Are women just bored of the rings?

[KaCee]

Kimberly, you are a goddess.

Every woman is.

 

[KaCee]

Hmm...so who's going to find the EIGHTH female character? With the way this is going, we may find out that the main characters aren't what we thought...

Well...has anyone actually *checked* under Gimli's beard?

Not that I'm volunteering, thanks.

 

[shilsen]

Curses! Off by two now! Hmm...so who's going to find the EIGHTH female character? With the way this is going, we may find out that the main characters aren't what we thought...

You called?

8) Farmer Maggot's wife gets two sentences when he's going to drive them to the ferry.

9) Mrs. Cotton gets the same amount when Sam goes to see Rosie and her during the Scouring.

Anybody else want to take it into double figures?

 

[Teflon Billy]

If she didn’t like the movie, great. But I’ve had it with people who apply stupid concepts like gender determinism to entertainment. You like what you like, you don’t like what you don’t like, and the shape of the flesh between your legs doesn’t enter into it!

Except that, statistically speaking, it does enter into it.

This idea that it is impossible to market to a gender because every person is so different is just feel-good nonsense.

To quote Tyler Durden "You are not a special snowflake"

People of the same gender can, on average, be expected to share certain tastes and traits (no no...not your mom, not your sister and certainly not you. I mean those other members of your gender).

That is why gender-based marketing works more often than it doesn't.

The fact that it works more of ten than it doesn't is why they keep doing it.

It's been empirically tested. It works. It's true.

 

[KaCee]

That is why gender-based marketing works more often than it doesn't.

Then by your reasoning, why have LotR, Spiderman, Star Wars, and the Matrix all been huge blockbusters when so-called "chick flicks" don't make anywhere the same amount of money?

Women comprise slightly more than half of the population and are in charge of more disposable income on average. That's why so much marketing is aimed at women; because women are more likely to do the shopping for a household, from everything from weekly groceries to Christmas gifts.

So if there are more women than men, and women spend more than men, why didn't Mona Lisa Smile beat RotK at the box office, or even come close? Why are so many of the allegedly male-centric movies the ones that make all of the money? It can't just be the action angle, because look how badly Charlie's Angel's 2 flopped, and that certainly had a "chick flick" aspect to it.

I agree with you that marketers perceive people in terms of delineating factors such as gender, age, race, and geography. They absolutely do. But that doesn't mean they are right...it just means that it's a hell of a lot easier to assume men think with their penises and women with their vaginas than it is to sell products using more honest and ethical tactics. That's why so many things are badly mismarketed. Look at Fight Club. That's a really cool movie that I had NO interest in seeing when it was marketed as a lame-o penis-flick. But then my brother-in-law made us watch it under the promise that it wasn't like its marketing, and boy, was he right. Stupid marketers went for the dick angle instead of promoting the story.

Look, maybe you are everything you are stereotyped to be. But I haven't met anyone yet who lives up to even half of their gender and racial stereotypes. Sure, I know women who are obsessed with shoes and shopping, but some of them hate babies and don't care how their butt looks in those pants. The point is, you can't take these multitudes of generalizations and use them to describe diverse groups. You can try and you'll be right once in awhile by chance, but I live in Las Vegas, and let me tell you about the perils of betting on chance...

 

[Wormwood]

Then by your reasoning, why have LotR, Spiderman, Star Wars, and the Matrix all been huge blockbusters when so-called "chick flicks" don't make anywhere the same amount of money?

Maybe because (IIRC), US movie audiences are primarily male (and young).

Don't know why that is (if, in fact, it is).

 

[Teflon Billy]

Then by your reasoning, why have LotR, Spiderman, Star Wars, and the Matrix all been huge blockbusters when so-called "chick flicks" don't make anywhere the same amount of money?

Because women will not turn out to their Gender-Marketed "event" movies in numbers comparable to men.

Unless you are actually saying that you believe women to be the majority of the audience for the films you listed?

Women comprise slightly more than half of the population and are in charge of more disposable income on average. That's why so much marketing is aimed at women; because women are more likely to do the shopping for a household, from everything from weekly groceries to Christmas gifts.

So if there are more women than men, and women spend more than men, why didn't Mona Lisa Smile beat RotK at the box office, or even come close?

Because women are more flexible about what they will go see? Men are less likely to see a "Chick Flick" than women are to see a "Men's Movie"?

Why are so many of the allegedly male-centric movies the ones that make all of the money?

Because women generallly consider movies to be less important than men?

Because Women generally consider moives to be "dates" while men consider them to be events unto themselves?

Because, again, women will not turn out to their Gender-Marketed "event" movies in numbers comparable to men.

I'm not really sure. I am sure what the crowds around me at the theatres during a "men's movie" look like. Mostly guys.

Look at the lineup of "Die Hards" waiting for event movies. What's the gender breakdown there? 50/50? Not where I live.

Men are more likely to be super enthusiastic about their Gender-Marketed "event" movies (like the Matrix, Star Wars Etc.) than women are about theirs (like The Hours, Charlies Angels etc.).

I'm not saying that there are no women present a the guy's movies; I'm saying they are in the minority.

Again, It can't just be the action angle, because look how badly Charlie's Angel's 2 flopped, and that certainly had a "chick flick" aspect to it.

It's not just the action angle; it's that it was marketed at Women, it was critically panned and it was--by all accounts--more in the mold of a men's movie than it's predecessor.

I liked it incidentally

Think of this a working definition of what I mean by "Chick Flick";

A film where...

