In its first three days of release, New Moon made $142.8 million. In case you live under an economic rock, that's a fuck-ton of money. So much so that it's the third best opening ever. The only two movies with better debuts are comic book movies (The Dark Night and Spider-Man 3), while the movie that got knocked out of third place was about pirates (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest). Not only that, but these three other movies were released during the summer. Here's some movie trivia for you: big-budget blockbusters are usually released during the summer months because they have a better chance at making more money. By comparison, movies released during the slower months can top the weekend box office with about $15 million or less (for example, Sept 4-7, 2009; Feb 27-Mar 1, 2009; and Apr 4-6, 2008). Movies in the weekend box office pole position generally make in the $30-60 million range (don't quote me on that), so there's a significant difference.
Now I can't claim to know what the appeal of the movie is or why so many more women than men are appealed, but I'm going to try to theorize. I say that it's the "sex appeal" of the the two leading actors Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner. (Does anyone even know the name of the lead actress?) They have been gracing the covers of so many tween girl (and other) magazines for the past few months that it would be shocking if New Moon didn't make as much money as it did with so much easy publicity. Factor in the widespread critical panning of the movie, and you cannot honestly say people flocked to the movie because it was good. It was due to Pattinson's and Lautner's "hotness" (I put this in quotes because I'm still confused about their hotness ... I don't really think they're that hot. Twi-fan women....).
So my question here would be as follows: If we can essentially boil down the appeal of New Moon to the (demure) sex appeal of lead actors ("demure" because, well, is there even any nudity or sex in the movies??), then aren't women's sexualities more visually-based than normally thought-of (i.e., men and women aren't really that mentally-different sexually)? Can women really be this shallow?
Related articles that I didn't use:
- From Dracula to Edward: The changing face of vampires: Interesting article showing the gradual sexualization of the Vampire in pop culture
- The Oatmeal blog post: How Twilight Works: This guy actually read most of one of the Twilight books and maybe saw a movie or two
Unrelated, but here is (one of) my guilty pleasure(s) Australian singer Anthony Callea. He's done other things since this video, but I became a fan of him from this 2004 Australian Idol performance of his of "The Prayer." The single still holds the record the for the highest- and fastest-selling single in Australia.
That's a very sexist question. Why can't women be that shallow? Women are still affected by biological responses.
ReplyDeleteAs for New Moon, it provides that visual representation within a "romantic" plot line; both of which are typical elements present in a movie marketed towards women.
That guy is a good singer! How do you find these singers??
Of course it's a sexist question! But so are the cultural norms expecting men to be virile and women to be sexy. These cultural norms also overemphasize male sexuality while downplaying female sexuality, which based on a case study of the appeal of New Moon, it doesn't really seem to be the case. I think we agree with each other though because I'm not saying women aren't shallow, I'm saying I'm confused as to why women aren't viewed as being as shallow as men are perceived to be. Also, the differences of marketing toward one gender further suggest that men and women are different, which I think is silly.
ReplyDeleteI have ways of finding good singers....