SEE UPDATES AND TRAILER BELOW...
I am both amused and appalled to watch from the sidelines this spectacle of Hollywood movie execs trying to figure out how to cash in on the Sex And The City female frenzy. 
(Well, at least until the chick flick dropped 34% from Friday to Saturday, thus easing their initial panic. But the pic did a better than expected Sunday to end up with a final $56.8 million for the weekend.) At least Warner Bros quickly decided to embrace a Sex sequel. But that same studio is sitting on a potential successor, maybe even a reproducible event, about to come out September 12th. Yet WB is giving The Women the cold shoulder. Especially after this weekend, you'd think that Warner Bros would be jumping all over Picturehouse's long awaited Diane English low-budgeted $16.5 million remake of the famed Clare Booth Luce play and 1939 George Cukor film. Forget about the merits of the movie: I'm talking about the potential for box office moolah stirred up by some savvy Sex-exploiting. Instead, I've just been told that Warner Bros is still going to let Picturehouse market and distribute the movie in very limited release even though Picturehouse is in the process of shutting down. Here is Warner Bros able to control the PG-13 comedy -- just like it did Sex And The City from HBO Films and New Line, the studios that created Picturehouse -- but isn't interested.
I'm told Warner Bros execs including movie boss and charter member of the he-man women-haters club 
Jeff Robinov (who keeps maintaining he was just joking when he said he didn't want to make any more motion pictures with women as the leads) recently screened The Women and didn't like it. "It's not Sex In The City. It's just not that kind of movie," a studio insider insisted to me. Puh-leeze, who indeed wants a low-budget $16.5 million chick flick written, directed and produced by one of the biz's greatest women's comedy writers of seminal Murphy Brown fame... That stars quality "name" actress like Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Bette Midler, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Debi Mazur, Joanna Gleason, Carrie Fisher, Lynn Whitfield and Cloris Leachman... That reworks the original so it takes place in the broadcasting world and an ashram-like retreat where Meg plays a fashion designer and wife and mother, Eva the skanky mistress, and Annette the deliciously two-faced BFF and so on...
English has told the media that the most brutal part of her 15-year battle to make The Women "was getting financing. Studios still think it's a fluke when a women's picture succeeds. I'm going to prove them wrong -- again." I say Diane should be kicking up a big fat fuss right now for a major and wide release. After all, even if the movie is no good, its marketing campaign could be fabulous not to mention obvious: "If you loved Sex In The City, then you need to see The Women who started it all."
Here's the trailer. Two updates below...
UPDATE: Well, this is an interesting development for The Women. A top Warner Bros exec just phoned me and said, "We should give it another look." I hope the studio does. With just an $16.5 million negative cost, and Sex And The City fresh in female minds, I see no reason to platform this pic to "find" an audience. It's never made sense to me for any studio to spend $30+M to market a limited release film that isn't intended for serious awards consideration, only to open the wallet still wider if and when the pic opens in more theaters in order to combat all the cineplex clutter. My feeling is that, these days, studios need to do everything possible to make their money the first and second weekends for low-budget films -- and then the rest is gravy. Besides, those quality actresses in a "frenemy" comedy is a draw, so I bet women will line up for at least a $20M opening weekend in wide release even if it's only so-so -- as long as Warner Bros draws heavily on SATC and markets it as another pic about female friendships and upscale lifestyles and urban sex.
Also, someone whose opinion I greatly respect tells me The Women is "a laugh riot... truly hysterical..."
2nd UPDATE: One of the Warner Bros films which Jeff Robinov cited to the Hollywood community while defending himself against my he-man women-haters club story was the comedy Spring Breakdown, starring a top-notch cast of great female comediennes including Parker Posey, Amy Poehler and fellow SNL alumna Rachel Dratch who also stars in and co-wrote it. "The studio has decided, despite excellent test scores with women of all ages, and Amy Poehler's rising stardom (Baby Mama), that it should go straight to DVD," a source tells me. "This is pure and unadulterated hatred of female driven projects, especially comedies, at that studio. It's a real shame about this film, because women love it." Personally, I'm not at all sure the more sophisticated female audience for Sex And The City and The Women is clamoring for a dumbed-down women's comedy. But could it be worse content-wise than the Harold & Kumar franchise?
It is really unfortunate that the moviebusiness is stil in the hands of old sexist males who think the moviegoing audience consists only of boys between the ages of 12 and 25
:(
If this movie fails, it will be because of them, not the cast or director.
