MovieChat Forums > Eva Longoria Discussion > A White Male can direct a $200 million f...

A White Male can direct a $200 million flop and get another one. I can’t.

posted 2 years ago by [deleted]
61 replies | jump to latest

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/eva-longoria-calls-out-hollywood-male-directors-second-chances-1235622605/

As a female director, a first-time director and a Latina director, Longoria said she “felt the weight of my community” and “the weight of every female director” when production started on “Flamin’ Hot.” Speaking with Variety chief correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister, Longoria noted that Hollywood does not play fair when it comes to films directed by women flopping versus male directors. There can be no margin of error for a director like Longoria, as one flop could cost her another directorial gig, she says.

“We don’t get a lot of bites at the apple,” Longoria said about Latina directors. “My movie wasn’t low budget by any means — it wasn’t $100 million, but it wasn’t $2 million. When was the last Latina-directed studio film? It was like 20 years ago. We can’t get a movie every 20 years.”

Longoria continued, “The problem is if this movie fails, people go, ‘Oh Latino stories don’t work…female directors really don’t cut it.’ We don’t get a lot of at-bats. A white male can direct a $200 million film, fail and get another one. That’s the problem. I get one at-bat, one chance, work twice as hard, twice as fast, twice as cheap.”

“You really carry the generational traumas with you into the making of the film,” Longoria said. “For me, it fueled me. I was determined.”

[–] Redsfan001 (6158) 2 years ago

I've never seen a batter talk to the crowd before an at bat explaining that he deserves a second chance if he strikes out.

Not the best endorsement for this movie.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6398) 2 years ago

It's important to know the context. The talk was given at a "women in film" conference. She's not just saying that out of the blue. She's being specifically asked about what it's like.

[–] Redsfan001 (6158) 2 years ago

Fair point. But Hollywood is a business.

I wonder how the investors were sold on funding a rookie director telling the story of a Latino janitor who discovered a new flavor of Cheetos? Doesn't sound like a surefire hit to me.

I guess they hope for a crossover from the Desperate Housewives crowd, which is considerable and/or PepsiCo completely funded the project.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6398) 2 years ago

Let's hope because it was a really funny script, eh? :)

[–] leader (1994) 2 years ago

I get where she is coming from but if she wanted a surefire success, this Flamin movie was probably not the best choice. The premise does not seem that interesting and the trailer did not make it seem funny.

[–] sonans (1568) 2 years ago

Which director flop a 200m movie at first try and get another chance?

47 Ronin is a flop, the director never get another chance, and he is white man. I can't think of another director got 200m for his first movie and flop.

[–] Redsfan001 (6158) 2 years ago

I was trying to think of the same thing... white male directors have made flops before but they have had a track record and a few hits under their belt.

[–] sonans (1568) 2 years ago

The only person I can think of is 47 Ronin: First Time Director + 175M (not 200M) + White Man.

47 Ronin released in 2013, ten years ago! The director never get another chance. For Christ's Sake, even some big directors barely get another chance:

Gore Verbinski, he made Pirates Of The Caribbean trilogy! The trilogy make billions dollar! Then he flop The Lone Ranger, right now all he can do is low budget movie.

Andrew Stanton, he made Wall-E, Finding Nemo, they make billions dollar! Then he flop John Carter, right now all he can do are some tv shows.

[–] Redsfan001 (6158) 2 years ago

Kudos for thinking of even one example. If a studio is placing a bet on a big budget film, they usually want a experienced director.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

She makes it sound like it happens all the time. The truth is most White Male directors who flop with a $200 million budget had to work their way up to that and thus they have a storied history of directing films and can sometimes get a pass and more chances as they've likely had several hits prior.

One guy that does come to mind is Simon Kinberg. He got his directorial debut with Dark Phoenix (2019), the budget was $200 million and it flopped big time. He got a second chance with The 355 (2022) though he was working with a $70 million budget that time... it flopped too. I'd say his directing days are pretty much over. It's worth mentioning he wrote and co-produced both those films.

How did Kinberg get such a big film as his debut? Well he has a credentialled history of writing and producing, plus he had worked on several X-Men films before.

