From the Editor's Desk: Warner Bros. Needs to Get Laid
Filed under: Warner Brothers, RumorMonger, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Politics, Nicole Kidman
So I just returned home from checking out the New York Film Festival's closing night film, Persepolis, which is an amazing little animated flick about a girl coming of age during the Islamic revolution. Sony Pictures Classics is releasing it in December, it might get nominated for a Best Foreign Language Oscar (it's currently France's selection, so we'll see), and, heck, it might even win. An Oscar! For a film starring an animated girl from Iran! Go figure. The theater was pretty crowded, because from what I gathered people were still interested in films featuring women in the lead roles. I know I am. By now you probably see where I'm going with this -- in case you haven't heard yet, Warner Bros. chief Jeff Robinov is still simmering in some hot water over comments he allegedly made; how, ya know, he doesn't want to make any more female-driven films because ... The Invasion and The Brave One didn't do so well? Yeah, I don't get it much either.
Nikki Finke, the blogger over at Deadline Hollywood who broke the story, continues to go on and on about the fiasco, while, I imagine, folks over at Warners are scrambling to correct this PR nightmare. Finke reminds me of that girl from Can't Hardly Wait who runs around throughout the entire film trying to get people to sign her yearbook. Whatever happened to that girl after everyone completely dissed her? Where did she go after high school? What is she doing now? Let me take a wild guess ... Anyway, I'm still having trouble wrapping my head around this whole thing. If it's true, and Robinov did say those things, then why is he blaming the actresses? I asked a friend of mine, who saw both The Invasion and The Brave One, if he didn't like the films because of Kidman and Foster. His answer: "I didn't like them because they sucked. Kidman and Foster had nothing to do with that." And why did he go to see them in the first place? "I like Kidman and Foster." Heh. (I wonder if they changed the name to Legally Blonde: Invasion of the Purse Snatchers, if, then, people would've showed up to see it?)
I tried reading Finke's reports, but I just got a headache. They're filled with lines like, "And then a Warner Bros. rep told me ..." and "Three studio insiders claimed to have ..." and "When I got off the phone with the agent whose rep used to be a studio exec ..." Who gives a sh*t? Should we care about this story at all? Seriously. Warner Bros. could make 70 films in a row about homosexual kangaroos from Egypt, and it still wouldn't change the fact that my electric bill is too high. Should we boycott Warners? No. Why? There are very few guarantees in life: 1. A lot of folks making the decisions in Hollywood are morons. 2. 300 is and will always be a pile of crap. 3. Female-driven films simply don't do well at the box office unless they star Reese Witherspoon doing her best Valley-girl accent, and 4. There will always be something better worth seeing on any given weekend, be it on DVD or in the theater. Like Persepolis. So let Warners make their testosterone-laced, male-driven films, and the rest of us can go about our lives knowing there will always be a choice when it comes to what we watch, when we watch it and who we watch it with. Isn't that what's most important here?









Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-11-2007 @ 3:16PM
Christopher Campbell said...
Even if Persepolis doesn't get nominated for the foreign Oscar, it should get one for the animation feature category. It will probably lose to Ratatouille, but at least that's not AS bad as the last French animated contender, The Triplets of Belleville, which lost out to the much worse Finding Nemo.
Reply
10-11-2007 @ 4:20PM
KMF said...
I saw The Invasion for Daniel Craig, but Kidman was not the thing that sank that film. I knew Invasion was in trouble by the ads. I kept telling my sister, who I dragged along as my movie going partner, that Kidman was going to take the fall if the movie did poorly. The ads put too much emphasis on her, the reshoots as well, so the movie was riding on her shoulders. She wasn't bad. I thought she held her own pretty well. Though yes when Daniel Craig was inexplicably gone somewhere else, part of the reshoots I think that made me go "Huh? If he's looking after her where's he going?", the movie lagged.
I've probably been saying this to anyone who'd listen, or not, about The Invasion. It was too many high powered/low brain cell cooks that soiled the soup, and not the actors' fault.
I wanted to see The Brave One but I'm just not into that style film.
It's not the gals on screen, it's the guys behind the camera.
Reply
10-11-2007 @ 4:24PM
finkeforpresident said...
I am sooo tire of hearing about Nikki Finke... she is the source of controversy but not in a good way. First she slams Eli Roth and Hostel 2 with a biased agenda with no respect to him as a film maker and now she posts this junk about WB making unoffical statements about women in leading roles. I'm not saying its not true. but John from the movie blog caught up with a WB rep and here is what they had to say
WB Rep - “Mr. Robinov never made that statement, nor is it his policy.”
TMB - “So are you saying it is not now, nor will be Warner Bros. policy to stop producing films with female leads?”
WB Rep - “Correct. That is not our policy. A blogger (assumably Nikki Finke) made a statement without giving us the opportunity to first respond.”
TMB - “All right, that’s all I needed to know. Thank you for calling me.”
Obviously a studio rep wouldnt actually go out and say "Yea, WOMAN DONT SELL MOVIES and thats WB's new policy!" Nikki Finke probably had a casual off the record conversation with the folks at WB but posting this as some big story is kinda like jumping the gun. She should have allowed WB to comment and also waited a few months to see if WB actually committed to their off the record remarks. If WB didnt have any more movies with leading woman and never responded to Nikki Finke allegations then she would have solid ground to stand on. In my opinion she is a biased, sloppy blogging hippie that writes nothing of any value!
Reply
10-12-2007 @ 12:03PM
Rich Drees said...
Let's not forget the time Finke, what an appropriate name, chastized Brendon over at Film Ick for quoting one of her emails to him without her permission and then a month later quoted some writer's private email to a director to show what a scumbag (or other agenda-driven vindictive) he is.
And then there's the time she blamed the Virginia Tech shootings on OLDBOY just because the guy had taken a picture holding a hammer that was similar to a publicity still from the film. I still cntend that you could find pictures of Jesus as a carpenter with a similar pose.
Nikki Finke is the herpes cold sore on entertainment journalism.
Reply
10-12-2007 @ 12:03PM
Rich Drees said...
Let's not forget the time Finke, what an appropriate name, chastized Brendon over at Film Ick for quoting one of her emails to him without her permission and then a month later quoted some writer's private email to a director to show what a scumbag (or other agenda-driven vindictive) he is.
And then there's the time she blamed the Virginia Tech shootings on OLDBOY just because the guy had taken a picture holding a hammer that was similar to a publicity still from the film. I still cntend that you could find pictures of Jesus as a carpenter with a similar pose.
Nikki Finke is the herpes cold sore on entertainment journalism.
Reply