact same project and replace the girlboss with a dude. You just stop trying to make so many girlboss projects. Cinemas can't take another decade of this *****

---

I don't know how many females you've worked with in business- but I guess it can't be many.

Every female who is good at her job, and there are many, isn't a "girlboss".

Females having a lead role in a movie isn't "girlbossness".

If you could actually remember far enough back, there was a time when Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock were getting paid more than anybody on the planet, and nothing about that was "woke" or "girlboss".

I honestly think its a volume game.

Studios and streaming services are just shooting a fire hose of content at us all the time. There is no cycle anymore. TV used to operate on some sort of schedule and movies had a rhythm as well. Now its just a constant stream and most of it is not very memorable. Its all mildly entertaining. Occasionally something really good breaks through.

Add to that the price increase at theaters and its easy to see why people just stay home and be mildly entertained instead of gambling on going to see a movie in theaters that at best will be mildly entertaining. Its just inertia.

I think if Hollywood wants to come back out of this, they have to focus on the quality of the movies they are putting in theaters, add a longer theatrical window, AND re-release their back catalog in theaters. Stop remaking or rebooting and just put the originals out again. Let us go see them on huge screens for a discounted price and just enjoy the experience.

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too.

---

cause its financially worked out so well for the WNBA, or any other women's league that women themselves don't find entertaining.

Serious Lee said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too.

---

cause its financially worked out so well for the WNBA, or any other women's league that women themselves don't find entertaining.

---

Not that I want to dive down this rabbithole because I have no interest in having this discussion, but they doubled their revenue from 2023 to 2024, ratings are up 20something percent, and they're predicted to become profitable in the next year or so.

Quote:

---

I think that is Top Gun, F1,big IP, superhero, or war movies. I don't think movies like Wedding Singer, You Got Mail, or When Harry Met Sally would have done well nowadays, but Apollo 13 maybe still does? I don't know for sure on that.

---

Those are the kinds of movies that I'm seeing in theaters these days. F1 isn't in my wheelhouse of interests, but I couldn't pass on seeing that one in the theater after all the word of mouth I saw on it. Turned out to be my second favorite new movie this year.

I'd consider a historical movie such as Apollo 13 worthy of the theater.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

People also like to support companies/makers/industries they imaginekind of appreciate them, and anyone right of center knows that these studios, these actors, these executives utterly despise us, so we have better things to spend our time/money on.

---

Lol- if you don't think every studio head/executive appreciates you, you don't know what you're talking about. They want every single one of yours, and everyone else's, dollars.

You'll not find one single studio or executive saying they don't like people right of center.

You certainly will, as you just did, say it's "what you imagine".

---

Hmm... I'm gonna have to challenge this.

I think at certain levels, that's most obviously correct. However, I believe there are too many leftists in middle-management Hollywood who put message and political beliefs above earnings.

We are talking about idealogues, here. They are religious fanatics, and their religion is wokeness. Your post is like laughing at someone telling you they saw a suicide-bomber, and you scoff at them saying, "...if you don't think every Islamist doesn't want to live, you don't know what you're talking about."

Standard motivations and rationality go out the window for many when religion enters the conversation.

fig96 said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too.

---

cause its financially worked out so well for the WNBA, or any other women's league that women themselves don't find entertaining.

---

Not that I want to dive down this rabbithole because I have no interest in having this discussion, but they doubled their revenue from 2023 to 2024, ratings are up 20something percent, and they're predicted to become profitable in the next year or so.

---

How many other businesses can operate at a loss for 25 years before they turn a profit?

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too. Those just weren't very good movies. But I I liked most of Oceans 8, it made good money.

---

This is kind of a, "No true Scotsman" thing. Most of the posters who say, "You can't name any, 'woke' movies," simply dent that any example given is, "woke." It's not that none can be named, it's that they'll find some kind of rationalization for why every example given isn't, "woke."

And I get what you're saying, but Hollywood, of all industries, knows what appeals to what audiences. Action/Sci Fi movies simply aren't big in that demographic, regardless of who is leading it. Sure Hollywood cares about female audiences and their money, but they also know what female audiences like to spend that money on and it's not genres that historically skew male. The fact that they spent the better part of decade trying to fit a square peg in a round hole and suffered flops like The Marvels, WW84, The Acolyte, She-Hulk, Furiosa, Madame Web, Rings of Power, etc really suggests that there is more of a subconscious or cultural agenda than a sincere attempt to make content for a female audience. If they want to appeal to a female audience they need to give women movies that appeal to them, not a radfem wet dream.

Let's also not ignore the Snow White fiasco and how trying to reimagine and update a classic film with a "modern" (woke) lens blew up in Disney's face.

