With just a little more insight this becomes kinda funny for other reasons. Cut throat island was considered one of the biggest flops in film and according to some sources only made about 1/10th its budget at the box office. It was also planned by critics it has rotten scores for audience and critics to this day- and is said to be still a reason that Hollywood is reluctant to do pirate movies- with Pirates of the Caribbean being A rare exception and itself an established point of nostalgia.
That said- despite the money or Pirates OC- except the first film all the installation have largely panned with critics, and haven’t done too swell on audience score either- with some installments doing better than others, but several being considered bad or passable to both critics and audiences.
Ripley was written as a man- as an interesting fact, and they changed her to a woman and changed some of the writing. But despite the success of the aliens franchises it wasn’t primarily Ripley who audiences liked- and when the films were new/newer Ripley was actually more often used as a joke than lauded as a character. In the first film she was a standard “female horror protagonist”- women psychologically evoke an idea of vulnerability with most men and are more relatable to women- horror is a leading genre with female audiences after all. The third and fourth films with her did poorly with audiences, critics, and earnings.
Arguably- many of these women don’t pass the test of strong female character let alone strong female protagonist- when you consider about 30% of our list aren’t even protagonists characters even if they are lead characters. Even where they ARE the protagonist in several cases the story really isn’t about them at all.
Trinity- she’s smart, she kicks butt. What does she want besides 1. The same thing as everyone else (survival of the human race/self)? Neo. That’s it. That’s her story. She shows up, she kicks butt and “holds her own” with and against the guys- but she’s only there for a live story for Neo. What do we know about her? She was in the matrix. She was a hacker, she likes Neo.... that’s as deep as she goes. She’s basically the same as every other secondary character except she has boobs and kicks butt- and is the arm candy and mguffin to the chosen one.
Éowen- also... asides Aragorn... what does she want? Who is she? She spends more time in the films pining after Aragorn than anything else and then fights a couple fights. That’s her role. It’s also worth noting that to this day people still mock and detest the one and only major thing she did in the films- “no MAN can...” yeah. So as long as she shows up to fight once in awhile and doesn’t really do anything she seems ok. How many people say she’s one of their favorites from the films? Show of hands? Lotta- Éowen Halloween costumes?
Tl:dr- These are 9 faces. Let me put that in perspective. I could show you 9 major and loved leading men from films and TV just from last year without breaking a sweat. I could give you 9 leading men in one movie- multiple times. “See? Here’s 9 ladies we like...” is kinda like if a company of 1,000 people tried to counter they were racist by showing that they had in fact hired at least 9 diverse people- and some of them they even gave jobs not in a warehouse or on clean up staff. They even let some work as assistants in the office! Well. That settles it then. 9 prominent female roles With questionable receptions and details? I guess we ended sexism and anyone left talking about it is just whining.
Let's just face it we don't want movies and TV shows where the lead is a woman when it used to be a man just because they want to make it appeal to woman.
Why can't we keep the remakes the same as before?
If you want more female leads MAKE NEW FEMALE LEADS!!!
NO ONE WANTS A FEMALE RAMBO!
I wouldn’t say “no one,” but while I can see forcing diversity could cause upset- much akin to pandering- it’s a sticky wicket. In 2018 less than 20% of films were “original works” or based on non fictional characters or events. That’s over 80% of films that are sequels, prequels, reboots, or based off existing franchises. 22% of that 80% give or take are sequels and prequels which leaves about 40% of films- almost half- as reboots or based on existing franchises and characters.
In demographic terms- people of color are almost half the US population. That means that if Hollywood doesn’t recast any of these reboots or based on existing franchise works- and even more ridiculous- recast based on true story films- then 50% of the population can only appear as leads in less than 20% of films. Unless Hollywood cuts off its own cash cow and reduces the number of works based on existing franchises- but between changing a detail that often isn’t plot centric or never making another James Bond movie because they can’t fill a quota for leads- which one seems like the better compromise for studios and viewers?
People often say: “just make new movies for those people...” Well- even if we remove rave from the equation that’s a major complaint with Hollywood in general. As said- less than 20% of bog release films are “original.” In fact- many times an original script gets taken and a franchise slapped on top. That’s how we got the Die Hard franchise- the first film was based (loosely) on a book- and later on they had a script and liked it but didn’t think it would draw people- so they rewrote it as a diehard film. That happens a lot in Hollywood. Adapt an existing original script and add franchise details and characters so it sells.
So we already don’t get many original movies regardless of race- making that solution not exactly realistic. But there is another race issue there- even IF we said “ok. Make 100% of those less than 20% of originals films POC...” that brings out “representation” total for Hollywood short of reality but closer. But- if the place for actors of color and “diversity” characters is in original works- and we cast them for these original works- that means white actors can only get leads in franchise films and sequels.
So now we’ve not fixed the bias against “diverse” actors and created a bias where “non diverse” actors effectively can’t play certain types of films. What’s more- it’s still racially bias because sequels and reboots and existing franchises are where the money is generally.
Terminator 2 got over 1,000% the budget of one. Blaire Witch 2 got about 10x the budget of one as well. Fresh off the bat- without glowing reviews- untested- a new hames Bond is going to get a massive paycheck, not for their name- for Bonds name. Daniel Craig was a theater actor who had been in some well reviewed films that weren’t exactly block busters. Bond launched him from being a niche actor to being a strong leading man- his big “action adventure” roles before that basically add up to... Tomb Raider. Unless one wants to count Munich as an action film. He looked the part and they figured he could act. He had an intensity they wanted for the reimagined Bond- something no previous Bond had- in order to tell a different story that’s the same story.
So I’m not ragging on you- I’m just saying I don’t know it’s so simple. Hollywood has been increasing sequels and reboots and franchises over the years- not decreasing. So they aren’t likely to stop on their own. Mandating all “original” Works be cast for “diversity” doesn’t seem right or even legal- and if we don’t do that and give a GENEROUS 50/50 split to casting new films- that makes less than 10% of films we can use as vehicles for “diverse” leads.
So I mean- asides basically saying “Go back to your corner and enjoy the fact you get ANY lead roles...” what better solution is there than to try and include some diversity where it doesn’t directly effect the plot negatively?
Clearly toxic attitudes from men towards strong women with well-developed character arcs
I personally loved the original PotC trilogy, but Elizabeth Swan had a pretty pointless story arc...
Why can't we keep the remakes the same as before?
If you want more female leads MAKE NEW FEMALE LEADS!!!
NO ONE WANTS A FEMALE RAMBO!