Diversity and Gender Representation in Movies

[Jessie]

5 hours ago, That One Guy said:

 

I mean, she’s completely right?

No, she's not lol. That's like saying White people's review of black panther is irrelevant. A critic of any colour or race should be able to review any movie. If she openly said "I don't need a 40 year old black dude to tell me what didn't work with him" on any movie ypu know Disney will have fired her in a heartbeat. And don't you dare bring up Armond White 😂

Edited December 5, 2018 by Jessie

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Jessie said:

no-one is stopping black people or females from becoming movie critics. there's isn't a racial or gender criteria stopping people being a movie critic. Brie's comment is pure nonsense and anyone who sticks up for her is quite frankly part of the racial discrimination

 

The film got 42% for Christ sake, it was universally underpraised. I'd understand if it was Black Panther and a long steak of white critics complaining that's it's too ghetto but singling out a guy doing his job and haven't a similar opinion to the rest is not a good look in the slightest

Except to actually have a decent paying job as a critic, you need an outlet to hire you.  That's where the racial and gender discrimination comes in.  

[Barnack]

8 hours ago, terrestrial said:

The comments show a way higher % negative in comparison to the dislike ratio. Like in some clip's threads it looks - at a fast glance - like 95% negative comments.

That make sense, people voting on video is a strange tiny minority (less than 5%) with an agenda usually on YouTube (why would you vote ? specially for something made by a giant corporation that do not need your help for the algos), people commenting is by now (particularly on toxic popular video) an even stranger bunch of people, completely unrepresentative of the mass, who by now want to ever engage in a comment section, specially one of those ?

 

Pretty much only the kind that leave negative comments on a movie like that.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Barnack

[rukaio101]

Speaking as a straight white movie critic myself, I find literally nothing wrong with what Brie Larson said. Mainstream film criticism has largely been presented through a white male lens for most of its existence and it's understandable if people want to see more diverse views and how certain movies/themes/etc are viewed from a different cultural viewpoint.

 

Brie never said 'No white males should be allowed to review AWIT'. She said 'I want to know how AWIT came off to the more diverse audiences it was created for and whether/how it appealed to them, more than I want to know some white dude's opinion.' Which is fair enough. I may have my opinions on these movies and will happily write about them, but I'm not going to pretend I magically have more of an insight into stuff like BlacKkKlansman or The Hate U Give than actual black people. I can only talk about what said movies meant to me. Which is always going to be inherently limited by my own experiences, of which my race and gender contributed to.

 

The fact is, different cultures, races and sexualities create different viewpoints and different ways of looking at movies. What may seem normal for some people may have a myriad of important meanings for others who've lived different lives. And it's interesting to learn how different movies appear in the lens of those different cultures, as opposed to simply sticking to the 'default' straight white male approach that has dominated most of popular film criticism.

Edited December 5, 2018 by rukaio101

[ChipDerby]

3 hours ago, terrestrial said:

then why write this?

For now we do not even know the dislike % w/o the 'man babies'.

Or the % that announced to go to dislike the clip as it is not the Avengers 4 clip (some here at BOT stated to have seen an increasingly number of social media users to - openly telling about that - do that)

Or....

 

Beside that: I do not agree about the general %-ratio's interpretation anyway, I do not judge it like great or not in general, but even less if bias or niche audience or... seems to be involved.

It depends on e.g. what is the movie even about - like bio, drama focused on varying themes all differ again, crime, Sci-Fi, CBMs that seem to get out a lot of DC vs Marvel vs Wizard fans vs.... whatever franchise fan feels the need to come out of to 'defend' their fandom and so on.

 

Some ppl only click dislike if a clip got suggested and they are not interested in the suggestion

RL and probably neutral to this theme here example: if you look a lot of DIY clips and lean to wood work clips and dislike metal work clips = I read a lot about ppl handling the suggestion at especial YT in that way.

 

So how many did that bcs they are simply not interested in another CBM (maybe only for the moment for certain reasons like Aquaman coming out, Avengers 4 demanding users start to annoy or its in the POV of some too much CBM for the moment) or ... as an example? Or do not want to get spoiled about certain movies only? Or...

