Are Male Movie-Goers Becoming Pickier?

[Flutterguy]

So a movie which focused on selling to growing market (female power fantasy) outsells a movie made for an easy paycheck.

"It's the new frontier," they say
"It's wide open, anything can happen"
But you've got a lot of nerve
To call yourself a pioneer
When you're too god-damn conservative
To take real chances.

Those lyrics seemed fitting somehow.

 

[Cruickshank]

I'd like to begin by saying this may actually be a good thing.

The conversation right now is "Lucy beat Hercules" and that this summer has seen a major uptick in female viewership, leading to women-focused movies becoming massive successes while male-centered ones, even while successful, falter compared to past performances. I read an article that, while broad in a lot of its suggestions (will get to that), posits that men are simply staying away from the movies this summer.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-gender-gap-why-721521

I'm looking back over some of the offerings and I'm wondering if the reason why, if true, has to do with certain types of films just not appealing to this demographic the way they did and that it's because men are starting to want more than just the standard action-explosion-guyfest. I'm also wondering because the overarching narrative is female-centered films are just more successful because it's been an untapped market, and while that may be a large part of it, I get the feeling that's not the whole picture. "Lucy" was polled as a 50/50 split along gender lines; though the article believes that "since females often call the shots in deciding which movie to go to with their husbands or boyfriends, many in Lucy's audience were couples" (which is unbelievably short-sighted, especially since the very next sentence says Hercules skewed 58% male), it could very well have been that Lucy, along with Maleficent's "this is the TRUE story" and "it looks JUST like the cartoon" hook and Divergent's and TFIOS's built-in fan-base had more to offer ALL viewers or at least is working off the "brands sell" trend. Meanwhile, male-centered or more broadly skewed films include the critically and viewer panned stuff like Robocop, the other Hercules, I,Frankenstein, Pompeii, Transcendence, and Sex Tape, as well as "hidden" movies that have interesting ideas but their trailers paint them as generic actioners such as 300 2, Noah, and Edge of Tomorrow. I get the feeling it all adds up to this trend that female-oriented films have more of an intrinsic hook or appeal based on plot or aesthetic while male-driven ones offer only rehashed ideas and repetitive themes.

My point and question: is part of the recent trend towards woman-favored movies because they have something to offer on a general, non-gender related level while men are starting to recognize and abandon the repetitive and empty cycle of stuff aimed at them, or am I completely off base here?

off topic i know, but I, Frankenstein was panned by critics and viewers? ill admit i never saw it in the cinema, but my partner and i rented the dvd and thought it was great (the origin story at the start being closer to the book than the boris karloff version helped on my part as well, that was a pleasant surprise)

i can see why robocop was panned though, it tried the whole mop on dante's head thing with the design of robocop being purposefully altered in the movie and basically flipped nostalgia the bird, bad move.

on topic though: this basically boils down to the more cerebral or emotional movies being preferred over action explodey movies, not really that surprising, they tend to be more engaging for an audience and if you are going to fork out $15 a ticket, hardly makes sense to watch anything else in the cinemas.

they really need to find out what movies get rented out at dvd rental places though, when its $2 a movie, they action explodey type of movie might just end up being preferred for a fun night in on the couch.

 

[happyninja42]

I get the feeling it all adds up to this trend that female-oriented films have more of an intrinsic hook or appeal based on plot or aesthetic while male-driven ones offer only rehashed ideas and repetitive themes.

Eh, I don't think the fact that it's a female oriented film gives it any more intrinsic quality over male focused movies. I mean, if you want female-oriented films, and rehashed ideas and repetitive themes, just look at the romantic-comedy industry. It's the same freaking story told over and over and over, and they're definitely marketed to women. So no, I don't feel that female-oriented films/stories have any inherent improved quality.

I think it's just a group of creators are deciding to shake things up a bit, and try something slightly different from the norm, and on top of the novelty in that regards, it's also a good story that appeals to the audience, without pandering or insulting one demographic or another.

I mean, look at Sucker Punch, that was a very female-oriented movie, with lots of women doing lots of things...and it was terrible. It's all about the story, the writer, the director, and the actors. If you have a good combination of those things, then it doesn't really matter what the story is, it will be good, or at least better than average.

My point and question: is part of the recent trend towards woman-favored movies because they have something to offer on a general, non-gender related level while men are starting to recognize and abandon the repetitive and empty cycle of stuff aimed at them, or am I completely off base here?

Eh, again, I don't think this is any gender specific trend. I think it's just that the viewing public, in general, is getting tired of the same crap, and are deciding to spend their hard earned money more frugally. I personally haven't seen a movie in the theaters in a loooooong time. Only rarely have I been to one, and it's usually a matinee, like 3 weeks after release. It's just too costly to see them more often than like, 1 movie every few months for me. And if the movie also happens to suck, well then I'm even less inclined to go. So if they're anything like me, they're just being more responsible with their money in general, and being more selective about what interests them, and what they're willing to spend their money on.

 

[Loop Stricken]

... while men are starting to recognize and abandon the repetitive and empty cycle of stuff aimed at them, or am I completely off base here?

As a man, I find that mildly offensive. I already ignore everything marketed to me. I'd rather see Lucy than Hercules because the plot sounds much more appealing - I couldn't particularly give two figs about who's acting in either film.

 

[vid87]

I get the feeling it all adds up to this trend that female-oriented films have more of an intrinsic hook or appeal based on plot or aesthetic while male-driven ones offer only rehashed ideas and repetitive themes.

