BBC Confirms ‘Doctor Who’ Season 8 
‘Star Trek Into Darkness’ $22M Friday For Lower … 
Finally, Cannes Dealing! Radius-TWC Nabs Director’s … 
Hammond On Cannes: Wet Fest’s Official Competition … 
‘Vampire Academy’ Adds ‘Modern … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Shark Tank’ Finale Up, … 
Cannes: Worldview Options Andrew Dominik’s Marilyn … 
UPFRONTS 2013: The Overachievers 
‘Mike & Molly’ Creator Mark Roberts To … 
Carey Mulligan, Matthias Schoenaerts Set For … 
Hammond On Cannes: Weinstein Brings Out Stars For 2013 … 
Cannes: Fake Gunshots Interrupt Canal Plus Live Broadcast … 
‘The Great Gatsby’ Starts With $5.4M … 
Cannes: Music Box Snags Competition’s ‘Michael … 
UPDATE: Amazon Studios Begins Pilot Pickups; … 
Bruce Rosenblum Bids Classy Goodbye 
RATINGS RAT RACE UPDATE: ‘American Idol’ Hits … 
UPDATE: ‘Iron Man 3′ Box Office Crosses $1B … 
Upfront Market: Will Auto Makers Subsidize TV … 
Cannes: Thief Makes Off With $1M+ In Chopard Jewelry Meant … 
‘Scandal’ Finale On Small Screen And Onstage At … 
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?
- Hollywood Opines About Its Smackdowns
- TOLDJA! Warner’s Jeff Robinov Promoted
- Finke/LA Weekly: Hollywood’s He-Man Woman Haters Club
- Is Jeff Robinov Ready For WB Moguldom?
- The Reality Behind Jeff Robinov’s “Denial”
- Warner’s Robinov Bitchslaps Film Women
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
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 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?
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
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?
Actually, The Women was pretty good. Exactly the SATC demo (sans gay men), just less blingy/Manhattan.
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.
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?
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 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.
I question anyone who calls the SATC audience “sophisticated.” It’s brainwashing drivel.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
Marketing to white middle aged hags. Who would have thunk it?
“But could it be worse content-wise than the Harold & Kumar franchise?”
*Nothing* could be worse than the Harold & Kumar franchise.
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.
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.
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.