 

= An around 5% dislike (or even 10%+) for a female lead CBM movie is fine by me

 

 

 

 

Because you can't simply discount it.

 

And again, a 20-1 ratio is not great. It's fine at best. A CBM should be shooting for something closer to 30-1 or better. If this trailer's ratio gets better over time, then that will lend more evidence that it was "sabotaged" at the beginning.

[ChipDerby]

2 hours ago, Jessie said:

no-one is stopping black people or females from becoming movie critics. there's isn't a racial or gender criteria stopping people being a movie critic. Brie's comment is pure nonsense and anyone who sticks up for her is quite frankly part of the racial discrimination

 

The film got 42% for Christ sake, it was universally underpraised. I'd understand if it was Black Panther and a long steak of white critics complaining that's it's too ghetto but singling out a guy doing his job and haven't a similar opinion to the rest is not a good look in the slightest

 

This is a very ignorant take.

 

Sure, anyone can be a movie critic. Nobody is saying that. But why are the VAST majority of "reputable" critics male, and white? Do you ever wonder that? It's because they get more opportunities for advancement and promotion. The tide is slowly, slowly, slowly shifting to more diverse critics getting more opportunities. But we're a long way off of that, because people hate change unless you force it.

[Barnack]

27 minutes ago, PANDA said:

Except to actually have a decent paying job as a critic, you need an outlet to hire you.  That's where the racial and gender discrimination comes in.  

 

I would think the Jeremy Jahns and Stuckman make good money from youtube nowaday.

 

With over 500m views on one and above 350m views for the others, if they pay just 1 cent by monetized view (money from the views, ads click and product placement) they made millions. The doors is now fully open for reviewer with showmanship to make a living without ever being hired I imagine (for better and worst, not being paid by an powerful outlet that do not care about the movie industry much is very important for independent critics that do not need to liked by fans and the movie industry)

 

Has for the comments Larson made it is quite common and something that make a lot of sense to me, a bit like saying it would be nice to have an RT score from Horror critics for an horror movie for horror fans to look at or what kids themselves thought of the movie for a movie targeting them being a common thought and something critic if they saw the kids movie in a crowd with kids often mentioning if they seamed to enjoy it or not.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Barnack

[ChipDerby]

9 minutes ago, Barnack said:

That make sense, people voting on video is a strange tiny minority (less than 5%) with an agenda usually on YouTube (why would you vote ? specially for something made by a giant corporation that do not need your help for the algos), people commenting is by now (particularly on toxic popular video) a very stranger bunch of people, completely unrepresentative of the mass, who by now want to ever engage in a comment section, specially one of those ?

 

Pretty much only the kind that leave negative comments on a movie like that.

 

Yeah comments have almost no bearing on audience reaction. I'd prefer if comments on videos like that are turned off. They get toxic.

[ChipDerby]

Just now, Barnack said:

 

I would think the Jeremy Jahns and Stuckman make good money from youtube nowaday.

 

With over 500m views on one and above 350m views for the others, if they pay just 1 cent by monetized view (money from the views, ads click and product placement) they made millions.

 

A lot of "content creators" are slimming down their time on youtube because of a change in how they get paid. I have no idea of the details, but unless you have millions of subscribers, I doubt youtube is a viable way of life for a lot of people.

[terrestrial]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

That make sense, people voting on video is a strange tiny minority (less than 5%) with an agenda usually on YouTube (why would you vote ? specially for something made by a giant corporation that do not need your help for the algos), people commenting is by now (particularly on toxic popular video) a very stranger bunch of people, completely unrepresentative of the mass, who by now want to ever engage in a comment section, specially one of those ?

 

Pretty much only the kind that leave negative comments on a movie like that.

Yes, totally agree

But that seems to count mostly for certain channels at YT.

Like the seemingly unmoderated big channels (in this case Marvel*s channel) and channels that seems to be run by ppl that too seem to tend to be typical a bit negative (e.g. about minorities, but also click-bait channels, ... channels out of another fandom maybe too...)