Comment by Thea — June 2, 2008 @ 2:15 pm
Hmmm…
I’d wait til you see The Women to really argue its merits. Comedy is fleeting, and creating something that worked in the 90’s means nothing today. Nothing from then is funny anymore. Besides, if I had any interest in hack television creators/writers making films one imagines I would have enjoyed Pushing Tin from the Cheers gang. Or that awful movie Larry David made with Grapes in the title.
To sum up. TV comedy is not film comedy.
Comment by ckn8 — June 2, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Although Meg Ryan’s been box-office poison as of late, the fact that The Women only cost $18 million (which is normally 1 actor’s salary) means that a carefully planned (& shrewdly budgeted) marketing campaign, much on the lines of SATC’s marketing could have the film in profit after 1 weekend at best, a week at worst.
Hell, I’d have had a trailer for it at the beginning of SATC, just in case.
As a studio boss I’d never let personal tastes get in the way of a quick buck, because without it, you have $18 million spent, and nothing coming in from it.
But I’m not a studio boss. Yet.
Comment by Furious D — June 2, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Nikki Finke is most correct in this instance.
September is historically a very strong month with women-targeted blockbusters - Fatal Attraction and The First Wives Club.
Sex and the City has been wildly successful, showing there is an audience out there besides Geeks and the humanoids who paid to see Alvin and the Chipmunks.
Actresses get more interesting when they age. Hollywood needs to put the botox down and let weathered women act in movies. There are 3 good actresses in The Women(Eva Mendes isn’t one of them. And Meg Ryan has lost her confidence.)
I’d like to see a Women’s movie that also isn’t really a Gay male or Lesbian fantasy story. Women over 40 aren’t necessarily tied to the hip with the Gay community.
Comment by JCROW — June 2, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
Yeah, umm…what if The Women just sucks?
Ever consider that?
Comment by Chris — June 2, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
i’m sure it’s not nearly as good as SPEED RACER
Comment by BS — June 2, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
ckn8, what an asshole remark. Diane English is only one of the funniest, most biting and insightful comedy writers of the last few decades. Her “hack” work created a series that ran 222 episodes and garnered 64 Emmy Nominations. What have you EVER done in your life (except, I assume, make snide comments from your parents’ basement) that gives you the footing to comment on her work?
The big problem here is “The Women” is being brought to the screen by the same studio that abandoned “The Iron Giant” the great first work of Brad Bird, in order to put all their resources into marketing “Eyes Wide Shut” which turned out to be pure turd-on-a-stick.
Comment by anotherWGAmember — June 2, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
As long as English’s adaptation doesn’t screw up the play too much (and Cuckor’s movie was not as forthright as the paly), this movie could make some decent money.
It may have been written in the 1930’s, but it still sings.
Ladies - get out your “Jungle Red”
Comment by Znachki — June 2, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
i’m sure SPEED RACER is much better
Comment by BS — June 2, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
I saw a trailer for The Women at my Friday screening of SATC.
Comment by AB — June 2, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
This movie succeeding is good for everyone. It’s good for writers, showing that we can all be flexible and diversified in our employmet potential and it’s good for women, showing we can draw at the box office.
Perhaps a grassroots movement? Everyone using their email address books, blogs and message boards to good use….? Non?
Comment by Original Joe — June 2, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
In response to Nikki’s (always astute) comments, and those of the other readers- I’d like to say that I HAVE seen THE WOMEN at a preview screening….it’s adult,smart, funny and perfect for the SATC audience (and trailers are attached to SATC in selected theatre chains)…Meg is marvelous in the movie and reminds you of why you first fell in love with her….All the actresses have great moments in the movie.
Again, this movie didn’t cost much(though it looks expensive!) and WB should be supporting it wholeheartedly -not only, as Furious D said (above), to make their money back - but also to support a terrifically entertaining movie for a poorly served segment of the audience (If the SATC numbers don’t make studios realize that grown women will go out to theatres if you give them a reason to, I don’t know what will!)
Comment by Wendy — June 2, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
I’m very disappointed about this as I had high hopes for the movie. Not just because of Diane English (never really a fan of Murphy Brown) but it has an amazing cast which, like Bette Midler’s other movie The First Wives Club which also grouped together some good actresses, should spell “hit” at the box office. No surprise though that that chauvinist piece of shit Robinov would try to bury the film. Maybe if Diane added some explosions and got his cast to show their tits he might give it a wide release? Unbelievable.
Comment by Francine Fishpaw — June 2, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Those broads look kinda old. Maybe WB’s caution is well founded.
Comment by Banjo — June 2, 2008 @ 3:38 pm
Why won’t they embrace it? It’s a film with no pre-marketing that would appear to only appeal to women, starring a bunch of actresses with little box office clout, and directed by someone who hasn’t had a credit in a decade.
