Comment on Women Directed Just 16% of 2024's Top 250 Grossing Movies
brutallyhonestcritic@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Yeah! Let’s double down on nepotism and not picking the best person for the job!
“I know he’s a famous, incredibly skilled, multiple Oscar winning auteur that produces nothing but box office hits, but does he HAVE A VAGINA?!?” /s
To go further, I find it suspicious that less than 50% of all directors aren’t transsexual.
Next year: “Even though only 2% of all filmmakers are transsexual, we really need to artificially inflate those numbers to 50%. The quality of their work be damned!”
Dunno about anyone else here but I’d rather just see good movies. I don’t give a flying fuck what the genitals or ethnicity of the people who make it are. I care about the QUALITY OF THE PROJECT. How many bad films and tv shows get made nowadays just because they decided to go with a female director despite lack of experience or passion for the project.
I hate that hiring choices aren’t being made considering skill. They are being made by skin color and gender.
I obviously want these minorities to have opportunities but I also don’t think it makes much sense in the art world where the product is a direct result of the talent of the director. 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.
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.
My thought hadn’t fully materialized to make much sense.
Here’s another stab at it: What I mean is, entry level jobs are fine. But even in the world of engineering, artificially making choices based on ethnicity or gender for the top tier job can have very real consequences. I’m all for giving minorities more opportunities but I think putting them in charge or in the main role solely because of their gender, sexuality, or ethnicity can be a recipe for disaster.
Minorities should obviously be considered with the same weight as white men but IMO that choice (especially at the top) should be made based on SKILL and qualifications. IMO, it’s fine to artificially inflate roles that aren’t the department head but department heads need to be decided on an OBJECTIVE BASIS.
spujb@lemmy.cafe 1 week 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.world 1 week ago
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.cafe 1 week ago
sounds like you just have a problem with Alice Brooks. 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