As a writer, bold indicates he was also a producer;
----------------------------------------------------
XXX: State of the Union (2005)
Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Jumper (2008)
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
This Means War (2012)
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
Fantastic Four (2015)
X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

As a producer, with no writing credits;
-----------------------------------------
Elysium (2013)
Let's Be Cops (2014)
Cinderella (2015)
Chappie (2015)
The Martian (2015)
Deadpool (2016)
Logan (2017)
Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Deadpool 2 (2018)
The New Mutants (2020)

[–] sonans (1568) 2 years ago

For Simon Kinberg's resume, yes, TECHNICALLY he is first time director, but he is so involve with X-Men series, and he produce and write so many hits. TECHNICALLY he is first time director, but in reality, I wouldn't count him as rookie.

The only example I can think of is 47 Ronin. The director never produce or write anything before.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14196) 2 years ago

'We don’t get a lot of at-bats.'

What is an 'at-bat'?

[–] davebuffalo (3497) 2 years ago

She's used to be married to baseball player Tony Parker. So there's that.

"At bat" is a baseball term. It's an attempt to make a hit.

[–] strntz (12460) 2 years ago

In the U.S., we get that term (and Latin America and Asia). I suspect DoctorThirteen is perhaps European.

If he used a football/soccer reference, I would get that I'm sure.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14196) 2 years ago

Thank you. Yes, I'm in the UK.

[–] DoctorThirteen (14196) 2 years ago

Thank you (not a common term in the UK).

[–] NorrinRad (5468) 2 years ago

[–] davebuffalo (2420) 8 hours ago
She's used to be married to baseball player Tony Parker. So there's that.

Basketball, Tony Parker is an Ex-Professional Basketball player for most prominently the San Antonio Spurs.

[–] davebuffalo (3497) 2 years ago

Crap you're right. I was thinking of Evan Longoria.. baseball.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 2 years ago

TONY PARKER PLAYED FOR THE SAN ANTONIO SPURS...NBA BASKETBALL.

[–] emori (3661) 2 years ago

It’s like if she knows her movie suck and will flop and searches for excuses why she wont be hired again.

She wants to have flop after flop and sill be hired.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

I think her math is way off, but I understand her point about being held to a different standard as a woman. When a male director flops, or a movie with an all-male lead cast flops, it's never about gender, its about the individual film or person/actors, which isn't true for all-female led or female directed films.

[–] strntz (12460) 2 years ago

What a lot of people like Longoria seem to miss is that Hollyweird is a business - if a director can bring in money to pay for the huge investment the studio makes, the studio is thrilled. They don't care if the director is female or any one of the other 1673 genders they say exist. If the studio invests millions and the movie bombs, the director and producer take the fall. If the director however had a prior history of making great and profitable films, they do get another at-bat.

It's like the NBA - the team owners may very well be racists, but they know what side their bread is buttered on, and pay for the best players who will make them money despite their color, religion, eating habits, etc.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 2 years ago

YOU SEEM TO MISS THAT AS A WOMAN AND A LATINA...SHE WILL GET LESS OFFERS IN FEWER GENRES...ESPECIALLY IF SHE FLOPS HER FIRST FILM.

[–] strntz (12460) 2 years ago

I didn't miss that. The point is simply that no one cares anymore if she's a Latina, a woman, a transvestite, or has terrible personal hygiene. Maybe 30 years ago perhaps but no longer. Production is what matters and nothing else. She will get less offers because her film bombed. If they gave her the job in the interests of "inclusivity" and not on the belief that she was the *best* director for the job, then they learned a lesson.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 2 years ago

IT ISN'T HER JOB SHE IS CONCERNED FOR...IT'S ALL THE OTHER WOMEN...AND LATINA WOMEN...ETC...WHO MIGHT NOT GET A SHOT IF SHE FAILS...LIKE IT OR NOT...PEOPLE LUMP PEOPLE INTO GROUPS.