My guess is that it’s also probably a film that will benefit more from word of mouth than a huge ad campaign so the smaller release makes sense. My guess is that it is closer to Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, or Juno than Sex & The City which had a pre-sold audience.
Granted, the studio will probably just dump it and not really help nurture it the way they should but to think that The Women somehow deserves a huge release because of Sex and the City just seems like an overreaction.
Comment by Kevin — June 2, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
My husband and I saw SATC last night. There was a trailer for “The Women”.
Comment by calamaty jane — June 2, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
There was a preview for The Women at the theater I was at for SATC this past weekend and the crowd was eating it up. Maybe the movie won’t hold up to the preview but I think women would go to see it if they pushed it. Especially since the fun they had at SATC will be fresh in the minds of the women who made an outing of it.
Comment by Rae — June 2, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Women are 51% of the population - yet the men who run the studios seem to think we do not exist - except as the bimbos on the arm of Adam Sandler or Owen Wilson in a stupid frat movie. It is such a shame - when “The Devil Wears Prada” was such a huge smash there was all thie speculation that FINALLY the studios would realize that women of all ages appreciate good entertaining films with strong, smart female characters - and make more films starring women.
The ONLY way this will ever change is for 50 percent of the studios to be run by women - and half of all films to be written and directed by women. I know a ton of brilliant women in this town trying to get their break in directing and writing….but is is almost impossible. You would think in Hollywood it is really 1950. It is shameful.
Comment by actingup — June 2, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Long awaited? Who’s been awaiting it? I don’t know one person who thinks it’s a good idea to try to remake this classic with Meg Ryan & co. in the roles made famous by Norma Shearer, Rosalind Russell, Joan Crawford, Joan Fontaine, Paulette Goddard, et al. It’s not misogynistic to expect — even to hope — that this terrible idea will flop.
Comment by Reader — June 2, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
This is absolutely crazy, and a huge disappointment (regarding “Spring Breakdown”).
How reliable is your source? I went to a test screening not even a week ago and everyone was raving about it and even saying they like it as well or better than “Baby Mama”! How recent is this development? Is it possible the studio has since decided to work with it more? Like I said, I went to the test screening not even a week ago yet, and one of the people running it were saying it should be out in a few months. (??)
Comment by Lisa Lee — June 2, 2008 @ 5:03 pm
Jeff’s female bashing is sad. The Women at $18M with that cast can certainly re-coup in a weekend with some support and smarts from WB……if it is good or even just OK.
his attitude stinks and is soooooooooooo 1920 !
we are 51% of the population and if we women are smart we will make Hillary our next president. perhaps her position will help some MEN change their stupid, dated and disrespectful attitude against strong WOMEN.
Comment by Simone — June 2, 2008 @ 5:52 pm
“Spring Breakdown” should have been given a chance on the big screen!
Comment by Women ARE funny! — June 2, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Just let them make another SPEED RACER.
Comment by BS — June 2, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
Probably not possible that the movie just isn’t good, right?
Comment by Lutz — June 2, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Ummm
Meg Ryan had the joker surgery done and that was the end of her career. Why this film even exists is beyond me.
Comment by FairyTaleListener — June 2, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Me again.
You said..
“I’m not at all sure the more sophisticated female audience for Sex And The City and The Women is clamoring for a dumbed-down women’s comedy. But could it be worse content-wise than the Harold & Kumar franchise?”
It’s MUCH better than any Harold and Kumar. “Spring Breakdown” had quite a few touching scenes, and it’s a comedy with heart. Only “dumbed-down” as far as it being slapstick type comedy, but it didnt just stop there. It was quite off-beat, very well written, very funny, and Rachel Dratch and Missi Pyle have some stand-out performances. I mention those 2 since this was their chance to shine.
Should have at least been given a chance at limited release.
Comment by Lisa Lee — June 2, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
Comment by FairyTaleListener — June 2, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
You are so-so sad, did you know that!!!
So when an actress had a few bad runs, she is dead eh, kaput, finito?
So when actors such as Crowe, Carrey, Affleck, Clooney, con’t with disappointments after disappointments, that is ok?
Which planet are you from?
Comment by Armand — June 2, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Armand
She is not kaput because of some bad career moves
Can you even read man?
She is Kaput because she had BAD facial surgery and now looks like the JOKER not Meg Ryan
Comment by FairyTaleListener — June 2, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Women Over Forty [WOF], god bless them, single-handedly keep the publishing industry afloat. They buy more books, therefore books are marketed to them. WOF are not as blindly addicted to moviegoing as teenage boys are; I’ve been a teenage boy for almost thirty years and I still go to movies two or three or four times a week. I don’t see many WOF. (They’re smart, they have better taste, they read.)
