Good point

Posted by · 9:19 am · December 30th, 2009

I’d also suggest that the resurgence of women as box office makers or breakers is not to be under-estimated. Yes, women went to the movies before “Sex and the City: The Movie” last year (18 months ago), but it seems that since then there have been more women-oriented hits that can be solely claimed as being hits BECAUSE of women (and not “women taking their boyfriends” or whatever). “Julie & Julia”, “The Proposal” and, obviously, “Twilight: New Moon” and so on. Plus, so many people were saying “will Avatar get women audiences?” and I think the answer is most definitely YES.

–Reader/commenter Glenn, in our “moments of the year” discussion yesterday.




→ 10 Comments Tags: , , | Filed in: Daily

10 responses so far

  • 1 12-30-2009 at 10:13 am

    adam said...

    I wouldn’t say 2009 has been anymore significant than 2008.

    The first Twilight film (from 2008) had a female director.

    2008 also had Mamma Mia! which had a female director, writer and producer. It also made over $600m because of female cinema goers.

  • 2 12-30-2009 at 10:34 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    Okay.

    …that’s two examples…

  • 3 12-30-2009 at 10:56 am

    adam said...

    So how many more box offices hit have there been because of women this year then?

    The Proposal, Julie and Julia and It’s Complicated.

    Anymore?

  • 4 12-30-2009 at 11:04 am

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    It’s a quadrant that is more necessary than ever. That’s the point.

  • 5 12-30-2009 at 11:12 am

    Chad Hartigan said...

    Yeah, I think this is mostly hot air as well. Women have been responsible for hits dating back to the beginning of complete box office tracking in 1980 (Private Benjamin and 9 to 5 being two of the biggest films in that year).

  • 6 12-30-2009 at 11:30 am

    Chase K. said...

    it’s true, “Avatar” is the movie your Mom can like.

  • 7 12-30-2009 at 10:43 pm

    Glenn said...

    Thanks Kris.

    As I said there have ALWAYS been movies that relied on women to be hits, but it seems as if the trend has definitely spiked these last two years. 2008 felt like an anomaly, 2009 feels like something else.

    Adam, what’s your take then on “Twilight”s female director (Catherine Hardwicke) being dumped for the bigger budget sequel. And in favour of a man whose last big budget project was a big American (but not international, let’s remember that) flop “The Golden Compass”? The studio clearly didn’t think too much about the female aspect after that one.

    Let’s also remember that “He’s Just Not That Into You” made $93mil and “The Ugly Truth” made $89mil. “Hannah Montana” made $80mil too and “Obsessed” got to just under $70mil. All of them some of the biggest “surprises” of the year.

  • 8 12-31-2009 at 12:19 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    It’s not just the audiences but also the women behind the cameras that made a bigger splash this year in terms of critical reception.

  • 9 12-31-2009 at 5:01 pm

    Jujubee Cheese under Trees! said...

    That’s all I have to say. Jujubee Cheese under the Trees. Stiff acting. Saccharine wall to wall music. Horrible dialogue out of a really bad B-movie from the 1980s (“We not in Kansas anymore”) and misshappen CGI characters who look just like Jar Jar Binks. It feels like the past, not the future!

    And all those CGI jobs shipped off to New Zealand? Watch the credit roll and weep Hollywood. That’s bye bye thousands of outsourced jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars. Sad. Nice thing to pay $20 for during a recession! (Not) Put that jujubee in your pipe and smoke it. You would have more fun. This makes the interesting but flawed District 9 and Moon look like best picture nominees by comparison. At least they were “fresh”. Avatar is way past its due date. I agree with whoever said this felt like watching a two hour screen saver.

  • 10 1-01-2010 at 1:24 am

    Cde. said...

    Is this Jujubee guy a bot?