For decades, the silver screen has been accused of sidelining women — sometimes with caricature roles, sometimes by erasing them entirely. But while conversations often focus on actors or directors, the real power lies higher up: production houses. These gatekeepers decide which scripts to fund, which crews to hire, and which stories ever reach audiences.
By combining Bechdel Test results with budgets, box office, awards, and crew gender ratios, I wanted to uncover one central mystery: do studios that back inclusive films actually gain recognition, money, and prestige — or does Hollywood still punish them for doing the right thing?
Hollywood loves to congratulate itself. From red-carpet speeches about diversity to glossy “inclusion campaigns,” the industry performs progress loudly. But the numbers don’t applaud quite as hard. The proportion of films passing the Bechdel Test has steadily risen since the 1970s. Audiences demand better, and some filmmakers have answered. Yet the Academy Awards — Hollywood’s self-proclaimed measure of greatness — barely reflect this. Even in the 2000s and 2010s, when inclusivity visibly climbed, Oscar-nominated films remained disproportionately non-inclusive.
The chart shows inclusivity on screen has risen steadily. But recognition hasn’t followed. The Academy continues to favor films that often fail the Bechdel Test, a gap that exposes its blind spot.
The Gatekeepers Nobody Sees
Studios operate like kingdoms within Hollywood. They control distribution, budgets, and global reach. Yet when we look at which studios back films that consistently pass the Bechdel Test, it’s not always the giants leading the way.
Smaller studios and independents — often dismissed as “niche” — appear among the most consistent champions of inclusivity. Meanwhile, several of the household-name giants repeatedly churn out blockbusters that fail even this modest benchmark.
In the treemap, you see smaller independent studios glowing green at the top — their films pass the Bechdel Test far more often than juggernauts like Paramount or Warner Bros. It’s a reminder that money doesn’t always equal progress.
But Do the Oscars Care?
Hollywood insists that awards measure excellence, but this claim collapses under scrutiny. If inclusivity were seen as artistic value, then studios producing Bechdel-passing films should reap recognition. Instead, the opposite often happens.
Studios can win Oscars even when their films rarely pass the Bechdel Test. Meanwhile, studios that consistently support women often don’t see the golden statue. The disconnect is stark.
The Money Myth
For decades, executives have repeated a tired claim: “diverse films don’t sell.” It’s a shield to justify inaction. But when we look at ROI (return on investment), the story flips.
When I looked at how inclusivity lined up with profitability, I expected to see a clear story: maybe that films passing the Bechdel Test would be consistently more profitable, or that ignoring women on screen would come at a cost. Instead, what I found was far more nuanced. Most studios sit packed together along the bottom of the chart, proving that profitability in Hollywood doesn’t hinge on whether women get meaningful roles or not. A handful of small studios leap off the page—Solana Films, Haxan Films—where one or two breakout hits made their averages skyrocket. But those are outliers, lucky strikes rather than evidence of a system at work. The bigger, steadier studios hover in the middle, suggesting that money flows regardless of inclusivity. And that’s the uncomfortable truth: inclusivity doesn’t harm films, but the industry hasn’t learned to reward it either.
Genre Bias and the Invisible Ceiling
Inclusivity doesn’t fall evenly across genres. Comedies and dramas often feature women in more meaningful ways, while action and sci-fi repeatedly fail the Bechdel Test. This matters because the genres most rewarded by box office and Oscars are also the least inclusive.
The more “serious” or “profitable” the genre, the more likely it is to fail inclusivity. Hollywood rewards genres that silence women and treats inclusive genres as second-tier.
The Web of Power
Finally, when you lay every factor side by side — inclusivity, ROI, IMDb ratings, Oscars, budgets — a final truth emerges. Everything connects, but not in the way Hollywood claims.
Inclusivity is connected to profits and ratings — but Oscars remain the outlier. Prestige floats free of fairness.
Curtain Call: The Studio’s Responsibility
Across decades of data, one theme dominates: studios decide the fate of inclusivity. Actors may inspire, directors may innovate, but the funding structures remain the invisible hand steering representation.
And the revelations cut through myths:
- Inclusivity does not cost money.
- Inclusive films are not inherently unprofitable.
- Prestige and awards still reinforce exclusion.
- Smaller players often do more for equality than the giants who claim to lead.
This isn’t just a Hollywood problem; it’s a mirror of boardrooms, politics, and media industries everywhere. But unlike abstract debates about fairness, film data lets us see bias in numbers, not just anecdotes.
If Hollywood ever truly wants to evolve, the change won’t come from the stage at the Dolby Theatre. It will come from the offices of the studios, where the greenlight button determines which stories the world gets to see.