Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Items (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Using technology to address gender bias in films - Google (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245497)

Kreigmstr 05-16-2017 12:01 PM

Using technology to address gender bias in films - Google
 

Using technology to address gender bias in films.

Quote:

Dubbed the Geena Davis Inclusion Quotient (GD-IQ), the tool not only can identify a character’s gender, but it knew to a fraction of a second how long each actor spoke, and were on-screen. “This was revolutionary,” says Davis. “No one’s been able to do that before with any accuracy.” And GD-IQ works fast; what once took months to measure can now be quantified in real time.
I haven't reviewed the all the studies linked in the article. But this is based off of reviewing 300 films from the past 3 years.

brandonjclark 05-16-2017 04:07 PM

I won't have a problem dying and leaving this place when the day comes if this current social trend continues.

rubbishfoo 05-16-2017 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonjclark (Post 2482852)
I won't have a problem dying and leaving this place when the day comes if this current social trend continues.

Amen to that.

BillyWilliamton 05-16-2017 05:16 PM

Another tool that will be used to give people what they didn't ask for and the people behind this will be scratching their heads as to why no one wanted what they thought was surely needed. A bunch of self righteous shit heads become self appointed authorities on what we all want and need because they say so. At least I knew what to expect when it was bible thumpers back in the day. Now it seems like a game where they just roll two dice and what each word on the die says is the next big thing that we have to argue about for how ever long it takes for everyone to grow tired of talking about it.

Paranoia 05-16-2017 05:20 PM

I'm sure 4chan will troll this technology with laughable results.

Terran 05-16-2017 07:21 PM

How can they possibly identify gender with a tool that captures your face and voice? After all, progtards have been busily drilling home their belief that gender is simply a social construct and a choice. How do they know whether these particular actors weren't actually identifying as female at the time they were in these roles, and then identifying as male after filming?

LOL. These morons don't even understand the pretzel logic required to maintain their own idiocy.

Male Chauvinist 05-16-2017 08:54 PM

Western civilization is doomed, we allowed gynocentrism to take over.

Robberbaron 05-17-2017 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonjclark (Post 2482852)
I won't have a problem dying and leaving this place when the day comes if this current social trend continues.

Amen who sits around and thinks shit like this up

Wolfgang 05-17-2017 06:26 AM

Are you telling me this bot will assume my gender?!! #Triggered!!!

PacerDawn 05-17-2017 07:04 AM

And the example they use in the header of that page to illustrate gender bias is a film ABOUT gender bias.

http://facepalm.motifake.com/image/d...1245384435.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Terran (Post 2482869)
How can they possibly identify gender with a tool that captures your face and voice? After all, progtards have been busily drilling home their belief that gender is simply a social construct and a choice.

I just wonder how they are going to represent all those different genders on the "gender spectrum" equally in film now? Sure, they will have equal amounts of men and women, but what about Androgynes or Pangenders? Eventually those will need to be represented in equal amounts as well, or otherwise BIAS!

Grast5150 05-17-2017 11:12 AM

Please explain to Gina Davis .... I DO NOT GIVE 1 SHIT ABOUT GENDER BIAS IN MOVIES..... Movies are supposed to entertain me and nothing else. If Gina Davis want more women in movies, she should start by being a better actress. Yes I did it and I liked it...I called her an actress versus and actor which is male.

vallor 05-17-2017 10:13 PM

Man, these people have never heard of the scientific method. Or bias, or peer review.

Their study used poor methodology and cherry picked findings in combination with very poor software to come up with something to ring a fire bell.

Once upon a time I worked in R&D where we created software which tried to analyze moving objects in successive frames of video so we could isolate just complete objects which moved. Harder than you think since you have to decide not just which pixels moved but what group of pixels constitute a unique object and which are another completely separate object; and we're not talking about big boxes around people's faces either. And generally only in the foreground in an automated process which we know nothing about outside of the fact it could define "typical male and female facial patterns and voices". Typical according to who? Ever watch the voice and see how surprised the judges are to find out the person singing was a boy or girl or black or white? And these are real people with trained ears. I don't have that much faith Google can do this, much less do it with no bias.

Another problem is by focusing only on the last 3 years worth of movies they're allowed to use blockbusters such as The Force Awakens and Rogue One to skew the figures showing how much greater the financial benefit is to casting women in the lead instead of men (about 15% more revenue). Instead I'd argue they made the money DESPITE their female lead and the change would be dramatically different without those two movies. Star Wars movies could have a piece of shit with corn in it as the lead and still draw a billion dollars.

In addition they are sugar coating movies by using language like: Hidden Figures becoming the top grossing Best Picture nominee. Which is a little white lie; La La Land has nearly double the worldwide box office with nearly $500m ($151m domestic) with Hidden Figures at $230m ($169m domestic). In addition Hidden Figures is an ensemble movie being "female led". We don't know how or if they categorized something like Civil War which is also an ensemble and had a fair amount of male and female character representation.

They are not naming which movies they choose though you can clearly see some of the more notables (Fantasy/SciFi w/domestic box office of Nearly 800 million. Wonder what movie THAT was). This makes it troublesome for anyone to duplicate their results. It's also questionable if the results can be repeated.

They don't count any animated character including CGI females, or masked characters such as anyone wearing a helmet of face mask (pilots, nurses, or doctors, and the like) who might be females which not only deletes humungous numbers of females but also negates any non-bipedial female such as Aliens in Sci-Fi or other movies such as the enormously successful "Finding Dory" and The Secret Life of Pets not to mention one of their own poster children: Brave and the mega, mega, mega (MEGA) that is Frozen. Even I know that fucking song... Let it go, let it go... AARRRGGG!

This is why, despite Rey being the "lead" of The Force Awakens she still shows up a paltry ~25% of the time, because they have to excuse all the masked/CGI female characters from the count. The computer is too stupid to pick them out.

Additionally they discount the impact a female might have on the crux of the story as a whole where one line could be the turning point. Who do people in the movies go to for advice? Female friends or their spouse. Chivalry and love triangles still put females front and center outside of rom-coms or dramas, sometimes in very strange dynamics (Hunger Games, anyone? Same with Divergent). Despite the fact they use ensemble movies they clearly didn't count the IMPACT of the role in the success of the film. For example Suicide Squad (certainly on the list thanks to its $325/$750m haul) was mostly male but Harley was on screen a lot of the time and I'd argue she was the standout making the movie far more enjoyable than it otherwise would have been. What was Jurassic World without Bryce Dallas' character? A less compelling world, that's for sure. And so on.

Finally, when all is said and done if you look at the top 100 movies virtually all of them are action movies of some kind which are difficult to find a watchable AND believable female in. There have been a few for sure. Elsa Pataky might, for example, but there are few who can actually carry a AAA action movie. Even Angelina couldn't quite pull it off with Tomb Raider.

Like it or not on mainstream audiences require females to have sex appeal or, if older, massive force of nature style charisma like Judi Dench and Helen Mirham as much as ability to act regardless of genre.

And, let's face it. Outside of the pure sausage fests like the Expendables or something most leading men have a leading woman. Even if the chicks in Hollywood don't think that role is substantial enough or good enough just about every movie has it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:08 PM.