WOF are said to crave quality films but last year with nothing else to choose from they stayed away in droves from EVENING ($12 million gross) and IN THE LAND OF WOMEN ($11M). Even “successes” like BEING JULIA ($8M), MISS PETTIGREW ($12M) the underrated FRIENDS WITH MONEY ($13M), IN HER SHOES ($32M) and now BABY MAMA ($56M so far) don’t begin to compare to male-driven hits. What lessons do studios learn from WOF’s non-attendance?
Misogyny is a huge, depressing problem in America, but until WOF line up at the box office in SATC numbers twice a week, every week, the reason for studio execs’ decisions might be simple math.
As for, THE WOMEN, who exactly is the box office draw? That movie should be Julia, Jodie, Nicole, Meryl, Helen Mirren, Katherine Heigel, Catherine Keener, Scarlett, Selma, Angela Bassett, and Judi Dench. The English-speaking equivalent of Francois Ozon’s EIGHT WOMEN. The actual cast feels like an episode of “The View,” which women can get free, five times a week. (Bette = Joy, Annette = Barbara, Meg = Elizabeth, etc)
Last thing: Notice how THE WOMEN’s poster is only type to hide the fact that the movie is all women, no men. Wasn’t part of the appeal of SATC the fantasy fulfillment of Carrie finally marrying Big?
Comment by Cukor's Boyfriend — June 2, 2008 @ 8:59 pm
Actually, The Women was pretty good. Exactly the SATC demo (sans gay men), just less blingy/Manhattan.
Comment by Not a Woman — June 2, 2008 @ 9:14 pm
The two Harold & Kumar films are rather intelligent social commentary dressed up as R-rated pot comedies. If The Women is that good, I’ll be happy to haul my testosterone-laden self to the theatre.
The studios still seem to be chasing the 14-year-old boys who’ve made Spielberg & Lucas & Bruckheimer billionaires. The problem is, the competition for those kids now includes Halo 3 and Grand Theft Auto 4. If they want to keep putting butts in seats, they should make and release a range of movies, rather than leaning so heavily on the most fickle demographic - teens - in the marketplace.
As for Spring Breakdown, well, there’s always Netflix.
Comment by mheister — June 2, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
As a male, I really have no interest in any of the movies mentioned in this story. But is it really hard to believe that Spring Breakdown (with a cast headlined by female SNL alum) doesn’t have a chance at success when Baby Mama (with a cast headlined by female SNL alum) did so well?
Comment by College Student — June 2, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
Jeff Robinov is lying through his teeth about joking about not making any more female lead movies at WB last year.
The edict came rolling on down and was treated very seriously by all studio execs and the producers with deals on the lot.
Comment by reelbusy — June 2, 2008 @ 10:33 pm
@Comment by actingup — June 2, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
please give me a break. When women start making up the majority of the film going audience (which they aren’t even close) perhaps more studios will give a crap.
SATC had a built in audience who all saw the film on Friday (and were largely disappointed) How much would you like to wager that it won’t even be top 3 this week?
Also as far as ‘poor ole women in Hollywood not being able to make it’ again give me a break. It’s hard for EVERYONE. Most people would agree that a great place to start is as someone’s assistnt right? Well open up any HCD and tell me how many women vs. men you see. Women hold virtually all of those jobs and MANY of the creative exect jobs in story departments are run by women.
This notion that it’s a big ole boys clubs where a bunch of fat old white guys smoke cigars all day lauging and slapping ‘broads’ on the ass is beyond laughable.
Giving anyone ANYTHING based solely on gender, race etc (man, woman, white, black, gay, straight) is simply a receipe for disaster and watering down the product. How about we let whoever is BEST have their films made? If it’s all Black men, great. If it’s all women, fantastic. If it’s all men then so be it. Though I’m guessing it’ll continue being a combination.
Comment by manny — June 2, 2008 @ 11:07 pm
I question anyone who calls the SATC audience “sophisticated.” It’s brainwashing drivel.
Comment by Fred — June 2, 2008 @ 11:29 pm
Comment by FairyTaleListener — June 2, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Gosh! We now judge a person based on their looks alone, not their talent eh?
So what if she looks like a joker? You want the real Joker? Look no further than the man himself, Nicholson. That fat ugly excuse for a man still making movies and no one commented how old, fat, one-dimensional acting or ugly he is.