[–] strntz (12460) 2 years ago

I seriously doubt her concern is for *other* women or Latinas - if anything, she's worried about failing and personally never getting another shot.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 2 years ago

I DON'T TROUBLE MYSELF WITH PEOPLE'S INTENTIONS OR CONCERNS AS MUCH AS THEIR WORDS AND ACTIONS.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

That's kind of contradictory. If team owners are racists, then they'll have a history of hiring only white players and leaving out POC for at least for a good chunk of basketball's history. This means that they can argue that white people simply have a prior history of demonstrating great basketball skills over POC and are therefore more profitable - when the history of exclusion is anything but simple.

Hollywood is the same - they do not treat women the same as men regardless of success and neither do fans. For example, studies show that female-led films do better than male-led ones. Yet male leads still make up the majority of leads in film (I think it's like 70-80%). And when a male director flops, or a film starring an all-male cast flops, no one brings up gender at all, the movie, cast, writer/s or director might be criticized, but no one mentions that they're male. Not true when it comes to female-led projects. And male directors, writers and actors are given passes all the time to make bad films even after multiple flops, whereas women are not, at least to the same extent.

[–] strntz (12460) 2 years ago

That's kind of contradictory. If team owners are racists, then they'll have a history of hiring only white players and leaving out POC for at least for a good chunk of basketball's history.

If you think it is contradictory, you missed the point. It doesn't matter if the owners are racist (they may be, I have no direct knowledge), but they *will* put performance first because they're also greedy capitalists, and if it means they have to hire people they don't personally like, then they will. The color money is more important than the color of skin.

And when a male director flops, or a film starring an all-male cast flops, no one brings up gender at all, the movie, cast, writer/s or director might be criticized, but no one mentions that they're male.

Exactly, and why should they? What has gender to do with it? Again, no one cares if a director is male, female, trans, short, smelly, balding, or has hair growing out of their ears. Performance matters.

The problem though is when a group of people fall back to the cheap and lazy method of explaining their failures as racism, homophobia, misogyny, etc.

If a male directs a bomb, one of two things happens. If they have currency in the trade, they'll get another chance. If they're first timers, they get their belongings boxed and they are dumped at the curb. Do you really think that there are no "one and done" male directors?

There are many successful women directors, some of whom directed films that were not successful, but their track records affords them another go.

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

they *will* put performance first because they're also greedy capitalists

Except they won't, and they haven't. Refer to my point about 80% leads being male, despite female leads performing better money-wise. So apparently the colour doesn't matter when it comes to personal bias after all.

No one cares if a director is male, female, trans, short, smelly, balding, or has hair growing out of their ears. Performance matters.

You don't even need to look at studies to know this isn't true. How many male actors have been the lead of flop after flop and continue to get hired to lead films? The few women this happens to are drop dead gorgeous aka at least good to look at, whereas the men don't even have to meet this basic standard. But for proof, look at Katherine Hardwicke. Directed a movie no one thought would make any money, turned it into a huge financial success, and every single Twilight film after the first was directed by a male director, who then reaped in the money, success and acclaim Hardwicke had guaranteed.

Also, surely you're on these board enough to know people care if a director is female or trans. Saying otherwise is playing pretend. No, people shouldn't care, but they clearly do.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Ava Duvernay directed the massively expensive flop "A Wrinkle in Time" in 2018 and hasn't directed a film since, just television.

Spielberg has had a series of massively expensive flops recently, but nobody's refusing to find HIS projects! Tim Burton has had many flops, more flops than hits over the last decade, but is still directing "Beetlejuice 2" now. Let's see, Gore Verbinski directed the massive flop "The Lone Ranger" in 2013 and got another chance with "A Cure for Wellness" in 2016, but hasn't directed a film since. So yes, it does seem at first glance that experienced white male directors get more "at bats" than first-time directors who are WOC, but to really prove her point someone would have to come up with an example of a white straight male director whose first film was a massive flop and who got more chances.

