womenandhollywood-google-maps

The press release was sent out yesterday afternoon. Catherine Hardwicke, will not be directing the sequel to Twilight which Summit wants to have in the theatres by the end of next year or at the latest in early 2010. The release said that Hardwicke passed on the project due to "timing issues" because she wanted more prep time to work on the script which scribe Melissa Rosenberg turned in on opening weekend. Summit wants to film sooner rather than later.

Nikki Finke is reporting that Hardwicke was actually fired because she was "difficult" and "irrational." Geez, they just should have called her a bitch and been done with it.

Who knows what the real story is, probably somewhere in the middle, but this rubs me the wrong way. First, the film is opening all over the world and Hardwicke is currently in Europe promoting the film. Awkward.

Second, I can't help but think that a guy director who has brought in over $140 million on a budget of under $40 million would be treated differently. Hardwicke did everything she was supposed to do, that every director dreams of doing, directing a big box office success. (The film will probably turn out to be in the top 10 domestic grossers of the year.)

Everyone keeps saying the power job is the director and that having more women directors show box office prowess will open up the directing ranks. Guess not. Just goes to show that the gender issues are just much deeper than anyone is willing to discuss.

No Hardwicke for 'Twilight' sequel (Variety)

I find this very strange (as have several of the readers of the blog.)

When I got my favorite magazine (EW) in the mail this week I was so excited to see Meryl Streep on the cover declaring her the "Queen of Hollywood." We all know that she was always the queen in terms of content but now, at 59, she's a bona fide box office star. Check out my piece from earlier this week.

So now it had come to light that the Streep cover was only sent to subscribers and that Twilight was put on the cover for newsstands. I know that Twilight is a huge hit and I am thrilled, but it had been on the cover only weeks before. Why did it need to be on the cover again?

And isn't it just ironic that the whole story about Streep was how she has become commercially viable and then it turns out that she's not commercial enough for newsstands.

Some body please explain this to me (or as Rachel Maddow would say- somebody talk me down.)

Here are the different covers (from last week- this week features Jennifer Aniston who is not known for her box office prowess):

Last week while I was away it looks like Twilight blew away everyone's box office expectations. Summit (the studio) said they would be happy with $20 million, were hoping for $30 million, and would have been thrilled beyond belief for $40 million. But they all underestimated the anticipation and the opening weekend gross was $70 million.

That number is a serious blockbuster number. What makes it all the more interesting is that 75% of the opening weekend tickets were bought by women, so that means unequivocally that women can open movies. All the boy action films NEED women to attend to make their huge numbers, but it seems that on occasion, (especially with good marketing and a built in highly anticipated audience) women can make some serious box office news without the guys. And the audience was not only the under 25 girls. 45% of the tickets bought on opening weekend were by women over 25. Paul Dergarabedian who tracks box office trends said: "The box-office clout of the female audience is just astounding, and it's been an underserved audience for way too long. ... They have no trouble finding money for the things they're passionate about."

(I can't comment on the content because I was in a place with no movie theatres (GASP) and have not yet seen it. I know that many people are commenting on whether it is anti-feminist but I am only half way through the book so I will reserve my comments for later.)

Catherine Hardwicke became the woman with the highest opening weekend gross. (In case you were wondering who held the title until now- that would be Mimi Leder who helmed Deep Impact which grossed $41 million.) All of Hollywood should be beating on her door since she was able to make this film on a limited $39 million budget. Both stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson are signed on for the sequel which was greenlit on opening weekend (duh!) but Hardwicke has yet to secure her deal (she wants a bigger budget for the next film and I would guess a bigger paycheck for herself.)

Here's what Hardwicke had to say about how maybe her success could influence others, especially girls.