 

Only counting for these strange reaction clips (its funny, but I am really wondering why ppl do that)

The comments under clips created by females, families, groups of friends, couples, PoC,..... I have tried out to check up on that had mostly positive comments. And reactions btw. Including several 3-PoC-men teams.

= if the reaction clip was positive, there were a LOT of positive comments. If the reactions was ~ 'I am not sure', the comments were a bit more mixed (those clips were only a few).

If the reaction was negative ( but seemingly still done by non-hate-spewing YT-ers) , the comments were way more negative, but still more positive than in the big channels to see.

I picked out nearly all out of the YT-suggestion column for a some hours (I couldn't sleep anyway)

 

For the moment it looks to me like it is especially a problem with the (to big for that) unmoderated channels, the GA seems to avoid those. What sounds to me like a healthy decision.

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

A lot of "content creators" are slimming down their time on youtube because of a change in how they get paid. I have no idea of the details, but unless you have millions of subscribers, I doubt youtube is a viable way of life for a lot of people.

Sadly that must be getting true for getting hire by a powerful newspapers/magazine/radio station that pay a movie critics a good living also old ways, a lot of them must be freelancers never hired not making more than the popular youtuber/podcaster

[terrestrial]

1 hour ago, Jessie said:

No, she's not lol. That's like saying White people's review of black panther is irrelevant. A critic of any colour or race should be able to review any movie. If she openly said "I don't need a 40 year old black dude to tell me what didn't work with him" on any movie ypu know Disney will have fired her in a heartbeat. And don't you dare bring up Armond White 😂

Re-read her comment again without assuming to have understand her intentions. Add the details others had added here and elsewhere already (what the complete theme was even about, it was not only that short summary). And than TRY at least to see that she spoke about it in a way that - to me obviously - means something else.

[Jessie]

15 minutes ago, PANDA said:

Except to actually have a decent paying job as a critic, you need an outlet to hire you.  That's where the racial and gender discrimination comes in.  

Come on mate that's delusional. I see plenty of female critics. 

[terrestrial]

I remembered to have read something about the pro's problems today

 

Quote

 Scott Mendelson Retweeted

Casey Newton‏Verified account @CaseyNewton Dec 4

More

Casey Newton Retweeted Sara Fischer

EDITOR: Why is no one reading your story that you worked on for months ME:

Casey Newton added,

Sara FischerVerified account @sarafischer

Quality digital content can't break through sea of online garbage https://www.axios.com/digital-content-media-market-internet-advertising-d92f7415-33f9-479e-a803-3e5493665b28.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic …

26 replies .415 retweets2,854 likes

Reply

 26

 

Retweet

 415

 

 

Like

 2.9K

 

[terrestrial]

3 minutes ago, Jessie said:

Come on mate that's delusional. I see plenty of female critics. 

Arrgghhh, full-paid (enough to live by it) critics at outlets that actually hire = not freelancer (btw, also not getting possibilities according to equality by far)

Plus still getting paid less for the same work than the males blablabla

 

Have a lot of fun finding enough of them that the equality discussion can be closed (same counts for minorities,...)

[terrestrial]

33 minutes ago, ChipMunky said:

 

Because you can't simply discount it.

 

And again, a 20-1 ratio is not great. It's fine at best. A CBM should be shooting for something closer to 30-1 or better. If this trailer's ratio gets better over time, then that will lend more evidence that it was "sabotaged" at the beginning.

Disagree.

Its not about sabotaging it, its about a lot of males not even realising why they do not like certain details.

 

Also still disagree to the ratios interpretation/judgement, lets say e.g. a trailer view is 5 times bigger than another's ones, but has 10% dislikes instead of 3% of the other one. And? It still might make 4-times more than the other movie. Or more. Or less.

 

Plus:

it also might depend on the audience gender split, age split, colour,.... not all the usual CBM audience uses in especial YT in the same way, with the same amount of time and so on.

 

Way too much out of contest, too focused on one detail in my POV

 

When I see 1 detail being outside of average, I will look into it. Together with tons of other details, including the weather, political unrest, other big events/problems, the move's WOM and the reasons for it. Per country/translation.

