solo@piefed.social to movies@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 days agoFilms more likely to star an actor called Chris or a talking animal than a woman over 60, study findswww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1252file-textcross-posted to: nottheonion@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up1252external-linkFilms more likely to star an actor called Chris or a talking animal than a woman over 60, study findswww.theguardian.comsolo@piefed.social to movies@piefed.socialEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square37fedilinkfile-textcross-posted to: nottheonion@sh.itjust.works
minus-squareagent_nycto@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·2 days agoSo 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.
minus-squareWindex007@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·2 days agoKinda inconsistent in how you’re making those comparisons. You’re saying 5->6 = 1% and 5->20 = 400%
minus-squareagent_nycto@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·2 days agoMaybe 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.
minus-squareWindex007@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·2 days agoIn 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.
minus-squareagent_nycto@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoEither way my point is that this article is misleading a bit
minus-squareWrufieotnak@feddit.orglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 day agoAnd to be extra pedantic, it should be 1/15 percent points, not percent. Percentage wise it would be 20/400% more.
So RustyEarthFire said the data was
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.