Log in

No account? Create an account
19 November 2008 @ 12:54
Is it sad that, despite the fact that Bella in Twilight completely lacks agency, is a truly horrific role model for girls and women, and Edward is a seriously creepy stalker, I still want the film to be a huge hit just to prove to Hollywood that a blockbuster written and directed by women, about a lead female character, with a primarily female audience, can be a massive financial success without it being considered a fluke?
brainiacfivebrainiacfive on 19th November 2008 19:10 (UTC)
Not sad at all. Just... unfortunate.
apocalypsos on 19th November 2008 19:10 (UTC)
God, when you put it that way ...
these points of data make a beautiful linebiichan on 19th November 2008 19:11 (UTC)
I'm hoping the movie will be so much better than the book. But yeah. I know what you mean.
Christina K  (jackelope hunter!)butterflykiki on 19th November 2008 19:28 (UTC)
I think I'm with Brainiac. This is not a precedent I want set with this movie. Because dear sweet God, it'll get us about a zillion badflicks. *cries*
Furious Ming: life isn't your own anymorethepeopleseason on 19th November 2008 20:17 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not up on a fannish connotation to "badflicks", but I'd venture to say that there's enough badflicks out there with male creators and male leads, that hopefully a successful female-driven movie of questionable quality will open the doors for female-driven movies of all qualties...
Christina K  (jackelope hunter!): desertrosebutterflykiki on 19th November 2008 20:24 (UTC)
No connotation beyond the obvious from me, anyway. And I think my logic (which is often foggy until I have to type it out) has to do with a fear that we'll get these bad movies, they'll tank, and it'll be back to the drawing board again for another 5-10 years because no one will make more movies with women.

Then again, I dunno. This would could crash and burn and they'll make the same argument. Better to have bad movies inspired by the success of a bad movie? Or to hope that at least one of those is a good movie that goes on to be a success too? Hmm.....
Furious Mingthepeopleseason on 19th November 2008 20:52 (UTC)
I can certainly see the danger of a glut of bad female-driven movies causing a backlash. I guess I'm hoping that things would turn out better than that...
tarkheena lizzeeen: tw [dear s.mey]liminalliz on 19th November 2008 19:39 (UTC)
That is a really good point.
Valerie - Postmodern Pollyanna: poutwiliqueen on 19th November 2008 21:18 (UTC)
Possibly. But not as sad as the fact that if it is, it'll be considered a fluke regardless.
Neaneadods on 20th November 2008 02:56 (UTC)
*points upwards and sighs*

Remember "League of Their Own"? Movie about women that isn't about finding your One True Love? Movie about women getting on often in spite of men? Movie that was a HUGE hit?

An quote in a newspaper report about its status seared into my brain. One of the other studio execs was asked if he thought there was a market in making non-romance movies for women, and he said the only reason League was doing well was because women made their dates take them to it.

Not that women saw it alone. Not that men would want to see a non-patronizing movie about women. Nope, even in a plot about women with capability and agency, he was still counting the peckers in the audience.
Shanna Swendsonshanna_s on 19th November 2008 23:36 (UTC)
I definitely have mixed feelings here. I thought the book Twilight was highly overrated and it bothers me if publishers and film studios are going to start to think that this represents what women want in their entertainment. But I also stand to benefit to a massive degree if Hollywood decides that women-focused paranormal books make potentially profitable movies (since my book has already been optioned).
(Deleted comment)
ljc: all sonic'd uptaraljc on 20th November 2008 04:15 (UTC)
MechTurtle: outrageousnessmechturtle on 20th November 2008 19:39 (UTC)
Rhi: film!bitch: Mark Cohenrhipowered on 19th November 2008 23:50 (UTC)
Not really.

...it's bad that I saw the trailer and am now really bummed that this was directed by a woman, though. The cinematography is pure shit.
ljc: epic fail 2taraljc on 20th November 2008 04:16 (UTC)
Maybe the DoP was a guy?
Rhi: cry of the self-righteous: FC!Picardrhipowered on 20th November 2008 04:35 (UTC)
Eh, even so, the director's the one who sets the scene...let's just say that my expectations are brutally low.
RevolutionaryJo: anirevolutionaryjo on 20th November 2008 00:12 (UTC)
I would like to see that happen as well. I just really wish it were for something that's actually good.
fryadvocategirl_wonder on 20th November 2008 02:24 (UTC)
Gah! DON'T MAKE ME WANT THIS MOVIE TO DO WELL. Because now I kind of do. Even though the idea horrifies me.
ljc: facepalmstaraljc on 20th November 2008 04:16 (UTC)
rarelylynne on 20th November 2008 22:59 (UTC)
Sorry, as much as I feel the dilemma, I *can't* hope for it to do well, based on what I've heard about it. Disclosure: I'm waiting to read the book. I fear that it will anger me when I do.

I want *good* movies directed and written by women to succeed. Mediocre films by women that succeed just get the studios to demand more mediocrity because they only care about what sells.

ljc: evernighttaraljc on 21st November 2008 03:35 (UTC)
Oh, I've read the book. And I've no doubt that the film will be much better, not saddled with the pedestrian (and purple) prose of the actual books. Also, the kid playing Edward is so entertaining in interviews, I can't help but adore him. And they'll probably make 2-3 films if this one is successful, becasue it was shot for less than $40 million, and it it grosses that in its opening week-end, then the studio would be morons not to start prepro on a sequel. And the films have the potential to be so MUCH better than the source material, that I sort of have hope that there will be a chick-led box office bonanza that will pave the way for other small female-driven and female directed genre pics to get greenlit and distributed.