This page is referenced by:

• 1 2017-06-29T07:12:13-07:00 Methodology 12 How does it work? plain 2017-07-20T22:37:26-07:00 The point of this site is to start a discussion around LGBTQ+ portrayal in both Hollywood and Independent cinema. This project doesn't only look at how many LGBTQ+ characters are in some of the highest grossing films released within the 2010's, but to also look at the kinds of representation. By looking at the amount of LGBTQ+ characters judgement can be made if the amount of LGBTQ+ characters accurately represents the LGBTQ+ community in the US. While cinema may be seen as an escape from our own reality it also reflects the societies we live in today. While the amount of representation may reflect the actual population of LGBTQ+ people, the kind of representation is just as important. LGBTQ+ characters are most commonly used as a punchline or a way of playing into audience's ideas and prejudices of the community. Whether it's homosexuality or non-binary traits and identifications, LGBTQ+ characters don't often get the spotlight. We don't usually get to watch them grow as characters with their own traits and ideas, but there are films that we do get to see this in. In the past 6 years representation of LGBTQ+ characters in both film and television has become more common, more accurate, and less homophobic. I, however, can't judge if the representation of certain characters is accurate or not because because my experience as a member of the LGBTQ+ community is going to be different from another member with a different identity and to speak on the behalf of those identities that I can't identify with doesn't seem fair. That's the discussion part. Using the data gathered and the case studies, members and allies will be able to have discussions about the different ways LGBTQ+ people are represented on the big screen. 
  
  Again, this project is split into two parts. Quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis. The way this site was built was by gathering data on 12 motion picture studios. These studios are split in half between independent and major studios. These studios are reported to be some of the highest grossing companies in the film industry. They are:
  Independent - A24, IFC Films, Magnolia Pictures, Open Road Films, The Weinstein Company, and Focus Feautures
  Major - Walt Disney Studios (referred to as Buena Vista in the data set), Universal Pictures, Warner Bros, 20th Century Fox, Lionsgate, and Paramount Pictures

  *Focus Features is a subdivision of Universal Pictures, but is recognized as an independent studio in this site due to its high distribution of independent films. 

  *The Weinstein Company (TWC) and Lionsgate Entertainment are both considered to be mini-major studios that distribute both major Hollywood and independent films, so data gathered for TWC is included in the indpendent data set due to its low amount of subsidiary releases by Dimension Films and Lionsgate Entertainment is included in the major studio data set due to it's high amount of subsidiary releases by Summit Entertainment and Lionsgate Films.

  
  All of the data included in the both data sets was gathered from Box Office Mojo; an IMDb company that gathers box office data on all films in IMDb. It's quite extensive.
  
  Films that case studies are being conducted on were chosen due to their critical reception and box office gross. A film's critical reception and film gross can vary and aren't always reflective of one another. For instance The Perks of Being a Wallflower (A24, 2016) which received 8/10 score on IMDb only grossed $17.8 million compared to Blair Witch (Lionsgate, 2016) which grossed over $20 million. This is due to the difference in how these films were theatrically released. Blair Witch was shown in over 3,000 theaters while The Perks of Being a Wallflower was only released in 125 theaters. Blair Witch had a much wider release than The Perks of Being a Wallflower most likely due the fact that it's a horror film and part of a trilogy, but The Perks of Being a Wallflower was far more positively received; Blair Witch receiving a 5/10 on IMDb.
  
  Additionally, films chosen for case studies must pass "The Vito Russo" test. Similar to the Bechdel test that determines whether a work of fiction features at least two female characters who speak to each other about something other than a man, The Vito Russo test asks whether a film features an LGBTQ+ character who would alter the plot significantly if removed and isn't defined by their gender or sexuality. This means that in order for a film to be worth including as a case study the film must either pass the Vito Russo or miserably fail it. The reason a film that fails substantially can be included is because cinema can learn from its mistakes when they're pointed out. These films should be discussed so the studio that released the films can be held accountable in order to support positive change. 
  
  In no way should a studio be bashed for its misrepresentation of the LGBTQ+ community. Nothing positive comes from saying "This studio is homphobic, so don't watch their movies," unless that studio is actually homophobic and in that case instead of trying to tarnish the studio's name, positive discussion around how this studio can change their methods to better represent the LGBTQ+ community is preferred. Cinema is still learning and adapting as our society does, so it's important we, as an audience, steer it in the right direction.