The Rabbit Hole

They don't get to have fun with the money. They control it such that the bills are paid, but there's gotta be the allowance for the boys to have fun. Women don't like fun. They like to spend money on shallow things like purses n'shit. See, that's the REAL reason they're going to see Sex and the City in droves: it's a movie about what they do all the time in real life only it looks better and is 1000x more expensive!

From:

ivy03.livejournal.com

I think that is what is proverbially known as a "fluff" piece.

Also, I prefer my movies with hot male stars. All the more for me to ogle.

From:

I like hot male movie stars, too. But I have far too many lesbian crushes not to like the idea of hot female movie stars leading movies, too.

And "fluff"? This isn't even news! A fluff piece, to my mind, is a "Well, here's something you never heard of, but isn't it interesting?" I KNOW WOMEN GO TO MOVIES, JERKWAD. HALF YOUR READERSHIP KNOWS BECAUSE HALF YOUR READERSHIP IS OMG FEMALE.

They got a man to write the article. That was the kiss of death where there was a story to be made of this. Manohla Dargis did it one better weeks ago. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/04/movies/moviesspecial/04dargi.html) They should have just let that stand.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 08:26 pm (UTC)

From:

chuckro.livejournal.com

Or maybe they'll just look at the ticket sales for Iron Man and recognize that sticking ~~a credibly awesome, mostly independent and strong-willed female character~~ Robert Downey Jr. into movies is a decent way to draw this strange, elusive creature known as woman into the goddamned theaters.

Fixed that for you.

From:

Cheers!

From:

LMAO.

For the first time ever, I agree with you!

From:

Seriously, dude? You're complaining about the lack of substance in an article in the Arts/Movies section? NY Times or not, what could possibly go there that has substance?

The article is more than "chicks go to movies". The sort of rabid fetishism for a movie that they describe is usually the realm of dorks (cf the "light sabers" reference), who are more often than not male. Even if you're right about their typical lack of enthusiasm being due (in whole or in part) to the lack of movies truly "for" women (an arguable point), it still qualifies as news, at least in that definitionally-fluffy section of the paper.

From:

They're talking about people having parties and going to the movie afterwards as if NO ONE DOES THAT. People taking a tour of cites that were prominent in the TV show as if that's uncommon. (Fully half of the tourism to New Zealand is based on Lord of the Rings attractions, I'm absolutely certain.)

There's a real disdain and incredulity that rings throughout the whole piece as if these women are being as rabid as fanboys. They're really, really not. They're--GASP!--buying tickets in advance!! In groups!! SURELY THIS IS THE END OF TIMES WHEN WOMEN LEAVE THE HOUSE TOGETHER IN SUCH NUMBERS.

No one is camping out on the street. No one is going in costume. (Hardly anyone outside of rich actresses could afford the SatC costumes anyway.) People are excited and getting together to do something fun in slightly larger groups than one, two or three, and this gets a full write up as if it's thousands of Star Wars fans descending on New York for a convention. Seriously, Comic Con didn't get this kind of write up and that was thousands of fans descending on New York for a convention.

The point is that this "rabid" interest is not at all rabid nor anything like what geeks will do for tickets to their outing of choice. (Having been one of those geeks, I believe I know of what I speak.) It's a mild swelling of interest that is being treated like some kind of spontaneous explosion. The timbre of the piece is entirely in shock and confused remove: "Women, what will they do next!?" As if they weren't just people with a valid interest in seeing something they like get big-screen treatment. My God, today they go to the cinema; tomorrow, THEY WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD.

From:

I dunno, I've never gone on a tour of the locations featured in any movie, and if people are going to such an extent with this film, when it's usually reserved for something like LotR, I think it's news. Or at least MOVIE news.

I don't see any disdain in the tone at all; I think you're reading that into it all on your own. They cite a Fandango source who says that the pattern of ticket sales is unusual, which again is at least enough to make news in the "Movies" section.

It's not that I think it's a brilliant piece of journalism; it's just that it's about what I'd expect from the Movies section of any newspaper. It's an article about the remarkable popularity of an upcoming film. I'm less surprised that you're reacting badly to it than I am that you're reacting AT ALL.

From:

I think you are underestimating how much of an "event" movie this is being described as in the article. People are literally flying in to NYC from other states just to be in the place where the movie and show are set. Taking tours, having marathons, and indeed they ARE dressing up, according to the article.

I think as a geek the key here is this -- it may be easy to draw lots of fangirls into an Iron Man or a Star Wars, but people who watch Sex and the City (especially the ones in this article) are so far removed from the geek mindset that it's hard to imagine people who perceive themselves to be cultured socialites nerding out over the movie of their favorite television show. I doubt a "Desperate Housewives" or a "Gray's Anatomy" could draw this much if a movie was around the corner.

The article is definitely more about the Sex and the City movie and not women going to movies in general, although perhaps the writer doesn't have a lot to focus on. And aside from that, of course, its newsworthyness is still subjective, although I agree with the above poster that it's the kind of mediocrity that would generally grace the arts & entertainment section of any newspaper.

From:

slackwench.livejournal.com

"What's your social security number?"

From:

From:

Do I have to revoke my feminist card (oh, fuck that, I don't have a feminist card) if I say I watched all but the last season of Sex and the City and am totally going to see the movie even if it makes me vapid and shallow and awful?