What about the comment ‘why this film exists is beyond me” Tell me you are not taking a jab at Meg cause of her new look?
Great,just great! What we need now is someone telling us a movie will only sell based on looks and beautiful people alone.
But you know what, you may be right afterall. Case in point, Clooney. Hollywood is still willing to pay him gazillions of dollars to have him act & produce the many misses he has been involved in, just cause he is Hollywood A-listers.
Oh! You can include ms Kidman in there as well.
I salute you
Comment by Armand — June 3, 2008 @ 1:01 am
The film may have cost $18M to produce, but it’s the marketing costs that matter.
It’s easy enough to lose $50M on an $18M movie after ad buys. So it won’t necessarily recoup after the first weekend.
Sex and the City aside, women don’t usually turn out in huge numbers for movies in theatrical release.
When they do (Pretty Woman, Dirty Dancing) Hollywood obliges by glutting the market with similar product, which then usually fails.
As “mysogynistic” as some would like to believe Hollywood is, there are studios that have blown a fortune chasing after the mythical female audience (i.e. Sony under Amy Pascal). Middle-aged women simply don’t turn out unless it’s an event like SATC, and even then it’s not huge numbers — $56 million is nothing compared to Iron Man, let alone Pirates.
The truth is, if women’s pictures brought in $500mil apiece worldwide Jeff Robinov would be flooding theaters with them.
As it stands, there is already a medium that caters to the tastes of middle-aged women: it’s called television. Not coincidentally, that’s where Sex in the City came from.
Comment by reality check — June 3, 2008 @ 1:12 am
one more note on the whole ‘Hollywood is sexist’ nonsense.
Have we all forgotten that within the last 6 years, there was a time when 3 of the top 5 studios were all headed by women? That’s 60% of the big boys.
I guess it’s easier to invent conspiracies that people are screwing you rather than bettering yourself through hard work.
Comment by manny — June 3, 2008 @ 1:43 am
I love Amy Poehler! I always know when a line is supposed to be funny because she makes a funny face at the camera. That tells me it’s time to laugh! Hooray!
Comment by Amy Poehler Super Fan — June 3, 2008 @ 2:04 am
It’s frustrating to me - an early-thirties woman - that what passes for “a woman’s movie” is almost always some kind of ensemble drama about death and the end of a marriage.
What if that’s not what I want? What if I want a rip-roaring adventure that leaves me breathless, and happens to star a girl?
Oh… I can’t have that? Gotcha. Guess I’ll stay home and be the single driving force behind TV, then.
Comment by velveeta — June 3, 2008 @ 3:05 am
The real problem here is that we’ve got yet another remake. Why can’t they just re-release the original? It’s a better film and it’s cheaper to strike new prints than to make a whole new movie.
Comment by Anonymous — June 3, 2008 @ 5:09 am
Hey Nikki - I think WB should just make HBO/NewLine their specialty Wome’s Divison. That way movies like SEX AND THE CITY, THE WOMEN, the AMERICAN GIRL MOVIE, and the upcoming GREY GARDENS can all be under their banner but guided by people who aren’t afraid of women’s films. Collin Callender or Bob Berney should run the speacilty division devoted to films for men AND women. So Jeff Robonov doesn’t have to bother to decide what will work and what won’t. Those two men weather you like them or not, are not afraid of the female audience, and in fact court it. Thoughts?
Comment by courtney v. — June 3, 2008 @ 5:58 am
Hey look at the success of “The Golden Girls” people of all ages love the girls, and still watch reruns. There is that magic that happens when you get the right group of women together with some really good writers and actors that create a character that is unforgettable and people want to get to know, as i said its Magic.
Comment by MAGGIE — June 3, 2008 @ 6:17 am
Now is WB acting sexiest here? WIth a Cukor remake? It deserves the same treatment as Sex and the City. Or are the execs afraid this film may flop at the box office? Sounds so prehistoric for a studio to acting sexiest with one film in my opioin.
Comment by chuck — June 3, 2008 @ 6:37 am
Cukor’s Boyfriend - Do yourself and all of us a favor - stop posting! If you want to site every woman’s movie that didn’t work - how about do a ratio of how many women’s movies they make, and then do a ratio of how many fail, and then do the same ratio of boy movies, not talking SPDER MAN that’s for everyone, I’m talking STEALTH, WILD WILD WEST, SPEED RACER, I SPY, LITTLE MAN, WHITE CHICKS, retarded movies made by boys for boys. Don’t you get it? Any movie can fail REGARDLESS OF AUDIENCE. Sounds like you’re a guy over 40. Maybe you should start reading books, and let women run the industry. Moron. And change your monikor, George Cukor wouldn’t want the association
Comment by SHE — June 3, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Marketing to white middle aged hags. Who would have thunk it?