Quad Dog said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too.

---

cause its financially worked out so well for the WNBA, or any other women's league that women themselves don't find entertaining.

---

That's my whole point, you obviously are not the audience for the WNBA (and a lot of women may not be either which the WNBA found out the hard way through many years of failure). But there also obviously is an audience, and one that is growing quickly based on the recent TV deals and attendance records they are setting.
Sometimes it takes time for a product to find its users.

---

That's a bar so low you can't even trip over it... And it's only taken... *checks notes* ...30 years.

But on top of that, and back to the point, while the WNBA is made for a specific audience and is finally finding one, it's a very small one and the league's payscale and production levels reflect that. If they were paying players and had facilities commensurate with the NBA, they'd be centuries from profitability and would've folded decades ago. The analogy falls apart when you look at the audience versus expenditure ratio for a lot of "woke" movies. Yeah, a lot of "woke" movies are made for a particular audience, but they're also often made with a blockbuster budget reserved for mass audience appeal productions where the audience is well known and proven. Case in point, Snow White. Absolutely massive budget but obviously targeted at a niche audience. Same thing with The Marvels. Huge budget, niche audience.

So the question is, why blow huge budgets on productions for very niche audiences that have no hope of delivering the revenue necessary to make a profit? You can't say that it's a money thing at that point.

fig96 said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too.

---

cause its financially worked out so well for the WNBA, or any other women's league that women themselves don't find entertaining.

---

Not that I want to dive down this rabbithole because I have no interest in having this discussion, but they doubled their revenue from 2023 to 2024, ratings are up 20something percent, and they're predicted to become profitable in the next year or so.

---

Because of ONE player. ONE. Who this stupid ass league won't protect and who will sit due to repeated injuries for the remainder of the season while league numbers start to retract. Great example.

maroon barchetta said:

---

fig96 said:

---

Serious Lee said:

---

Quad Dog said:

---

What you may think as "woke" is actually probably an attempt to appeal to an audience that isn't you. Women are 50% of the population, studios are interested in their money too.

---

cause its financially worked out so well for the WNBA, or any other women's league that women themselves don't find entertaining.

---

Not that I want to dive down this rabbithole because I have no interest in having this discussion, but they doubled their revenue from 2023 to 2024, ratings are up 20something percent, and they're predicted to become profitable in the next year or so.

---

How many other businesses can operate at a loss for 25 years before they turn a profit?

---

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

That isn't the right question. It isn't like you take the exact same project and replace the girlboss with a dude. You just stop trying to make so many girlboss projects. Cinemas can't take another decade of this *****

---

I don't know how many females you've worked with in business- but I guess it can't be many.

Every female who is good at her job, and there are many, isn't a "girlboss".

Females having a lead role in a movie isn't "girlbossness".

If you could actually remember far enough back, there was a time when Julia Roberts and Sandra Bullock were getting paid more than anybody on the planet, and nothing about that was "woke" or "girlboss".

---

You continue to misrepresent what I'm actually arguing. Even in those Drinker videos he included numerous examples of strong female characters done well and done the right way. YES, I've worked with some stellar type-A women who were true leaders. My little great grandma was a tough, tough lady who I grew up admiring a lot. One of my favorite movies of all time is Zero Dark Thirty, that's a strong female character done right.

What I haven't witnessed in my lifetime is small-framed women beating the **** out of guys their size or larger. I haven't witnessed groups or jobsites where the guys in charge were buffoons and it took an assertive, smarter woman to set us all straight. I haven't known a lot of families where the husband/father was a useless goofball and his wife was the wise, resourceful rock of the family. I haven't seen the types of women who are just better/smarter/faster/holier/cooler than their guy counterparts that Hollywood keeps trying, and failing, to make the thing.

Lame girlboss movies/shows are failing and losing money left and right. Those aren't the only problem causing studios to fail and making life harder for cinemas obviously, but girlboss fatigue is one factor among many.

fig96 said:

---

do you really think they said "we think this film is going to bomb but we're going to drop $200 million on it anyway"?

---

They fundamentally don't understand what people want. It's the same as the geniuses that greenlit spending the GDP of a small nation making Furiosa. How many average dudes want to see a Mad Max movie starring a skinny chick. Not a lot. How many women want to go see a movie about flaming psychotic car wrecks and explosions just because there's a chick in it. Not a lot. Either make that movie on a (far) smaller budget or just don't make it.

I promise that in someone else's hands Top Gun Maverick would have been about a promising, assertive young female pilot who overcomes misogyny to prove to Maverick that SHE is the new top dog. And it would have lost a ****ton of money. But, it was made by people with common sense and who like money.