The honest truth is that media is aimed at males and females aged 15-35.
that's true...in some cases even 13-25.
Neither women OR men at that age want to see older women play roles of any significant type. Looks in a visual media matter, especially with women because they have always been judged that way. For men, it is mannerisms and smoothness/cockiness/toughness. That is why Nicholson/Eastwood/Willis do so well even now.
i understand the "thinking" here...but i keep saying...in a post feminist movement (since my and following generations by and large dont seem to get it much less keep it going) hasnt the image/value/perception of women been CHANGED? again...many women age BETTER than men especially in hollywood. if its about looks...then it really should be reexamined.
I could honestly take Bruce Willis still doing some action flicks before seeing Nicholson's OLD, bloated ass in bed with a woman young enough to be his granddaughter
and eastwood? again...the man is in his fucking 80s. directing is one thing...but trying to be some kind of "Charles Bronson" NOW??? um no honey you're about 40 years too late. are you really gonna tell me that a man THAT old playing that kind of role is "believable"? *I* dont think it is.
In addition, women rarely carry movies. Therefore, why pay lots of money for proven female talent when you can get the young, firm and cheap? No female actor has shown the movie-carrying power of a Nicholson, or a Denzel Washington, or of a Will Smith, or of tom Hanks, or dozens of other leading men. And that economic fact is killing older women actors as much as anything else.
are you sure about that? Meryl Streep, Cher and before them Joan Crawford, Bette Davis. there are women who can and do routinely deliever hit after hit as the main star of their films...Meryl Streep is a sure bet, is Megan Fox? hell even Kate Hudson, daughter of oscar winning, legendary actress Goldie Hawn has had frequent missteps. younger isnt always better.
I'd boldly put Meryl up against Nicholson or any of the men you've mentioned for comparison. Denzel is still "young looking" and so its far more believable to see him doing the roles he does. Will Smith has a narrow range. He tries a comedy or drama here or there - his biggest success w/ that being Ali (and before that 6 degrees) but his bread and butter is action films. Bring him back when he's doing more "other stuff"
and JANE FONDA? come on now...that is one bad bitch in the land of film. two 4 academy awards, a library of films that are still talked about and referenced to this day and just recently came roaring back in 2005 w/ the hit Monster in law.
Shirley Mcclain also goes on the list of top females who can contend with the top males.
Until women support movies with female leads in them (Sex and the City anyone?) in large numbers over and over, this trend will continue. For example, Aniston is one of the biggest female stars in Hollywood and she has a bomb for every reasonably successful movie, and NO real blockbusters. Women outnumber men and command the majority of entertainment dollars. They will drive the change n the end.
there are many examples of that besides S&TC its just that studios dont produce them as often as they could/should. its just what you said...they need to be done in larger numbers.
SilkWood- Cher/Meryl Streep
9 to 5 - legendary power trio of Jane Fonda/Lily Tomlin/Dolly Parton. A modern pop culture classic that studios were seriously considering making a sequel for just a couple years ago (but thats another story lol)
First Wives Club - another amazing cast- Bette Midler/Goldie Hawn/Diane Keaton. a smash at the box office. a sequel was demanded by the actresses refused because the studios wouldnt pay them better. had it been three men i bet that wouldnt have even been an issue
Set it off - amazing action/tragedy movie with a strong cast consisting of big names and "new comers" (at the time) - Queen Latifah/Jada Pinkett-Smith/Kimberly Elise/Vivica Fox
Those are just a few. So there's proof that the market is there and it can be done. It appears that alot of the obstacles that prevent it from being done more are just more of the same doublestandard shit- pay issues etc.
J. Anniston- you're right. she has hits AND misses almost in pattern. I think in her case she should be more selective about who she works with. She's got a great body, and she's prooven she can do comedy and drama. They pair her with men like Jim Carey (who in my opinion) is a character actor and not nearly the broad ranged talent he thinks he is OR Ben Stiller...these are leading men who shouldnt even be considered "leading men" and so they drag the film down and while she does her best...she can't save it. Add Vince Vaughn to that list too.
Of course then you have someone like Sharon Stone who was a star in the 80s but became a SUPERSTAR in the 90s with Basic Instinct, started a whole new subgenre of films (erotic thrillers) which many others including Madonna tried their hand at and went on to showcase her talent across the board in other films she carried. She's got clout and she fought tooth & nail to make a sequel for BI happen and folks hated on it so bad and wanted to see it fail. Had this been a MAN...that wouldnt have happened.
I just dont get it...like I can't wrap my head around it. You'd think in THIS day and age it would be somewhat better...but its not. and I'M proof that not everyone flocks to see moves carried by men JUST because its a man.
