Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



J. Crew Guy ([info]j_crew_guy) wrote in [info]fandom_lounge,
@ 2007-10-08 14:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
That whole Warner Bros. not making movies with female leads any more?
Not true.

People have written to Warner Bros. customer service about it and gotten this reply.

Hello,
Thank you for your email. The claims being made on blogs regarding Mr. Robinov, Warner Bros. and female casting decisions are untrue. Our 2008 film slate, which includes at least three motion pictures with female leads and casts, underscores our commitment to telling good stories regardless of gender.
Thank you,
Warner Bros. Customer Service"

Source: http://phantomas.livejournal.com/249934.html?mode=reply&style=mine

(Wow, this new web update interface is a real pain, isn't it?)

(Post a new comment)


[info]ashenmote
2007-10-08 07:51 pm UTC (link)
Bah. They're evil anyway.

(Reply to this)


[info]edgyspice
2007-10-08 07:54 pm UTC (link)
Three out of-- what, ten or fifteen films total?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]sheep
2007-10-08 08:08 pm UTC (link)
Also depends on what they consider leads, as well.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]wrenlet
2007-10-08 09:49 pm UTC (link)
Alsoalso, "2008 film slate" most likely means "already bought and cast and headed for production/scheduled for release in 2008." If he really put out the demand that no new female-led scripts be brought in, it'll show in 2009.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]notjo
2007-10-09 05:10 am UTC (link)
According to Wikipedia, WB has 13 movies scheduled for next year [source]

I wonder if those "three" are Get Smart, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, and Harry Potter.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]lcsbanana
2007-10-09 05:31 am UTC (link)
boy, i can hear the death knell of sexism from ALL THE WAY OVER HERE.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]nekoama
2007-10-09 10:45 am UTC (link)
Well, One Missed Call has a female lead, as do Fool's Gold, Spring Breakdown and Nights in Rodanth. You didn't look very hard, did you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]notjo
2007-10-09 10:49 am UTC (link)
No, not really. Hence why I was wondering if they were. I wouldn't count Get Smart, but it's one I know the plot of. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants would be one, definitely. I would assume HP as well.

They're the ones that spit out the "three" number, not I.

Do you know what any of them are about? I've never heard of any of them at all, other than on the wikipedia page.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]nekoama
2007-10-09 12:58 pm UTC (link)
One Missed Call is the only one I know about - it's a thriller about people who get phone messages about their deaths and a girl investigating it, along with a detective/cop/guy, and then her phone starts ringing and it's coming from inside the house.
Honestly, it sounds awful.
I don't know what the other three are about other than their little Wiki pages, Fools Gold has no entry and the other two sound like the type of movies 40-yr-old women will enjoy. So, like others are saying, they're making female-lead movies, they're just not making any good ones.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]chibikaijuu
2007-10-09 06:11 pm UTC (link)
It's also a remake, I'm pretty certain.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]blue_penguin
2007-10-10 06:22 am UTC (link)
Yeah, it is -- of a Japanese horror movie (aren't they all) called Chakushin Ari.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]deliciouschaos
2007-10-09 08:18 pm UTC (link)
That One Missed Call thing sounds a lot like Phone, which was the cheesiest Korean horror flick ever to cheese. For the love of all that is good in the world, WB, don't destroy my cheesy Korean horror. Please.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]sashenka
2007-10-08 08:08 pm UTC (link)
I had a feeling that had been twisted a bit. I just like to think people who are savvy enough to get that far in business know that they shouldn't voice feelings like that, even if they do have them.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]brown_betty
2007-10-09 01:15 am UTC (link)
Yeah. I can believe that it's true, but I can't believe someone would be dumb enough to say it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]notjo
2007-10-09 05:11 am UTC (link)
Sadly, I believe he was dumb enough to say it.

