The reason people went to see T2 wasn't because of a female action hero. Same for Aliens.

Captain Marvel was caught up in the Infinity Stone saga of the MCU.

The other example are fine. But for every success there are five failures. So I'm sorry but my assertion is correct.

Yeah I do not like it but it's pretty clear that audiences respond more favorably to male action heroes on average.

That isn't the problem here, though. This is just a film nobody really wanted post 2017. Marketing misfire on the conceptual level.

It wasn't a good idea, I was extremely excited about Fury Road. I loved Furiosa, but making a sequel without Theron was a horrible idea, and leaving Max out alienates all older fans of the franchise. Its like if the John Wick spinoff came out in 10 years, all your left is what looks like a pale imitation. Not to mention the effects of Fury Road were the next hot thing that many people copied (Hell a John Cena Jackie Chan film looked about the same quality wise, but more fun) Fury Road also had the best Marketing campaign of that year kind of like how Suicide Squad was the following year, this marketing campaign just never really took off.

I'd hardly blame the downfall of female driven cinema especially the year after Barbie. It may be a terrific film, but Max isn't SW where you can just make Rogue One and expect gangbusters (Plus that was less than a year later, another misstep to blame on Miller taking his sweet ass time on everything) and there are countless more examples to go against the femal driven theory. Fast and Furious had it's Tokyo Drift and they removed all the recognizable characters. It'd be the same thing if they continued Bond without Bond and just had the charactes come back.

Ballerina will see the same fate.

You’re so fucking pathetically stupid. This isn’t even only related to gender.

Every reason Algren gave applies to male action heroes too.

The reason male action heroes make money is because classic characters and IP are well known and established. Newer IP and characters tend to more often be female, but still, there are more older male characters from decades ago if not earlier.

I said this all before but you try to repeat yourselves, like mindless drones in my experience, since you’re unable to let go of your bad assumptions and perspective.

The only alternative explanation is the one you probably don’t want to hear.

I dont think its because of the female character led movie that Furiosa flopped, i think its because
1. People were not asking for a Furiosa movie
2. For whatever reason this year people dont seem to want to go to the movies.

Do you all think its maybe because inflation is so bad that people are cash strapped?

May you be externally grateful for my grace, kindness, and pity, it’s better than you deserve, and better than you could ever possibly get from any other entity you could ever imagine or call God.

Yes, this is one of the few posts I’ve ever taken seriously in the Box Office forum. It’s just supposed to be a hobby.

The alternative explanation would feel substantially less human to you, but idk, maybe you’d prefer me to treat you like any other “animal”.

Also…Fury Road the film this is a prequel too.

Fury Road is one of my all time favorite movies and the trailers did not get me excited for this. Nor did I want a prequel to Fury Road…I rest my case not this movie did not do as well as it could have

Compared to before the pandemic maybe, but since? There hasn’t been a Barbie or Mario, but otherwise there hasn’t been such a difference. The Box Office was becoming more dependent on Mega Blockbusters before the pandemic, probably because of streaming, and that’s become more pronounced since the pandemic - Spider-man, Top Gun, Avatar, Mario, Barbie…

Still no. Fury Road wasn’t a smash hit? It wasn’t a sequel, like Top Gun, to one of the biggest movies of the 80s. Even Blade Runner 2049 didn’t reach 100m, and I don’t see how you could argue that the original Mad Max trilogy was more of a “cult hit” than Blade Runner. Fury Road may have looked more like a “summer movie”, but again, without the IP, that potential is limited.

Nobody says they do not apply to male action heroes, of course it does, but his point had to do with averages, which is pretty black and white.

When baby boomers came of age in the 60s/70s there was a shift in cultural psychology towards their more liberalized views and within a generation movies felt COMPLETLEY different, making the previous era's movies feel wooden and dated in comparison (Some of it is color, but not all).

Now we have lived through another "paradigm shift" in terms of the generation that grew up with social media, I would argue it's the biggest difference in generations since greatest/silents -> baby boomer. So it's possible the movie industry and art in general has to catch up as well, and adopt some kind of new styles that they're into (not sure it's as simple as just play to their politics). But in the meantime they have to feed both beasts since there's still a lot of middle aged and older people who are comfortable with the current style.

So if Furiosa succeeded would that have been definitive proof that audiences do want female action leads?

Of course not and everyone here would have called bullshit on it (which is hypocritical for some.) It's potential success and eventual bombing was never about politics, just about how many people were willing to turn up for a George Miller movie without Mad Max. That unfortunately turned out to be be very few.

