It’s Fine to Put Women in Movies, But Why Should They Have to Be in Reboots?

BAD BECAUSE NOT ENTIRELY ORIGINAL PREMISE (NOT BAD BECAUSE LADIES)

BAD BECAUSE NOT ENTIRELY ORIGINAL PREMISE (NOT BAD BECAUSE LADIES) Sony

It’s been 37 days since a Ghostbusters movie came out with ladies and my childhood still hasn’t recovered. And now I just heard that a heist movie was being made with all women. But not just a spy movie: a heist movie in a franchise that already exists. And not just one woman—lots of women.

I’m just confused and disappointed by Hollywood. It’s not that that I’m against women being in movies! Every movie needs one—or even two!—pretty ladies to kiss the handsome guys at the end and be tough and also pretty.

It’s just lazy the way that movie studios are shoving diversity down our throats with this endless stream of two movies ever. Why would they even want to cast movies with established, talented stars with comedic chemistry, awards and large fan bases? Women are different than men. If there’s too many of them together I get confused and I think it’s a lady movie. Just include one—maybe two, remember? A cast of men is the factory default, and then you can add an average of three boobs per film.

Okay, and sure! Ladies can have movies of their own if they want! But even if it’s an original script, original concept, new characters, and new angle, I can determine before I see the movie that it won’t be creative or interesting because it’s based something that already exists. Something that starred men.

You can’t just swap out the leads of a beloved franchise! Spider-Man is Toby Maguire, and he always will be to me, because after I saw Spider-Man 3 I promised myself that I would never see another Spider-Man movie. But that was an empty promise—there’s no way Hollywood would replace The Tobes less than ten years after his run ended. It was a performance like Heath Ledger’s as the Joker: we just don’t need any more movies being made with those iconic characters.

So, again, just to be clear: it’s not that I think women shouldn’t be in movies—it’s just that we should get our own. If women want to star in movies, it should be one of the many successful movies that Hollywood funds and promotes that isn’t a sequel, reboot, or adaptation.

I mean, check out the list of some of the adaptations, sequels, and reboots that came out already in 2016 (in order of box office gross):

  • Captain America: Civil War
  • The Jungle Book
  • Deadpool
  • Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
  • Suicide Squad
  • X-Man Apocalypse
  • Star Trek Beyond
  • Kung Fu Panda 3
  • Jason Bourne
  • The Legend of Tarzan
  • Ghostbusters
  • The Angry Birds Movie
  • Independence Day: Resurgence
  • The Conjuring 2
  • Ride Along 2
  • Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
  • The Purge: Election Year
  • Alice Through the Looking Glass
  • 10 Cloverfield Lane
  • The Divergent Series: Allegiant
  • Now You See Me 2
  • London Has Fallen
  • Ice Age: Collision Course
  • Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising
  • Barbershop: The Next Cut
  • Warcraft
  • Pete’s Dragon
  • Zoolander 2
  • God’s Not Dead 2
  • Ben-Hur

Notice anything strange? Yeah, look again.

  • Ghostbusters
  • Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

TWO movies. TWO. TWO entire movies adapted slightly from their original premises to cast more than one woman. Come on, Hollywood.

And so instead of recognizing that, from a financial position, adaptations and sequels are most solvent multi-million dollar gambles to make, I’m just going to blithely declare that if the single monolithic decision maker that is Hollywood wants to include women, they should just start making non-adaptations profitable!

Just dooooo it. Come oooooon. I don’t want to watch ladies do the same jobs I once saw men do! It confuses my brain.

And so, in conclusion, uuuuuugggggggh just come onnnnnnnnn.

It’s Fine to Put Women in Movies, But Why Should They Have to Be in Reboots?