Comment by Vinnie Vegas — June 3, 2008 @ 7:53 am
“But could it be worse content-wise than the Harold & Kumar franchise?”
*Nothing* could be worse than the Harold & Kumar franchise.
Comment by Leo Ruby — June 3, 2008 @ 8:03 am
She spent 15 years trying to get the financing because the script STINKS. I guess that cast of has-beens trusted she could do better on screen than what was on the page. Seriously, Meg Ryan? She’s about as marketable as week old bread. Just what $20 million openers has any of these women head-lined lately? You’re way off on your assessment, not sure why you’re so gung ho on this movie getting a wide release — have you seen it? Have you read the script? I have, numerous drafts of it and it’s dull and irrelevant.
Comment by And I liked SATC... — June 3, 2008 @ 8:06 am
Caught a screening for Spring Breakdown and thought it absolutely sucked. Anyone on who speaks of raves for this film clearly has something to do with the making of it.
Comment by jcg — June 3, 2008 @ 8:36 am
The most shocking thing about this post is that a gaudy, trashy, utterly superficial melodrama like SATC (which, in gender terms, I for one believe is a quite negative portrayal–written by a man–of middle-aged women as venal, pathologically insecure adolescents) now seems to be considered “sophisticated” fare for a “sophisticated” audience. How low we’ve sunk.
Comment by Mikey — June 3, 2008 @ 8:41 am
I can’t speak for Sex And The City, but please stop picking on Speed Racer and Harold & Kumar. You don’t need to tear down good movies to vent your anger about other potentially good movies possibly being given the shaft.
Although, to be fair, The Women IS getting a decent release in September (same period where First Wives Club struck gold back in 1996), and the allegedly evil WB is releasing Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants 2, He’s Just Not That Into You, and Nights in Rodanthe this year alone. So the allegedly diabolical WB is releasing five major female-led releases in about six months (counting S&TC). What other studios can you say that about?
If you look at WB’s slate, it’s actually more adventurous than the other studios this year. They’ve got five female-skewering pictures, Speed Racer (a daring project that flopped), and The Dark Knight (a 2.5 hour crime epic disguised as a comic book action film that is likely too adult and violent for the very kids that would otherwise buy the action figures). The only lazy film they have this summer is Get Smart.
And, yes, Speed Racer is a far better film than the common wisdom (yes, critics… the Matrix sequels disappointed you, let it go). It’s an exciting and emotionally poignant family adventure film that is actually far smarter and more honest about big business and human relationships than the allegedly mature and adult Iron Man. John Goodman and Susan Sarandon both give their best performances in years.
As for Harold And Kumar, the first film was a true comic masterpiece, perhaps the funniest and sharpest take on race relations and national identity since Do The Right Thing. The sequel… well, the sequel was tragically horrible, so feel free to take shots at that. But the first film is still a wonder and I can only hope Spring Break is half as good.
Scott Mendelson
Comment by Scott Mendelson — June 3, 2008 @ 8:50 am
Hey, don’t knock SPEED RACER. It was made by a woman. Larry Wachowski.
Comment by me — June 3, 2008 @ 8:56 am
The trailer is pretty darned solid, thank goodness it was paired with SATC, and the cast seems to be used very shrewdly. I can definitely see this doing well if it is marketed similarly to “The Devil Wears Prada.”
Comment by Ian — June 3, 2008 @ 9:08 am
Re: “Miss Pettigrew,” now there was a woman’s film that deserved better treatment. I loved that film: It was sweet, funny, sad, and altogether thoroughly enjoyable, and it had a dream cast. I would have liked to see that one open in wide release. With good marketing — and coming off Amy Adams’s success with “Enchanted” — it just might have done pretty well.
Comment by Reader — June 3, 2008 @ 10:12 am
I’m a 29 year old hetero male who likes bow hunting, playing Halo 3 and binge drinking on the weekends with my friends and I just saw the trailer for The Women and it looks funny as hell. Eve Mendez in lingerie doesn’t suck either.
I’d pay to see this before Sex in the City.
Comment by pixlegrunt — June 3, 2008 @ 10:58 am
SATC audience isn’t enough to make a film successful, there are the ancillary markets and home “video” (dvd, whatever comes next) that amount to the profit or loss of a film.
A film for only one section of the audience may do well but it won’t start a trend. SATC will have no legs, once it’s been seen it is done, unless you’re a SATC groupie you’re probably not going to repeat the film experience over again. It’s biggest market will be the midnight showings where men and women together bond over who dresses as their favorite character and the bitch slapping in the parking lot.