I think a major problem facing Hollywood is that the majority of blockbuster hopefuls are relying on boomer or Gen Z nostalgia or history. There are very few new exciting iconic properties being created. Just look at the blockbusters from the past couple years. Most are based on franchises that are 30+ years old, in some cases 50 or 60 years plus. Planet of the Apes first movie was in 1968. Mad Max is an 80s franchise. Garfield has been around forever. Same earlier in the year, King Kong is almost a century old, Ghostbusters is an 80s franchise, Bob Marley was famous in the 70s, Dune novels have been around forever. Same with everything coming up in the year from Joker (how old is Batman now? 70 years old?), Wicked (Wizard of Oz is from the 30s), Venom (Spider-Man is also like 50 years old). Even the breakout hits of last year which "saved the industry" are based on properties eons old. Barbie is like 70 years old. Oppenheimer taps into WW2 which is 80 years old now. Mario is like 40 years old.

From Marvel to Star Wars to DC to Monsterverse, our entire pop culture is based on boomer and Gen X properties. Some of them are clearly becoming increasingly irrelevant to younger generations (hi, Ghostbusters) while the older generations are already completely overstuffed and satisfied and sick of seeing them. Some have managed to have fresh takes and are appealing to the youth and succeeding (Barbie, Dune, etc). But where are the new icons and iconic franchises of pop culture? Hunger Games was the only one of the 2010s that could stand toe to toe with other biggies.It wasn't like this in the 2000s. Harry Potter, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean felt every bit (or more in some cases) as relevant as Spider-Man and Star Wars.

It should be concerning that there is a total inability to produce new iconic properties that people can latch onto in the same way. We are seeing the same effect pop up in other areas of pop culture too. The music industry in the UK for example has been totally unable to launch a major superstar in the last several years, to the point where most of the charts are now Greatest Hits albums and American acts.

We do see some attempts, like 'Mean Girls' which was an attempt to franchise an iconic millennial movie, but it only did ok. We won't be getting more Mean Girls movies in 30 years most likely, not based on how this one did.

I think this will become a bigger issue as time goes by. You can only do Star Wars and Spider-Man and Batman so many times before people stop caring. I think this is part of what is behind all the underperforming films recently. Indiana Jones very clearly suffered from it and Mission Impossible showed signs too, the May films this year suffered from it. You can almost hear audiences groaning and saying "another one? Really?".

Pretty sure the Harry Potter IP even with new casts will have value for at least the next 50 years. They were so massive and still read the world over that it's going to be around for a long time. That came out in 97 as a book and 01 as a movie. Despite Fantastic Beasts, the theme parks only make it more timeless.

We never know where the next mega franchise will come from. The Fast and the Furious wasn't even supposed to win its OW and is now pushing to 12+ movies. Cars are pretty timeless too that they could take 10 years off and pretty sure next gen (Don's extended "Family") will keep that franchise going for a long time in terms of reboots and new casts. Also a lucrative franchise launched post 2000.

They need to try a Pirates reboot sometime and not mess it up

Some of these TV brands like GOT and Stranger Things are more beloved. But I guess the future nostalgia milking of them could be on TV. Maybe they could make a movie one day with the 20 years older version of the Stark actors though.

His assertion, that he tried to defend on repeat, was that audiences didn’t want female action stars. He said never did and never will. You agreed with him, and said audiences “respond more favorably”. The averages were used to try to support that, but missed the point. If male characters fail as well, it does not support your claim that “audiences respond more favorably.” The fact that it happens with male action characters too, proves the point that the lack of characters, especially classic characters, prevents female action stars from earning as much. Having a pre-existing status quo, bias, or brands, does not indicate or support the idea that “audiences respond more favorably”. If so, you should not expect Hunger Games to suddenly earn so much as a franchise. Anyway, whatever the point, Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman did better than average, even for Marvel and DC films pre-pandemic, so you really have no point when comparing similar films. I’m sure you’re eager to make all the excuses for Batman Vs. Superman that you didn’t before opening weekend, but anyway…

By trying to change the subject, you’re, as they say, “moving the goalposts”.

I said this over a decade ago, it’s only a matter of time until diminishing returns sets in. Some old franchises can be restarted, but at some point there will have to be more opportunities for other films and new franchises like there was in the early 2000s.

Also, the pandemic has changed the industry significantly. Grosses still have not recovered, and it’s questionable when they could. There are many genres and sectors that will continue to struggle unlike before, including apparently marvel. So there is more opportunity than before for the right sorts of films, and the question is when, not if, something finds a way to make the most of it.