After the final numbers are in (means way after the release started) 😉

[ChipDerby]

20 minutes ago, Jessie said:

Come on mate that's delusional. I see plenty of female critics. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/11/film-critics-white-and-male-study-rotten-tomatoes

 

"delusional"

[Barnack]

48 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

Arrgghhh, full-paid (enough to live by it) critics at outlets that actually hire = not freelancer (btw, also not getting possibilities according to equality by far)

How much of it is the size of the talent pool too ?

 

Public movie discourse can be quite toxic, I imagine newcomer would always be required to have an online presence and being a woman online even at a very low level seem to be quite an ordeal.

 

Would not surprise me, if there is more male applicant for the jobs than female one.

 

If we look at platform with no one hiring/no gatekeeper platform (home made podcast/youtube) movie critics scene will we see a near 50/50 representation among woman and men there between gender showing that the difference at the outlet level is mostly due to sexism by them ?

 

Different output does not imply huge sexism at the gatekeeper level, there is no judging or any subjectivity in chess and a lot of online gaming is anonymous, 98-99% of the top 100 players are male the gap being big enough to have woman only chess tournament, difference in interest, ability desire to completely give away your best years into something useless like movies (or chess) can differ between gender, either for natural reason or sexism/heteronormative force that occur before the hiring session/gatekeeper level that can sometime explain most of the gap we see.

 

Edited December 5, 2018 by Barnack

[ChipDerby]

7 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

Disagree.

Its not about sabotaging it, its about a lot of males not even realising why they do not like certain details.

 

Also still disagree to the ratios interpretation/judgement, lets say e.g. a trailer view is 5 times bigger than another's ones, but has 10% dislikes instead of 3% of the other one. And? It still might make 4-times more than the other movie. Or more. Or less.

 

Plus:

it also might depend on the audience gender split, age split, colour,.... not all the usual CBM audience uses in especial YT in the same way, with the same amount of time and so on.

 

Way too much out of contest, too focused on one detail in my POV

 

When I see 1 detail being outside of average, I will look into it. Together with tons of other details, including the weather, political unrest, other big events/problems, the move's WOM and the reasons for it. Per country/translation.

After the final numbers are in (means way after the release started) 😉

 

Obviously view counts trumps the ratio. Nobody said otherwise. But a bad ratio can very clearly hint us towards a less than expected opening weekend/audience reception. It doesn't matter what the audience split is, from videos I've tracked. It's a numbers game. I would be far more confident in Captain Marvel "breaking out" if the like/dislike ratio was above 30-1. Right now, it's getting average reception using my metrics.

[ChipDerby]

6 minutes ago, Barnack said:

How much of it is the size of the talent pool too ?

 

Public movie discourse can be quite toxic, I imagine newcomer would always be required to have an online presence and being a woman online even at a very low level seem to be quite an ordeal.

 

Would not surprise me, if there is more male applicant for the jobs than female one.

 

If we look at platform with no one hiring/no gatekeeper platform (home made podcast/youtube) movie critics scene will we see a near 50/50 representation among woman and men there between gender showing that the difference at the outlet level is mostly due to sexism by them ?

 

Different output does not imply huge sexism at the gatekeeper level, there is no judging or any subjectivity in chess and a lot of online gaming is anonymous, 98-99% of the top 100 players are male the cap being big enough to have woman only chess tournament, difference in interest, ability desire to completely give away your best years into something useless like movies (or chess) can differ between gender, either for natural reason or sexism/heteronormative force that occur before the hiring session/gatekeeper level that can sometime explain most of the gap we see.

 

 

This is all due to inherent sexism. I've talked about this regarding the gender wage gap.

 

Women have "women jobs" and men have "men jobs". We, as a society, value "men jobs" as worth more than "women jobs". This drives more and more men to those positions, and women are discouraged from doing so.

 

THAT is why "talent pools" are different. There are just as much women as there are men, so every job, in theory, should be a 50/50 split if everything was fair. It's not. Because we think there are gender norms.

 

Movie criticism has always been white, male dominated. So women/minorities didn't see the need to get into that field. But newspapers/sites need to be active in trying to diversify their staff. Because now EVERYONE is starting to read reviews. Everyone is seeing every type of movie. You have to diversify, or you will not survive.