That said, women deserve to make and watch crappy movies as much as the next group of Hollywood film makers. English needs to and may have already noticed, she’s not as hot a commodity as she used to be.
Murphy Brown is now on Tv Land, classic? meh.
Comment by account-o-nerd — June 3, 2008 @ 11:21 am
This has got to be the biggest no brainer in Hollywood history! Two week media buys on Oprah, and Ellen alone. you would kill the Box Office. Well, my Goddesses of the film Industry, I believe in you.
It’s obvious to any one with a measure of business sense, the people involved in this film did it right. From the writers room to the accounting office, to the set.
Hey! WB if you don’t put this on 2000 screens. You need move into another business, like vacuum cleaners, because you suck!
Just an opinion, but then again I don’t blame my Mom, for my faults…
Comment by Adobeone — June 3, 2008 @ 11:30 am
Just saw the trailer on Yahoo Movies. Better quality than YouTube. Really can’t wait to see this. http://movies.yahoo.com/premieres/8100523/standardformat/
Comment by Anonymous — June 3, 2008 @ 11:30 am
This is the kind of shit women are looking forward to?
Jesus Christ, I’m glad I’m a man.
Comment by here in flyover — June 3, 2008 @ 11:31 am
I’ve worked at the studios for over 20 years, and I can tell you that male bias is gigantic. You want to know how big? It’s easy - check over the last 20 years: How many women have been allowed to direct a studio picture with a budget over $50 million? I rest my case. What kills me is that there are so many really talented, damn good women directors working in episodic TV. Doing drama, comedy, and oh yes… action. But they won’t ever get a chance - with the Boy’s Club who give the green light to projects.
Ladies, I really really hate to tell you this, but the ONLY way you are EVER going to make it in this particular world is to do what Deep Throat said in “All The President’s Men”: FOLLOW THE MONEY. Get major independent financing from outside companies. And do EVERY kind of movie, from drama to action to sci-fi to horror to comedy to docu-drama. Show Diversity, for god’s sake. And show these assholes (anyone with a VP or CEO title under their name, and that goes double at Warners) what you can do.
They will still hate you, but they will hire you now because you can make them money. And if they don’t, well, you’ve got a deal with an outside company (like Marvel, so something equivilant) and you can say: FUCK YOU.
Got that?
Comment by John Chambers — June 3, 2008 @ 11:43 am
My idea cast for the Women..
Jennifer Anniston
Angelie Jolie
Kate Winslet
Carmem Diaz
Lucy Lu
Kim Raver
just a rough idea for my ensemble cast of ladies
Support cast
Julie Newmar
Julia Roberts
Pierce Bronsans to a name a few
cameo Jessica Beil
Comment by chuck — June 3, 2008 @ 11:57 am
I’m courious now. Do male actors make than thier female counterparts on screen? Now speaking of the male bias: do women studio execs and heads do they make less than thier counterparts in the industry? I’m wondering if there is a glass ceiling in play. Like the your report John Chambers very insightful.
Comment by chuck — June 3, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Who told them to remake a classic that had a cast that will never be equaled? The people who gave the greelight and cast those women should be fired. I hope TCM shows the original film ad nauseum to counter this mess of an idea.
Comment by soraya — June 3, 2008 @ 1:27 pm
Velveeta @ 3:05am
Please go to blockbuster and rent “The Long Kiss Goodnight”, with the starring role going to Geena Davis and supporting going to Samuel Jackson. It’s a kick-ass adventure of “don’t even think of messing with this women”, and quite humorous, and touching…it’s everything. I hope you enjoy…I did, enough to buy the DVD.
Comment by btl teamster — June 3, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
I am already offended by The Women…but I guess I am not the demo (middle class woman of color…I can’t stand movies where clearly all the colorful/funny/sexy characters are ethnic and nothing but foils).
Comment by Liz — June 3, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Damn those dirty studio executives for not losing sleep over an audience that only shows up once every five years! Damn them! Bigotry!
How dare they not shirk their responsibilities of hitting the age-old strategy of targeting teenaged males! For pete’s sake!
Honestly, though, when was the last time a movie made for a female-majority audience really hit huge? SATC had an audience that was built in from a long-running series, and years over film-speculation. It wasn’t a standalone slam dunk. You can make an excellent film directed towards a female audience (I wish there would be more. My mother has no interest in my line of work because she feels alienated by the lack), but HBO spent years establishing that audience. And keep in mind, while SATC is surely the biggest hit in that vein, one look at how its numbers stand up to a single weekend against an Indy or Iron Man, and it makes perfect sense that things are how they are. Sorry, all your fuss is for naught. Looking forward to seeing the numbers for the SATC sequel (and I don’t mean that in a snarky manner, I’m really curious how the audience will fluctuate).
