Warner Bros. Lurves teh Ladiez Update

Yesterday, I quoted Deadline Hollywood writer Nikke Finke who was reporting on Warner Bros. president Jeff Robinov's alleged assertion that the studio would no longer make films with female leads. Mickle has dropped an update in comments, which I thought would be of interest:

At least one person has gotten an email response so far. (Go Lisa!)

Of course they deny that this is their policy. But here's the kicker (I was so hoping they'd be stupid enough to do this. Let's hope they keep it up.) As exculpatory evidence they assert that their "2008 film slate" includes "at least three motion pictures with female leads and casts."

First of all, notice the switch from "female leads" to "female leads and casts." It's really, really sad that they had to do this in order to get the number up to a whopping three.

Secondly, WB put out 24* films this year. Assuming a similar number next year, that means that only 12% of their movies will feature "female leads and casts."

So, not only do little better than 10% of WB films include "female leads and casts," but the WB thinks that this fact "underscores [their] commitment to telling good stories regardless of gender."

…* I don't know f they are counting their "indie" films. If they aren't, the numbers are 19 and 16%.

Mickle wonders if so many of their movies tank because they are such asshats it's amazing they manage to make any good movies at all. And I'm beginning to wonder if the root of their financial problems doesn't start in production, because someone over there is really fucking bad at math.

Melissa's Math Corner

women = 52% of population

WB films w/ female leads < 52%

12% ≠ 52% [and/or 16% ≠ 52%]

WB ≠ committed "to telling good stories regardless of gender"
Unless, of course, WB is arguing that there are just aren't many "good stories" about women.

Which is naturally what they are arguing. It's what the studios constantly argue, in no small part because they routinely fail to imagine that parts written for men could often just as easily be filled by women. They're insipid morons. After all, these are the same people who still feel completely comfortable publicly registering shock and amazement, as if it's evidence of broad-mindedness and not indicative of their cloistered and ignorant retrofuck jackholery, when Queen Latifah plays a character written for a white woman. ZOMG, the humanity! Praise to Jebus—see how movies have the power to transform the world, people?!

Perhaps nothing more perfectly illustrates the profundity of American studios' collective blind spot regarding women than the story of the United States women's national soccer team. Can you even imagine if the men's team had, in this emerging sport, played its first game ever in 1985, and 22 years later had won two World Cups, two Olympic gold medals, one Olympic silver, five global invitationals, plus the inaugural of a world championship match—and, to top it off, its best-known star and America's youngest World Cup winner was born with a partial club foot?

The question wouldn't be whether a movie would have been made. The question would be how many movies had been made.