"Are people seriously not writing enough scripts that can pass such a simple test?"

“I would argue that their success was in part because of the sad fact that such a movie that had good representation of women was such an anomaly that people who want to see more films of that nature went out to support the film, seeing it several times in the theater and bringing like-minded friends.”

When "such movies" are big hits it's because they're good movies, not because they happen to pass the Bechdel test. I could just as easily list some big hits that fail the test and then say, "Based on this list, we need to make more movies that fail the Bechdel test." Point is, if the results of this test are of…

I respect Geena Davis and am mostly okay with this essay. (Sidebar: Is "enculturating" a word now?) But I can think of many shows/movies where women are cast as doctors, lawyers, law enforcement agents, scientists, etc. There doesn't really seem to be a major shortage there.

Yes, that part of the story is indeed sad and tragic.

Because of the total disconnect between what this test measures versus why films get made and what makes a film good.

I'm all for self-reflection, trying to improve oneself, etc. But again, this test has nothing to do with "good vs bad." This test has no more to say about quality than an analysis of how many words in a script begin with the letter "q" for example. And I'm not sure that purposely making bad movies just so a few…

True, it is hard. But not implausible in the long run. I just disagree that there's a giant untapped market out there of people who are withholding entertainment dollars based on the factors described in this article.

Sure I do. My comments have been simplified somewhat for brevity because, frankly, I'm not interested in writing at length on this topic. Especially since a few others here have done a good job of fleshing out the argument already. The basic point I'm making is true. If there's a pile of cash to be made, someone…

I responded to your reference to context. The problem with this test is that it pulls a work of art out of the context in which it is meant to exist. And to answer your question, I will take a well-executed formulaic script over a poorly-executed unique one. It's all in the execution. The ideal is a film that is…

I don't dislike this response, but the fact is that if a screenwriter is already doing good work, they should not consider altering their creative path based on something like the Bechdel test, but rather should continue following their own instincts, which allowed the good work to be created in the first place. And…

But you said there IS a market. If so, the powers that be will want to make money from exploiting that market. It might not happen right away, because change takes time, but if the hard data you refer to is legit, then producers will ultimately adjust accordingly. If this does not occur, then there is no market.

Though porkcfish's choice of words was not the best, there is a kernel of truth there, in that this test and the mindset of those who value it occupy a space that is wholly isolated from the world where movies actually get made.

Hey, cool. If there's a market and the raw material (i.e. scripts) are available, the movies will get made. If not, they won't.

Despite your first sentence, everything you said thereafter pertains to how one might interpret an individual work of art. Notice how you used the words "a" and "it" to refer to the hypothetical works in question. So, yeah, art IS experienced/critiqued one piece at a time. Reevaluating a movie you've seen before…

Mike Rothschild is correct. The article admits that the test merely identifies trends in large groupings of movies, but that on a film-by-film basis, it does not indicate whether a film is good or bad. Therefore, the test is meaningless because art is experienced one movie/show/painting/song/book at a time. In other…

You win. There's a whole lot of "we need to do this" and "we need to fix that" in this article, but movie producers don't sit around talking about all this gender inequality stuff. Their motivation is to make money first, and if they can make great art in the process, that's a bonus. And while it's one thing to…

Just came across the following and it reminded me of our discussion from a few weeks ago. With the caveat that this matter is still under investigation, this is why Americans are wary of a single-payer, government-administered health care system:

Agree in part. I like the abridged solo in the single version. The extended solo is too much and loses purpose after the part where it ends on the single.

Yeah. And his thoughts on music in general are very nuanced and intelligent. Great stuff.