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

It's more than simply "experienced" white directors, it's directors who have actually shown the ability to direct a movie that made a lot of money. No director gets a 200mil budget without showing some combination of skill and ROI before that, but when they do, if they fail, they get kicked back down or go to "director jail" for a period. So, it's not white male directors get more at-bats, but white male directors who already have some hits on their resume get more at-bats. She left that part out. If they don't, they don't get another one, just like she wouldn't.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

I do suspect that white straight male directors have a better chance at actually becoming experienced and having a track record, but I'm not going to take the time to sit down and analyze every damn filmography on Earth.

Still, if someone could come up with *any* director whose first film was an expensive flop, but who went on to have a major career, that would tell us something.

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

It doesn't happen, b/c those directing their first feature don't get the chance to make an expensive flop. You have to show something prior to convince them to take a big money chance with you. Ryan Coogler got Creed b/c of Fruitvale Station, then he got Black Panther b/c of the success of Creed. None of it happened b/c of his gender/color. It happened b/c he climbed a ladder, proving himself at each level. You really think the powers that be care about your gender/color if they can make a ton of money with you? That's all that matters. If you have ever packed them in, they'll consider you again. It's that simple. If you haven't, of course they won't take the risk. Successful directors (from a box office perspective) are few. There are plenty of white males not getting their projects off the ground.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

A black director going from success to success doesn't prove your position, what would is a black, female, openly gay... someone who is absolutely not part of the Old Boys' Club, going from failure to success would! Because established directors are forgiven the occasional flop, and as of now all or almost all of the established directors are white men.

You know, it might be fun to look at directors who are the beneficiaries of nepotism, and see if they can get their projects funded after a flop...

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

And you're straying from the point, and avoiding the obvious, aka making money, return on investment. She said she can't afford to miss with a big budget, while men can -- but those men have made money in the past, they have a track record, even if they sometimes miss. And to the extent they've missed, they have more difficulty finding money the next time, or until they hit again. And forgiveness has nothing to do with it. It's a bet on somebody who has won before and might do it again. Risk/reward. She, like any other 1st feature director, hasn't won a thing. You think a man with the budget she got for his first feature isn't sweating in the same way? I'm a man, so I'll get my 200mil budget eventually anyway? Silly.

If Eva Longoria hits with her 1st feature, she'll be taking meetings all over town, people who denied her will be calling her, and calling her a genius, and she'll get more money to play with next time. If she fails, she won't, they won't. But that's no different from the plight of any 1st time director no matter their gender, color, whatever. Do you think if Flamin Hot rakes at the box office, makes 5x its production budget, the powers that be will say, "Oh wait. A Latina director made this? Forget it. We'd only support the idea of pursuing another hit with white male directors. More money for us isn't as important as our chauvinism.". The only thing that matters is if you draw. If you do, you get another. If you don't, they'll try someone else, like someone who has succeeded at some point. It's about money and risk. They can be misogynist, chauvinist, good old boys, racist, bigots, etc -- but they get behind winners who help them to make more money. That's why Will Smith and Jamie Foxx were oblivious to racism in Hollywood early in their careers. They made a ton of $ for powerful people quickly. Their ability to draw insulated them. You're fully embraced if you're making $, no matter what they really think of you beyond that particular ability.

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

Oh honey, don't try to make me keep to some "point", telling me what to do never ends well (for anyone but me)

Because what interests me here is how in any industry or organization there is always a circle or circles of power, and how some people have a much easier time entering those circles than others. Thst's what IMHO Longoria is talking about,

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

Darling, you know what she means. She's dropping context to make it seem that gender/color is what really drives budget decisions, instead of the most glaringly obvious aspect known as past box office success or failure, risk/reward. As if men decide to throw 200mil + P&A budgets on only other men, again and again, without care if they've ever displayed that rare ability to achieve box office success, to make money for them, b/c it's a just guy thing or some nonsense. As if tanking is shrugged off by financiers when you're a white male, but suddenly becomes important only when you're a woman. It's EVERYTHING when you lose that kinda money, regardless of gender.

I included what she left out:

A White Male can direct a $200 million flop and get another one (if he's had box office success prior to the flop -- but if he hasn't, he won't). I can’t (unless I too have had box office success prior to the flop, then I could as well).