Eh, I don't think the fact that it's a female oriented film gives it any more intrinsic quality over male focused movies. I mean, if you want female-oriented films, and rehashed ideas and repetitive themes, just look at the romantic-comedy industry. It's the same freaking story told over and over and over, and they're definitely marketed to women. So no, I don't feel that female-oriented films/stories have any inherent improved quality.

I think it's just a group of creators are deciding to shake things up a bit, and try something slightly different from the norm, and on top of the novelty in that regards, it's also a good story that appeals to the audience, without pandering or insulting one demographic or another.

I mean, look at Sucker Punch, that was a very female-oriented movie, with lots of women doing lots of things...and it was terrible. It's all about the story, the writer, the director, and the actors. If you have a good combination of those things, then it doesn't really matter what the story is, it will be good, or at least better than average.

True enough as far as bad stuff still aimed at women - Beautiful Creatures and Vampire Academy didn't get anywhere, presumably because of the aforementioned YA bubble being unsustainable for anything but the most visible franchise. As for Sucker Punch, if Moviebob is to be believed, that's another of the "hidden movies" - it's supposedly a criticism against chauvinism and blatantly kinky fanservice, but was marketed and ultimately perceived as the very thing it subtly condemned.

 

[vid87]

... while men are starting to recognize and abandon the repetitive and empty cycle of stuff aimed at them, or am I completely off base here?

As a man, I find that mildly offensive. I already ignore everything marketed to me. I'd rather see Lucy than Hercules because the plot sounds much more appealing - I couldn't particularly give two figs about who's acting in either film.

If you mean that my statement specifically included you when you already don't follow trends or patterns, I apologize. I meant it in terms of the generalized demographic and the pattern of certain films that were once popular with them but are now being ignored

 

[happyninja42]

I get the feeling it all adds up to this trend that female-oriented films have more of an intrinsic hook or appeal based on plot or aesthetic while male-driven ones offer only rehashed ideas and repetitive themes.

Eh, I don't think the fact that it's a female oriented film gives it any more intrinsic quality over male focused movies. I mean, if you want female-oriented films, and rehashed ideas and repetitive themes, just look at the romantic-comedy industry. It's the same freaking story told over and over and over, and they're definitely marketed to women. So no, I don't feel that female-oriented films/stories have any inherent improved quality.

I think it's just a group of creators are deciding to shake things up a bit, and try something slightly different from the norm, and on top of the novelty in that regards, it's also a good story that appeals to the audience, without pandering or insulting one demographic or another.

I mean, look at Sucker Punch, that was a very female-oriented movie, with lots of women doing lots of things...and it was terrible. It's all about the story, the writer, the director, and the actors. If you have a good combination of those things, then it doesn't really matter what the story is, it will be good, or at least better than average.

True enough as far as bad stuff still aimed at women - Beautiful Creatures and Vampire Academy didn't get anywhere, presumably because of the aforementioned YA bubble being unsustainable for anything but the most visible franchise. As for Sucker Punch, if Moviebob is to be believed, that's another of the "hidden movies" - it's supposedly a criticism against chauvinism and blatantly kinky fanservice, but was marketed and ultimately perceived as the very thing it subtly condemned.

My issue with that opinion that "all the men in Sucker Punch are a not so subtle insult to YOU the male movie goer, and what you obviously want out of a movie" theory, is this:

If that's the case, that all we care about is seeing hot chicks in skimpy clothing, doing whatever because it's hot and sexy....then why didn't Sucker Punch do better? Why are we calling it a piece of lame crap, isntead of "OHMGURD THIS MOVIE HAD BOOBIES AND WAS AWESOME!!" ??

I admit I wanted to see the movie because of the trailer, but it's not because they were scantily clad and being sexy. It's because, honestly, they used the song Crab Lousse by Lords of Acid in the trailer, and I f***ing LOVE that song. It's go so much power and intensity, always jazzes me up. And seeing giant robot samurai and dragons and zepplins, I'm like "What the hell is this movie about?? It looks like it will be surreal and maybe Matrix-y in concept. Might be cool!" I seriously didn't care if she was wearing a baby-doll dress or not, it was the mystery of what the movie was about that drew me in. Then they actually told me what it was about....and I was sorely dissapointed and bored. It was a bad story, told badly. Thus I didn't care. And you can put as many half naked, young 20's women in the movie as you want, I'm still not going to give a shit about your movie, or want to watch it because of that. Seriously, why pay 14 bucks to see some woman on screen, be partially naked, when I can see an entire internet's worth of them actually naked for free? You're hot chick in a movie isn't worth my money. Give me a good story, with good direction, and good actors, and I'll support your movie. Don't just assume that a pair tits and ass in a skimpy outfit's going to get me to give you my money, because it's not.

*ends rant* Sorry to go off-topic there for a bit, but that movie, and Movie Bob's opinion on what it means really pisses me off. I normally agree with Bob on most things about movies and stuff, but that one just really chaps my ass to no end.

 

[KissingSunlight]

To answer your question in the headline: No. Given that Transformers is the biggest hit this year. That movie features robots, cars, and dinosaurs.

Speaking for myself, couple of my favorite movies featured strong female characters. 300: Rise of the Empire (Eva Green & Lena Hedley kicking serious ass) and Tammy (The best female-centric movie in a real long time). The next 2 movies I planning on watching before Guardians of the Galaxy comes out is Lucy and Begin Again.

Honestly, speaking from a male point of view, it doesn't matter to me if the lead protagonist is a man or woman. That's regardless if we are talking about a movie, a videogame, or anything really. What matters to me is if it's any good or not. I don't think that's being picky. That is just wanting to enjoy yourself watching a movie or playing a videogame.