"I hope not just women but all minorities get enthused and encouraged by it. I look at the (Directors Guild of America) calendar, at the pictures of everyone that had different movies each month, and it's usually 22-29 different directors, and almost every month there's one female and maybe one minority," she said. "We've been having a lot of events, talking to a lot of fans, and so many kids of course are madly in love with Robert but tons of kids of every kind (and) girls are coming up to me and saying `I want to direct now, I'm writing a screenplay now, you're my inspiration.' I think it's great that people are getting excited." (AP)

But Hollywood moves so slowly and it looks like we might lose the momentum of 2008 (Sex and the City, Mamma Mia, Baby Mama, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2, Hannah Montana). Early 2009 looks like a vast wasteland for women's films. There will be the roll out of Last Chance Harvey in January and a Renee Zellweger romance with Harry Connick Jr., but aside from the Sarah Jessica Parker political piece Spinning Into Butter and the touching Amy Adams/Emily Blunt Sunshine Cleaning the early part of the year looks dismal. The first big highlight of 2009 will be the Meryl Streep/Amy Adams starrer Julie and Julia directed by Nora Ephron in May.

So here we go again. Instead of putting out movies for women with regularity we will continue to have to settle for bursts and then back to a trickle. We need more women's movies in the pipeline so that when we have successess we can build on them instead of having to continue to prove our box office clout every year.

`Twilight' is the new breed of chick flick (AP)

It's 10 days to the opening of Twilight and while Summit (the studio releasing the film) is trying to tamp down opening weekend expectations, it looks like its going to be a good weekend for the vampire romance. I think that it will do better than expected and hit at least $30 million (the budget for the film is only $37 million).

The mania is everywhere from canceled cast appearances because too many screaming girls showed up, to last summer's freak out among geek girls at Comic-con, to earning the cover on Entertainment Weekly.

The exciting thing is that is continues the trend of a great year for women at the box office, in so many ways. This film has women power all over it:
The novel is written by a woman: Stephenie Meyer
The screenplay is written by a woman: Melissa Rosenberg
The producer- Karen Rosenfelt is a woman
The director is a woman: Catherine Hardwicke
AND- the lead is a woman: Kristen Stewart

The numbers on Twilight skew heavily female and that's what makes studios nervous because studios believe that women can't be relied out to come out on opening weekend. But young women can and do. According to the MPAA data, in 2006 girls 12-24 paid $273 compared with their male counterparts $260 million. In 2007, that number reversed with young women buying $246 million compared with boys' $296 million. Even though the number of admission declined among young women in 2007, it still is higher than any other age group.

We all know that women of all ages helped open Sex and the City to huge numbers without pretty much any guys, and while this film skews younger and because of the sci-fi elements and action, I would think that guys could be convinced. But I could be wrong and when talking about the film to a 25 year old friend yesterday (who already has her ticket for opening weekend) she emphasized that it is all about the romance.

Also, when I did my panel two weeks ago at Women in Film all the women film bloggers were so excited to see the film and commented about how male film bloggers had not been interested in it at all. I can't believe we live in a world where guys still won't go see films about women even though they look cool and different. Pathetic. We all see movies with guys as leads without a moment of hesitation.

The film is doing well in advanced sales on Fandango with over 100 shows sold out as of last Friday. Some totally unscientific data from Fandango (2500 self selected, 96% women) shows us that people who responded see most of the big mainstream films like The Dark Knight and Indiana Jones, but 63% said they don't usually see a film on opening weekend.

But the thing about this film, like Sex and the City and Mamma Mia! is the built in fan base as Anne Thompson says in her recent piece in Variety.

Summit's main calling card is Meyer's phenomenal success among readers, with combined global sales among "Twilight's" four books at 17 million.

Since acquiring the film rights in turnaround from Paramount, Summit has carefully courted "Twilight's" core 13-24 femme crowd. In hiring director Catherine Hardwicke ("Thirteen") and scribe Melissa Rosenberg ("Step Up"), the studio is banking on two creatives who ostensibly know what young women want.

Vampire fare lures female viewers (Variety)
Twilight: Will the Movie Be a Hit? (EW)