From:

...even if it makes me vapid and shallow and awful?

That'd be--!
...
No, you know what? Let me not even bother.

From:

...

No, now I'm curious to know what you were going to say. >:O!

From:

Ummmmmmm...I was going to say...uhhhhhhhhh...STFU, N00B! nyahaha!! *runs away*

From:

I just think you should know that

trinityvixen just accused us of hijacking her feminism. Maybe that's what happened to mine!

From:

I bet that's my fault: all the GTA IV has probably got me in a ____jacking mood. (hehehe, "jacking") Carjacking, helicopterjacking, feminismjacking...it's all the same.

Anyway, that's what she gets for using the phrase "smash the patriarchy." Might as well start writing "womyn" after that.

From:

Sometimes I wonder how it is they gave me the Barnard degree, because I've never given a second though to "the patriarchy."

... maybe that gives me an AUTOMATIC feminist seal of approval! Men? What are those????

From:

jendaby.livejournal.com

I have never seen Sex and the City, and I don't think it would be my cuppa tea - but I agree that if it makes film executives realize that there are women in the audience, that would be cool.
And I agree - there need to be more films with hot, strong, confident women! And, you know, in roles where they don't end up demeaning themselves because they get stupid when they meet a hot guy. But, you know, I would be thrilled if there was a big action movie blockbuster with a female lead where the character never had to use sex to get her way.
...and now I want to see Kate Winslet wearing ripped jeans and a tank top, chucks and a ponytail, carrying a machete and kicking some serious ass.
*goes to happy place* :)

From:

Yeah, if SatC is a means to a happier end at the multiplex, I won't complain. I'm amazed that a movie with four women at the center got made, no matter how large the TV audience. Four OLDER women (MY GOD THEY MUST BE IN THEIR 40S!!!).

The part about Kate Winslet reminds me of Little Children where the guy compares her to his model-perfect wife and finds her wanting. I knew, immediately, that I would never like him. Anyone who would cheat on Jennifer O'Connell is already in trouble, but to disparage Kate Winslet for not being a six four (I think she's a six! Quick, induce vomiting for the rest of your life, Kate!) and having normal (read: not plucked into lines of sharp disdain) eyebrows?? DEATH.

From:

It was not a great movie (it was okay, I suppose), but Rhona Mitra in Doomsday kicked more than a handful of ass and never had to seduce anyone. She was probably the best part of the movie.

The only problem is the film is derivative of about every post-apocalyptic film in history (more of a theft of John Carpenter than a homage) and, while critics accuse movies of this all the time and I am usually reluctant to agree, the editing of the fight sequences is RIDICULOUS. It practically strobes across the screen.

From:

kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com

Well it's a step above the fluff on local news (look! it's the day before Thanksgiving and the airport is crowded!!!!!), but not by much.

The only part that was potentially interesting was from Fandango. I bet one could find interesting patterns looking at the size of group purchases, by movie. Obviously not a perfect measure of group size (we go in large groups but purchase individually), but it could be close.

From:

moonlightalice.livejournal.com

There was a great Daily Show piece last week about reporters doing "in-depth" interviews of people about high gas prices--i.e. stopping people at the pump for a soundbite of "it's so expensive!" about 20 times.

From:

http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotbutton/2008/05/is_hollywood_stepford_or_just.html#more

This is much what I think (Dargis's thing is worth reading too). Now this will probably come off like me blaming women for their own problems, but I find that nine times out of ten women make movies for other women, and not shockingly, they get pushed aside. As Poland says, where is the female director kicking to make their own Iron Man or Indiana Jones? Even if making populist entertainment can't be everyone's dream, once you've got your foot in the door you have the freedom to do whatever you want.

But I definitely agree that Hollywood does not give a crap what it sells, because studios are so quick to ape one another. All you need is a couple of monumental hits starring ass-kicking women role models and Hollywood will be all over that like a lampshade. It's pretty obvious that they are currently, desperately, painfully grasping at the last straws of the only current trends they understand, franchises (including remakes) and superheroes, and pretty soon I think audiences are going to get very, very tired of both of them.

From:

While this is a good point, "because women don't sell" is not the excuse that this guy thinks it is. Women don't sell because women are not written as women. They're written as cardboard or else they're written as men. This is why you have the rise of someone like Tyler Perry--he writes African-American roles that African-Americans realize are not just white people in blackface. Until you write women who are recognizably women, women won't sell pictures. They're going to continue to be shunted off unless they're eye candy.

Part of the success of SatC is that they wrote the women as gay men in drag. The fact that homosexuality at least contains some rejection of the gender roles and the assumptions about masculinity/femininity helped make those characters popular. (Are they women? No, not really. But they're not MEN--aka REAL MEN--in disguise.)

From:

I'm not sure I believe that realistic portrayals of anything is what audiences are really craving from Hollywood. Let's not forget we're talking blockbusters here, and the latest Die Hard or I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry reflects most guys no more than Aeon Flux or even Sex and the City represents many women.

I just think more escapist entertainment starring women is the key, and hopefully that will mean something other than What Happens in Vegas in the future.

(deleted comment)

From:

moonlightalice.livejournal.com

Word. Makes us women look bad.

From: