The number of female filmmakers working on Hollywood films was flat in 2024 despite buzzy releases like 'The Substance' and 'Babygirl,' study finds.

The number of female filmmakers working on Hollywood films was flat in 2024 despite buzzy releases like ‘The Substance’ and ‘Babygirl,’ study finds.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      87·
      4 days ago

      the concepts of DEI or equity based hiring are entirely absent from the post you are flaming. it’s just reporting the numbers and proposes no solution—it barely even implies judgement on the numbers themselves.

      you made up an entire narrative out of straw and are screaming and ranting that it was flammable. super embarrassing not gonna lie.

      • brutallyhonestcritic@lemmy.worldEnglish
        137·
        4 days ago

        flaming

        I’m just speaking my mind. The headline is clearly alluding to an inadequacy in the amount of women hired to direct major motion pictures and TV.

        Otherwise, why would it even be mentioned?

        Watching Wicked, I thought to myself “this looks like shit! Why is this the case?” Then, I looked up who shot it and looked at her other projects and saw that she was obviously chosen based on her gender. Nothing more. She was also inducted into the ASC after only 10 years of shooting low budget projects. Clearly, she isn’t being promoted based on her skill or experience level. It is ALL artificial. I’m tired of it. By all means, have Ellen Kuras shoot it or some other incredibly talented female DoP, but having Alice Brooks shoot it STINKS of gender nepotism.

        Whether you want to shoot the messenger or not, I’m speaking my mind.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
          49·
          4 days ago

          sounds like you just have a problem with Alice Brooks and that’s totally fine. i love Alice Brooks’ work and a lot of other people do too, so sorry but i am gonna cast judgement on you blaming “gender nepotism” instead of saying “eh i don’t prefer Alice Brooks” like a normal person

    • realcaseyrollinsOPEnglish
      54·
      4 days ago

      By all means, artificially inflate the number of women that work in an office or some other white collar job but studios should stay the fuck away from this kind of thing when it comes to the film industry.

      Why the film industry specifically? That doesn’t strike me as particularly consistent.

        • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
          54·
          4 days ago

          Many white men are just nepo babies with privileged background though… i never hear people shilling your points discuss this little fact.

          Entire argument is premised on the assumption that white man is naturally qualified and deserving of the role, while the undesirables are less qualified and only getting ahead due to their status.

          Incompetent white men fail up all the time, I never hear people fielding the talking points you made here get their panties bunched over it.

          And I am not even disagreeing with the core premises and I am not sure if you actually shilling in bad faith but these arguments are used in bad faith by some elements.

          Another example is admissions into elite schools… when black kid gets in, with lesser score these types are having meltdown over how “this n****r taking spots from deserving whites, rheee” but the same person never question legacy admissions.

            • spujb@lemmy.cafeEnglish
              21·
              4 days ago

              The healthy solution (that wouldn’t sacrifice the quality of the material) is to get more women into film at the entry level areas.

              Sounds like woke DEI to me /s

              But genuinely, I agree with this point, and you really should just open with it next time. Literally no one disagrees with you on this. Instead, though, you take us through this cleverly nauseating progression:

              1. The Numbers: You started by reacting to a basic observation about gender disparity with hostility toward DEI and “gender nepotism,” which comes off as less constructive criticism and more knee-jerk dismissal.
              2. The Denigration: You used these buzzwords to undermine the achievements of a lauded woman DoP, despite offering no evidence that her gender was the determining factor in her success (and, frankly, it looks like you have a personal grudge against her based on your profile).
              3. The Pivot: When challenged, you reframed the debate entirely, presenting yourself as a reasonable advocate for fair entry-level practices—something no one here was arguing against.

              If your actual concern is quality and fairness, why not just focus on dismantling systemic barriers and advocating for more equitable entry-level opportunities? Lead with solutions instead of buzzwords and thinly veiled hostility. That way, you might actually foster a productive conversation instead of alienating people who might otherwise agree with you.

            • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
              43·
              4 days ago

              That is unless you want to see objectively worse movies as long as they are helmed by women. Sounds like that’s exactly what you want, though.

              I don’t give a fuck what pedos are in hollywood are producing my man… i don’t respect these regime whores.

              You can’t encourage the film industry to force people that weren’t skilled enough for the biggest jobs to put those people in those jobs just because of their sex. That directly punishes the audience for wanting quality solely for the sake of PR.

              Capital owners decide who makes movies and they control what is put into these movies with a few exceptions. It is likely the most nepo baby industry in existence. So you have naive understanding how the industry works if you are larping “talent and skill” bullshit.

              You are essentially stating that because a bunch white dudes with connection get these jobs, it makes them the best. It is a circular argument. So you confirming to me that you are in fact shilling these tropes to support the regime narratives. Bad faith arguments with veneer of “meritocracy” to justify status quo.