As always the socialist advocates enslaving someone else to do what they want instead of doing it themselves.

"'But wait, I'm also gonna do this film directed by [a woman] that stars this woman.' It's simple, it's math!"

But wait, that movie (oops, film) directed by [a woman] that stars a woman won't sell overseas. So, I won't have a overseas revenue stream for it. And that big budget action film starring a man will go gangbusters in markets where English is a foreign language.

Hollywood opts for action because it sells in Asia (where English is not spoken, subtitles can take up half the screen real estate, and US pop culture references don't register). Rom-coms and Oscar-bait films don't do well over there.

It's simple, it's math!

I knew a fellow who would routinely wonder why professional athletes got such "outrageous" sums of money and he didn't.

My reply? When 20, 40, or 70 thousand people spend money to buy tickets to watch you work, you'll get paid like they do.

"affirmative action in moviemaking"

Just another reason to NOT bother seeing certain movies.

It may be just me; but, I find that a politically correct remake of a movie isn't as good as the original.

Think Miracle on 34th Street, in which Santa uses sign language instead of Dutch like the original movie, or the remake of Little Orphan Annie in which Annie is black instead of the curly blonde girl.

Sorry, but these remakes are just trying too hard to be politically correct; and, as a result fall flat.

Since Patricia Clarkson thinks this simply comes down to "math" I can see where this might lead - movies that are made for enjoyment, and made well and earn money, will be used to subsidize those that are made to satisfy some political agenda.

Here's more math - that will cause me to stop going to movies all together. I already don't bother with cable as I don't see any reason to subsidize BET and other cable channels that I have no desire to pay for since I don't want them. And, her ideas will turn movies into the same crap.

As always the socialist advocates enslaving someone else to do what they want instead of doing it themselves.

I have no idea how that relates to an actress of a certain age complaining about not getting roles.

Conan is right:

Hollywood opts for action because it sells in Asia (where English is not spoken, subtitles can take up half the screen real estate, and US pop culture references don't register). Rom-coms and Oscar-bait films don't do well over there.

That's the prime driving force behind movies today — that and product tie-ins — which has nothing to do with women on film, "socialist advocates," "enslaving" (?!?!) or anything else.

What Clarkson's argument ignores is that the idiotization of movies has opened up wonderful opportunities in TV. Many interesting writers and actors are now working in television (including her), so who needs movies?

I seem to remember reading (probably in "How to Go to the Movies") that before the 1960s or so, a man's going to the movies without a date wasn't considered quite "masculine" to do, and so men usually took women, who would choose the movie half the time - and that's why "women's movies" flourished in, for example, the 1940s and 1950s. (Of course, some were good, others, not so good.) Whereas now, the movie industry tends to cater to teen boys' tastes much of the time - something that even Bill Maher complained about, in the book "New Rules" (this piece is from 2003, when he was 47):

"When I was 12 years old, Hollywood didn’t give a damn about me — and that was good! Good for the movies and good for me because I was challenged to stretch — to smarten up instead of dumb down. Besides ruining movies, we’ve ruined our kids by making everything about them, and now if I want to see a movie I had better like loud noises, things blowing up and Colin Farrell."

However, SINCE 2003, it's been said that "TV is better than the movies these days." So I wonder what Maher thinks of all the highly-praised TV shows that have come out in the last ten years.

And, thankfully, at least a couple(?) of good TV shows about women seem to be doing quite well.

As I read her remark she is advocating forcing 'Hollywood power brokers' to fund films according to some formula of her's ("It’s simple, it’s math!”)

If she wants those roles she may have to fund and run the film herself.

"If she wants those roles she may have to fund and run the film herself."

If she did that she would soon start trying to force audiences to watch them.

You want a ticket for Avengers 9? You have to see Feminist BitchFest 6 first. It's math!"

So now the SJWs (anti-GamerGaters) are at war with leftist Hollywood! I love it when they eat their own!

I just knew that GG would grow much larger than gaming!

So now the SJWs (anti-GamerGaters) are at war with leftist Hollywood! I love it when they eat their own!

I have no idea what possible connection this could have to do with the article to which Amy linked. You might as well have written "So now the Danes are at war with the dog-lovers! I love it when they eat their own!"

It's an actress expressing a thought not backed up by economic reality. Not sure if she was serious, of if it was a wishful-thinking comment, but that's all.

"Stockholders (with their need for returns and not losses) are the powerbrokers"

Well, the stockholders are merely intermediaries...the true power brokers are the members of the viewing audience.

And when the viewing audience expands to worldwide dimension, the relevant set of preferences expands accordingly.

We want to watch what we want to watch. I sometimes think it's unfortunate that an actress can't pull off being the central character in a movie in the same way an actor can. But it has to do with what we want to see as a culture. So, female action heroes just don't work for us.

"Gravity" was not as successful as "Diehard." We prefer male action heroes to female. You cannot force the American public not to like what they like or prefer something when they just don't.

Female action heroes can work, the problem is most of the time one is written the story becomes about "look at how we have a female lead isnt she just as good as a male?! ISNT SHE??!?!?!" and not about telling a good story

There are tons of movies with male leads that are steaming piles of shit, because the story isnt good.

And quite frankly female leads arnt enough for feminist harridans, they must female leads written by females and the lead must overcome using means other than those typical viewed as male; other wise the men who write good female leads are misogynists and the women who write the "wrong kind" of successful female leads are colluders in the gender war.

Well, I will say this much. When Bridesmaids came out, all you heard was, "look! Women are funny too!" "This proves a comedy with female leads can succeed." I thought, you mean like Clueless, Legally Blonde, Mean Girls...all of those movies were made for very little money yet did huge box office ($12m to make, $130m or more box office). Perhaps would have done more if they weren't marketed as girl movies. They are just funny.

On the other hand, everything is about world box office. What is going to be huge box office in China?

"I have no idea what possible connection this could have to do with the article to which Amy linked. You might as well have written 'So now the Danes are at war with the dog-lovers! I love it when they eat their own!'"

Look at the context. The thing about the games industry that really pisses off the leftists is that the game producers have been able to bypass the Hollywood gatekeepers. To an extent, so have the TV people, and that's going to increase as more TV moves to the Internet. Video production equipment has gotten a lot cheaper than it used to be; a studio-quality video production switcher that used to cost $50K (in 1980!) now runs about $4000. The people who consider themselves the "deciders" in Hollywood, and have used their position to push their personal preferences, are losing their influence. Since over the past three decades those people have been reliable propagandists for the Left, that group is fearing losing a lot of its influence. Same as what's happened with the news industry. So, as in the case of the New York Times and a few other big-city newspapers, and the network TV news, what you're seeing is the Left trying to consolidate around the power positions it still holds. The fact that, in trying to do so, they are shooting own goals just doesn't occur to them.