flipp525 wrote:rolotomasi99 wrote:i have no desire to see any of these movies, but after making history with the best opening for a female director, they could not find another woman to direct the sequel? sexism alive and well in hollywood.
Not that there isn't a lot of sexism that still persists in Hollywood, but this statement is a bit reductive, no? Rolo, you tend to come to fairly absolute conclusions based one factor a lot. I'm sure there were other things that went into their decision to use another director and that it all wasn't as simple as "She's a WOMAN! Get rid of her and bring me a male!"
i am not sure if i read it on imdb or huffingtonpost or an entertainment based blog, but it was alluded to that the studio wanted the new film to be more action and special effects oriented.
the official story from the studio is catharine hardwicke's schedule conflicted with starting shooting immediately, but hardwicke has insisted she was ready and willing to do whatever it took to shoot the new film on the studio's schedule.
the schedule thing was apparently a cover up for the fact the director and studio did not get along -- they called her "difficult and irrational." it was also reported that the studio wanted to move the series away from being relationship based (female) and more toward action and suspense based (male). the studio apparently thought female directors cannot handle big special effects and action scenes. to be fair, other than mimi leder and kathryn bigelow (who have as many hits as misses) there are few examples of successful action films directed by women.
i just feel like if you keep women from having the opportunity to succeed or fail, then women directors will never grow. it seems the studios are stiffling women's ability to learn and break out from the box of romance films studios keep them in.