Of course they should be allowed! A particular movie about a woman action hero might not be good, but that doesn't in any way mean women shouldn't be *allowed* to play action heroes.
I remember you from IMDB, your role was relegated to telling others who they should or shouldn’t talk to....that kind of “Bossy” attitude is very feminine and childish. I bet you can’t name me a single good action movie with a female lead.
Hollywood decides who is “allowed” to be cast in a certain role, you do realize that studios are investing hundreds of millions of dollars on these projects? If they feel that women aren’t profitable they have every right to stop casting them for these types of movies.
@DorianGay. Since you have claimed that you are for empowering women, you probably shouldn't use the word "allow" in your question, That made you sound like talking from an authoritarian point, questioning whether or not to give women permission to do something.
Being the lead female actor in an action movie is a “job” and if women can’t help the movie to make a “profit “ then they suck at their job and should be fired. Now I’m not saying ban them from these roles, but rather maybe relegate women to sidekick roles like Deadpool 2.
Yes. Being the lead female actor in an action movie is indeed a job and women can help the movie to make a profit. For example, Atomic Blonde grossed $100 million worldwide against it's production budget of $30 million.
"Anyone who suck at his/her job should be fired." applies to lead actor regardless of male or female, won't you agree? By following the same principle, you should also ask "Should men be allowed to play ‘Action Heroes’?" or maybe relegate them to sidekick roles like in wonder woman? I am elaborating this just to help you understand how ridiculous your last comment is.
Stallone, Arnold, Willis, Snipes, Cruise, Van Damme, Mel Gibson, Keanu Reeves, Matt Damon, Clint Eastwood....I could go on and on about male actors who have franchises tied to their names, actors who put butts in movie seats and generate actual money for the movie industry.
I can only count on one finger the number of successful female actresses (Milla Jovovich) that have helmed an action franchise and it’s mostly because she landed a dream role to one of the most popular video games of all time.
Long story short, it’s clear that audiences (both male and female) want male actors to be the poster children of their beloved franchises.
Halle Berry failed as Cat Woman, Charlize Theron now failed twice with Aeon Flux and Atomic Blonde, Jennifer Garner is about to fail again with Peppermint.
Why can’t these women ever get sequels to any of their action movies? It’s very simple, because audiences don’t want to see them in these roles.
When a film fails to make the profit like Catwoman or Aeon Flux, you can not put all the blame on the lead actor or actress. To me, the director should be more responsible for that. In that sense, it is fair to compare "John Wick" with "Atomic Blonde" since David Leitch is director of both:
John Wick (2014)
Lead actor: Keanu Reeves, Budget: $29.7 million, Box office: $88.8 million
Atomic Blonde (2017)
Lead actress: Charlize Theron, Budget: $30 million, Box office: $100 million
So, a similar budget but better box office, Atomic Blonde is clearly more successful than the first "John Wick" movie. BTW, it has also been confirmed that Atomic Blonde 2 is in development.
Yes, and i want to see Grace Jones as an almost invincible SEAL, SAS or Spetsnaz operative. Michael Ironside will make an appearance somewhere at some point with Eric Roberts.