This was achieved using the Gemini tool
Aaaaaand we’re done here. I have no interest in make belief research
This study does not include the 63 year old Michelle Yeoh in Wicked: For Good, which made $56 million in British box offices in 2025 according to the source the study claims to be using. Compare this to the $6 million made in the UK by Alleluyah, which the study does include.
Trying to find more information about their methodology on their website:
The dataset comprises the top 100 films released in the UK in 2023, 2024, and 2025, based on British Box Office gross figures sourced from Box Office Mojo. Rankings were determined using in-year release totals, with re-released films excluded. Actor age was standardised as age at the time of each film’s release.
Lead cast members were identified using information scraped from the IMDb Full Cast & Crew page for each film. This was achieved using the AI tool Gemini and manually checked and updated by an internal team at Ageing Better. IMDb typically lists cast in an order that reflects the most complete on-screen credits, usually corresponding to end credits. However, this ordering may differ from poster billing, opening titles, or promotional materials, as some films present cast alphabetically, by order of appearance, or according to negotiated billing arrangements.
lol
I think the study simply fucked up. I found Yeoh in under five minutes of just checking the UK top 10, who knows how many other actresses Gemini overlooked that the “manual check” didn’t catch either.
If you open those links and scroll to the ‘Top Cast’ section, Michelle Yeoh is listed fourth on both pages just after Jeff Goldblum. I’ve got no dog in this fight - I’m just someone who’s seen both films - and I’ve gotta say that she did great in both of them.
You are totally right, she appears 4th in both films.
In the same time for Wicked (2024 film) Ariana Grande appears 2nd in imdb and is nominated for Best Supporting Actress, not leading role [wiki list].
For Wicked: for good, it looks like there were no nominations?
And same here, I don’t have a dog in this fight, for sure. I just really like looking up stuff.
To be fair there’s some good Chrises out there.
Out of curiosity, how many star men over 60?
Well I suppose the young actresses can’t be all to blame, but they could unionize and refuse work until 60+ year old women got work first.
But maybe funny web posts will get it done.
Or all the Chrises (and other men) could refuse work in solidarity, instead of treating this as women’s problem to solve.
Edit: I decided to make a funny web post about it!
England did fine without actresses for a very long time. They would probably just go back to the old ways.
“The study, authored by academics at the University of West London School of Film, Media and Design, found that female characters aged 65 years and over were more than three times less likely than men of the same age to be featured in British films over the last decade.”
I’m not sure but I think it’s probably even more male-skewed (and youth-skewed) in the US.
What about actors called Bruce? Or Pierce?
Check your chris privilege
I thought everybody hated Chris
how oddly specific thing to address.
And?
Filmmakers don’t owe anyone a career.
Just as we don’t owe filmmakers attendance to their movies.
Then again, I did just watch Helen Mirren in RED, and she was awesome.
I’ve also watched Maggie Smith and Judi Dench in something else - both also amazing actors. (I’ll watch almost anything with Judi in it, she’s that good).
I don’t think anyone implied that filmakers owe anyone a career.
Also, I don’t think anyone believes that filmakers do what they want in a vacuum.
And you watching these actors you mention, does not change any of the findings presented in this article.
Tell me you’re a cishet white guy without using those words. 🤌🏼 Take a minute and think about what you typed out.
Sorry, bud:
The time period also coincides with a period marked by the death or retirement of a number of popular female British actors, such as Maggie Smith, Joan Plowright and Glenda Jackson, as well as Judi Dench and Vanessa Redgrave.
Ok, but how much more is it actually a man over 60? Not asking because I would think it is the same, but that is like the most direct comparison you could make and nowhere in the article it is mentioned. They only reference another study for British films where men are three times more likely to appear than women.
So RustyEarthFire said the data was
Though the wording is mildly ambiguous, of the top 100 grossing films in the UK in 2023-2025:
- five starred a woman over 60
- six starred a Chris
- twenty featured a talking animal
So you’re only 1% more likely to have a Chris than a 60 year old woman, and 4 times as likely to have a talking animal.
So yeah while there’s definitely ageism and sexism and stuff in movies it just seems like… British people like talking animals.
Kinda inconsistent in how you’re making those comparisons.
You’re saying 5->6 = 1% and 5->20 = 400%
Maybe my math is off because I was tired or something, but since it was out of 100 movies, that means that each movie is worth 1%. So the difference between 5 movies and 6 movies is 1%.
And there was 20 animal movies, so that’s 4 times 5.
In one case you’re using subtraction to come to a conclusion (6-5 = 1) In another case you’re using division (20/5 = 4).
If you’re being internally consistent, you should have landed at “1% and 15%”, or “1.2x and 4x”.
The latter is the one that best describes what you’re aiming for, I think.
Either way my point is that this article is misleading a bit
And to be extra pedantic, it should be 1/15 percent points, not percent. Percentage wise it would be 20/400% more.
Dammit, Chris. You’re not helping.
So a woman over 60 is more likely to star than a Chris? Or a talking animal?
You could keep adding variables to make this claim about anything.
ie, “Films more likely to star a little person, or a black person, or a pie, than a women over 60.”
Even if this is a concern, what would you have us shlubs on Lemmy to do about it?
People want representation, and an aging actress whose career is directly affected has an interest in said representation. But I kind of disagree that art in general needs to be by, for, and inclusive of everyone. People will watch what they’re interested in, and studios want to make money. The intersection is what we see bankrolled. So support what you want to see more of. That’s about the best you can do.
So a woman over 60 is more likely to star than a Chris? Or a talking animal?
No. Though the wording is mildly ambiguous, of the top 100 grossing films in the UK in 2023-2025:
- five starred a woman over 60
- six starred a Chris
- twenty featured a talking animal
And like all concerns: think globally, act locally. Explore your inner biases. Consider whether there are movies with older women that you can support with your time, attention, and money. You aren’t responsible for changing the entire industry, but individual actions can easily have impact beyond their effort.
Or do make it something you want to actively fight for. Spread the word about the issue. Make calls; write letters. Encourage others to take action.
this isn’t a concern.
nobody cares about this. and they shouldn’t.
what this is is a manufactured study to generated click bait headlines. the entire thing is exploitative.
We need more revenge shooter movies staring 60 year old women instead of Liam Neeson
I’m in to this idea