Comment by Rabble, rabble. — June 3, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
TV has become more friendly towards female audiences and actresses. Even more male skewing shows like Lost and the original CSI still have their female core cast members and women are the core of their audiences. Female audiences can determine whether a TV show will be a hit.
The roles that Mary-Louise Parker, Kyra Sedgwick, Glenn Close, and Sally Field to name a few have gotten on TV shows are much richer roles than they would be offered for films.
Comment by Kelly — June 3, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
Let’s be honest, a movie’s success at the box office often depends purely on the HYPE that surrounds it. May it be a big media machine PR push, or simply strong word of mouth, awareness is key. And we know studios rarely put the big PR machine behind films geared towards women staring women, that’s just a fact. So, if you’re Diane English, or any other producer/director/writer who decides to make a film about [gasp] women, you better pray for a strong word of mouth or your picture is DOA.
If a successful movie like “The First Wives Club”, which was mostly propelled by strong word of mouth in the 90’s, was a phenomenon just think of what the power of viral/internet in the 2000’s could do for these films. If studio execs really want to make women centric films into a successful market, they must work hard to overcome the lack of foundation and nurturing of the audience over the past 50+ years (30, if you blame STAR WARS for the change of pace). For example, just look at Tyler Perry. To find an audience you have to believe the audience exists in the first place.
Women audiences have never been courted by Hollywood Studios, thus a culture of women movie goers have never emerged. I suggest execs take a look at Bollywood which has made a financial killing on their women audiences! I don’t think Hollywood is “misogynistic” and doesn’t want to make films for women; I just don’t think they [Robinov, et al] know how.
Comment by Call Me Crazy — June 3, 2008 @ 9:49 pm
What is amazing about studios like Warner Bros. why didn’t they do a demographic study for the Women to have a proper marketing campaign? For example see how the movie would play in varied regions of the country. Like how would play here in the southeast or metro New York or Charleston,SC.
What I find irking about some studios is how they limit release some films that some audience film buffs would go too. Limit release a film to only Los Angeles and New York,you not only hurt your audiences nationwide but they may be a demographic out there who would go to the movie.
Comment by chuck — June 4, 2008 @ 7:29 am
Nikki, your allegations of bias are patently ridiculous.
If nothing else, you are assuming that in Hollywood, something, anything, other than the almighty dollar rules.
NFW.
If movies that were more about or by women made money, they would get made.
If movies that were more about or by HAMSTERS made money, they would get made.
So you think this guy Robinov — or anyone — would rather puruse their own political agenda than turn in the best possible economic performance (ergo, hurting their own career)?
Bull-oney.
Nikki, cut the McCarthyism-smacking scandal mongering.
You will hurt people.
And the karmic wheel turns.
Comment by insider — June 4, 2008 @ 8:52 am
I’m wary of The Women not only because what Liz said and my love for the original, but because this remake is being marketed in the vein of a SATC-type of movie. I personally was never really enthralled with the show, so marketing it as another “SATC” turns me off. Plus, from the trailer, none of the actresses have an ounce of the sparkle and IT qualities old Hollywood actresses had.
Comment by Angela — June 4, 2008 @ 9:50 am
I’m sorry, but I’m not even remotely a SATC fan, but after watching this trailer for “Slow Death with a bunch of Older Women”, I don’t think it’s fair to compare the two. Not even close. SATC had a huge fan base, stretching across multiple generations. To me, this movie says nothing other than “hey, these old broads still need attention too”. This movie will tank, I don’t care who markets it.
Comment by tm — June 5, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
The trend is towards concept/franchise films and not a singular star.
And talking about The Women: Ryan, Benning, etc do NOT mean box office. The last person in that cast w/a hit was Eva Mendes, and that’s only because of her supporting role in Ghostrider.
Comment by Warner Bros — June 5, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
To TM: What do you mean?? The film (”Women”) will tank because they’re not all young and firm, and perhaps their breasts sag a bit?
Seriously, why not just put all older women out of their misery then because nobody is interested in their films anymore. Geez.. I’m sure there is/will be a market! Might not be a blockbuster but I dont see why it can’t do well. Put it down for bad writing or bad acting, if you will. Not because of age.
Comment by Lisa Lee — June 5, 2008 @ 8:23 pm