• the story is told from the woman’s point of view, or...
• A woman is the clear lead protagonist, or...
• The story centers around women and women’s issues.

So The Hours counts. So does Charlies Angels. So does The Piano. So does Pretty Woman.

I agree with you that marketers perceive people in terms of delineating factors such as gender, age, race, and geography. They absolutely do. But that doesn't mean they are right

Except that they are right enough of the time that people keep using this as their model for not losing money.

Chick flicks get made becasue they are a smaller ecomonic model; Actresses get paid less, Chick flicks are less Special Effect-heavy, therefore they don't need to take as much at the box office to be considered a success.

...it just means that it's a hell of a lot easier to assume men think with their penises and women with their vaginas than it is to sell products using more honest and ethical tactics. That's why so many things are badly mismarketed. Look at Fight Club. That's a really cool movie that I had NO interest in seeing when it was marketed as a lame-o penis-flick. But then my brother-in-law made us watch it under the promise that it wasn't like its marketing, and boy, was he right. Stupid marketers went for the dick angle instead of promoting the story.

I must've missed those commericals. Dick angle?

Look, maybe you are everything you are stereotyped to be. But I haven't met anyone yet who lives up to even half of their gender and racial stereotypes.

No, nobody is everyting they are stereotyped to be, but you are suggesting that stereotypes are entirely baseless, and I'm saying that they are the way in which we are able to discuss large groups and predict behaviour. It works more than it fails.

When I say, for example, most of the audience for...pro wrestling... is male, your response (following th logic you've layed out here) should be something akin to...

"No it's not, because--given that women do most of the spending in the world, and the WWF is financially successful--this implies that the audience is not mostly men. Plus, women's tastes are entirely individual so the fact that the subject matter is designed to appeal to men means nothing."

It also fails to take into account that if you open your eyes and look around at a Pro wrestling event you are seeing mostly men...evidence I find compelling (if anecdotal)

Sure, I know women who are obsessed with shoes and shopping, but some of them hate babies and don't care how their butt looks in those pants.

But if you take a larger sample group than "women you know" fairly obvious patterns emerge. Christ, the examples you list above (Shoes, Shopping, Babies and Butt-Size) would appear on the list of "typical female concerns"...you obviously recognize them as such.

Why Shoudn't the rest of the world?

The point is, you can't take these multitudes of generalizations and use them to describe diverse groups. You can try and you'll be right once in awhile by chance...

By chance? Just sheer random luck?

I'll stick by my notion that you can predict the genral preferences of large groups and wait for my senses and experiences to tell me different.

 

[ASH]

I like to see, mostly, the same types of movies as the guys I know. I think that their a lot more girls willing to go see Too fast 2 furious, than their are guys that will go see The Hours.

I dont think that LotR is in either catagory, its an all around great movie. Much like any of the Indiana Jones movies, or any Bond movie. Action, with a healthy dose of romance/emotion is supposed to be aimed at the whole audience of men and women.

 

[Zander]

Speaking for myself I am a geeky/intellectural/literary woman and the fact that Eowyn is a strong female was not the main reason that I love these films.

Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.

Both that deviation from the book and the voluble reaction of some women watching it were objectionable. The former displeased me because political didacticism in entertainment is condescending and exploitative. The latter saddened me because the only act by a female character to generate cheers from women in any of the three LotR films was one that was manifestly masculine (aggression and violence have been shown by psychologists to be overwhelmingly male characteristics). Why is it that some (possibly even many) women find masculinity in a woman appealing? The notion that a woman has to be masculine not to be suppressed by men is not supported in the LotR films: Galadriel's character is both dominant and feminine.

 

[Elf Witch]

Though, most likely, that was the reason Eowyn performed the deed she did in the RotK and not a (male) hobbit as in the book. Certainly, in the cinema where I saw it, Eowyn's act and accompanying line elicited cheers from several women in the audience.

Both that deviation from the book and the voluble reaction of some women watching it were objectionable. The former displeased me because political didacticism in entertainment is condescending and exploitative. The latter saddened me because the only act by a female character to generate cheers from women in any of the three LotR films was one that was manifestly masculine (aggression and violence have been shown by psychologists to be overwhelmingly male characteristics). Why is it that some (possibly even many) women find masculinity in a woman appealing? The notion that a woman has to be masculine not to be suppressed by men is not supported in the LotR films: Galadriel's character is both dominant and feminine.

The reason I think Peter jackson gave the woman more to do than just be window dressing is that this is now the year 2003 woman go to war and die along side their male counterparts. We have gone to space and we have enter so called male professions in droves. This was not the case when Tolkein wrote LOTR by Peter Jackson doing this he gave woman characters to identify with. Who were the same sex as they were.

As for violence being a male trait well that may be but I don't see what Eoywn did as violence for violences sake she was willing to die for the people and the King she loves just like her brother was willing to do. I happen to think she was just as feminine and srtong as Galadriel. I think that was why woman were cheering I cheered for several reasons one is that the evil was defeated and Eoywn got to fulfill her dream of being heroic and having honor. I also clapped when Pippin found his courage.

When I play RPGs I always play a female and sometimes they are very strong woman who are also very feminine. I happen to personally love being a woman and I don't feel as if to be equal to a man I need to be masculine hey I can like shoes and babies and worry about my butt being to big as well as understand loyalty and courage and sacrifice. I can fantasize that I am strong sword weilding amazon and also fantasize that I made playmate of the year or Miss America.

All three woman Arwen, Eoywn, and Galadriel were strong beautiful and feminine woman who just happen to choose to do things to fulfill themselves differently.