Patty Jenkins got 120-150mil to make Wonder Woman with one feature under her belt, Monster, which worked, critical and commercial success (64mil on a 1.5mil budget). Then Wonder Woman was a huge hit, so she got to make Wonder Woman 1984 for 200mil. That's how it works. If another director (regardless of gender) had directed Wonder Woman, and it had flopped, they would never have gotten the chance to make Wonder Woman 1984 for 200mil. They'd be replaced, or they may not even make a 2nd. WW 1984 lost money, from Covid, if nothing else, but received much worse reviews than WW. But she'll get another big budget project at some point, b/c the money men will always look to the 820mil she made with WW, and that will inspire some more confidence in her ability than with another director (man or woman) who has never managed to direct a success on that level. She pulled it off. Track record. Receipts, not chromosomes. Box office rules.

"It's all about bucks, kid. The rest is conversation."

[–] Otter (24464) 2 years ago

A Spielberg can have 10 $200 million dollar flops, a Patty Jenkins can have one flop and she's back in Development Hell for another 10 years. That's how it works, that's how the Circles of Power stay white and male.

And you're defending them, as if they let you share in their power because you're white and male. Well, they don't, you're on the outside with the rest of us, but you still cling to the illusion that you're in with the big boys.

And that's all I have to say to you, you're tedious, unpleasant, and out of touch with reality.

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

And you're defending them, as if they let you share in their power because you're white and male. Well, they don't, you're on the outside with the rest of us, but you still cling to the illusion that you're in with the big boys.

Talk about out of touch with reality. I'm not "with" anyone, and you didn't answer to a single thing I said b/c you can't. It's you who needs a dose of reality, instead of pretending the "business" side of show business should be adjusted for anything other than what people demand. I don't give a rat's ass about who made a film as long as it's good, and they don't give a rat's ass about who stars or directs as long as they draw and make them money. How hard must you close your eyes to ignore such an obvious thing? You have men, women, and children generating content on YouTube/TikTok, podcasts, rising or falling based on how well they draw. No one cares who does it. If you accumulate viewers, likes, followers, etc, you're gold. Eva's ability to direct a film that finds an audience will dictate her future, not her gender, not her color. What she describes as the plight of the woman director sounds oddly similar to simply the plight of the director. It's a rough endeavor for all.

Now Spielberg, the guy who had a ridiculously high level of early success to which he's compared against more than to other directors. But why bet on him for that? When he's had this "series of massively expensive flops recently"? Show me them below, b/c I can't see what fits that description.

War of the Worlds 132mil budget - made 604mil
IJ and the Crystal Skull 185mil budget - made 790mil
Adventures of Tintin - 135mil budget - made 374mil
War Horse - 70mil budget - made 177mil
Lincoln - 65mil budget - made 275mil
Bridge of Spies - 40mil budget - made 165mil
The BFG - 140mil budget - made 195mil
The Post - 50mil budget - made 180mil
Ready Player One - 170mil budget - made 592mil
West Side Story - 100mil budget - made 76mil
Fabelmans - 40mil budget - made 45mil

And not one 200mil budget, EVER. But let's save those budgets for the likes of Eva Longoria, lol. Jenkins got 60mil more to make WW 1984 than SS got to make his last two films combined. So, unless you've redefined what "series" and "massively expensive flop" mean, your claim doesn't hold up. More like just two losers in a row, but 7 of his past 10 are at least in the black, if not major successes, and this is without mentioning his megahit heyday. So you think it's his gender that allows him to make more, rather than a track record of living in the black the overwhelming majority of the time?? And your other claim of 10 200mil flops without getting cut off much earlier is absurd on its face. Just more exaggeration, b/c you have no point except for the spooky, male "Circle of power" that somehow resulted in big budgets being thrown at Jenkins. It's almost like they didn't care that she's a woman, but only that she had been a commercial and critical success. It boils down to money? Nothing succeeds like success? Gee, what novel ideas. NOT! They check box office receipts, not what's under the hood. Butts in seats, Eva, then you'll be just fine. But if her content doesn't connect, what should the money men do?

[–] queefqueen (49) 2 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

"Latina"