But then, WB has 13 movies coming out next year.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mindset
2007-10-08 08:13 pm UTC (link)
Psst! Switch to the HTML tab if you're used to typing in your codes, and don't use rich text if you want your URLs to show up linked. :)

(Reply to this)


[info]octavia
2007-10-08 08:17 pm UTC (link)
Now that was unexpected.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]hangingfire
2007-10-08 08:35 pm UTC (link)
That there is some exceptionally fine rant. And wow, did she call it on the backpedal.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]wonderfish
2007-10-08 11:34 pm UTC (link)
Ragnell is pretty consistently worth a read.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]hallidae
2007-10-08 09:25 pm UTC (link)
Oh, man. Psychic powers activate!

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]lcsbanana
2007-10-08 08:52 pm UTC (link)
That's a spectacular feat of fuzziness right there, yep.

"The claims being made on the internet regarding my trousers, a bucket of soybeans, and a thirty-foot-tall bong are UNTRUE."

(Reply to this)


[info]electricwitch
2007-10-08 10:16 pm UTC (link)
"underscores our commitment to telling good stories regardless of gender."

I believe them! Hahahaha.

(Reply to this)


[info]seiberwing
2007-10-08 10:51 pm UTC (link)
People actually believed it?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]wankaholic
2007-10-08 11:12 pm UTC (link)
That's what I'm wondering.

I mean, yes, stranger things have happened, but at the same time, come on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]chibikaijuu
2007-10-09 12:35 am UTC (link)
It depends upon what you mean by "believed".

Believed that the guy got up in public and spoke exactly as quoted? No. Believed that he thinks that films with female leads, especially action films, fail because of the gender of the lead, and that this is taken into consideration when films are bought? Yes. That the statement WB has released is pretty much meaningless? Yes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]seiberwing
2007-10-09 12:42 am UTC (link)
I meant the first of those three. The second two I can easily believe.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]mael
2007-10-08 11:24 pm UTC (link)
At least three? How very generous!

(Reply to this)


[info]mmanurere
2007-10-08 11:47 pm UTC (link)
"First rule of unspoken policies is: you do not talk about the unspoken policies."

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]kijikun
2007-10-09 02:11 am UTC (link)
Would the second rule be about spin when the first rule is broken?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mmanurere
2007-10-09 02:46 am UTC (link)
Second rule is the same as the first, just with more emphasis. The third rule is to deny that it's official policy, the fourth is to spin it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-10-09 02:46 am UTC (link)
Anything coming out in 2008 is either already shot or already in progress.

That response means shit.

(Reply to this)


[info]notjo
2007-10-09 03:58 am UTC (link)
Wow. Three.

How many have male leads?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

My female moviez, let me show U them
[info]aqua_blurr
2007-10-11 12:57 am UTC (link)
One of them stars Richard Gere, and Diane Lane is his love interest.
Another stars Matthew McConaughey, Donald Sutherland and Kate Hudson (she's the wife).
And another is a sophomoric T&A show, starring actress with not-well-known names but good Ts and As.

So. Yeah.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]moripubes
2007-10-09 04:03 am UTC (link)
Thought so. The whole "men only" thing didn't seem to make any sense in this century.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rekall
2007-10-09 06:43 am UTC (link)
I dunno, WB has made decisions to make movies before that haven't made sense. *points to Battlefield Earth*

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2007-10-09 09:20 am UTC (link)
Weren't they responsible for Catwoman too? I've been trying to put that movie out of my memory, so I'm not sure.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]jar
2007-10-09 09:26 am UTC (link)
Ew. I had nothing against them before, but now I'm having second thoughts.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]hallidae
2007-10-09 09:39 am UTC (link)
::checks the wiki:: Mmmyep. Their fault. Well, I can see why they'd think movies with chicks as the primaries wouldn't sell, considering they clearly put so much love and effort into crafting a good film with a leading lady. ::eyeroll::

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]evilsqueakers
2007-10-11 02:31 am UTC (link)
*whistles* Or even hiring a leading lady that can act...

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]frau_eva
2007-10-09 01:19 pm UTC (link)
Of course the company's not going to admit to that. It was a hush-hush only-stated-to-business-insiders deal in the first place. Robinov could say nothing but "women suck durrr" in every single board meeting and they'd still deny it.

(Reply to this)


[info]brennalarose
2007-10-09 07:46 pm UTC (link)
I'll believe it when I see it.

(Reply to this)

  
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map