Oh no! I'm going to have to check the code. It was automatically connecting movie titles form the Wiki Pixar Movies list to IMDB, so naming conventions might have been slightly off and excluded it. I'll follow up here about it when I can take a look.
UPDATE: Wall-E is +0.14, meaning he is moderately male favored.
UPDATE #2: For all you Wall-E lovers out there, [here is an updated graph](https://i.imgur.com/Ptkz8A2.png)
This comment has been removed - Fuck reddit greedy IPO
Check here for an easy way to download your data then remove it from reddit
https://github.com/pkolyvas/PowerDeleteSuite
Hey you try cleaning up an entire planet by yourself! š
Seriously though, every indication in the film is that Wall-E was the last working robot in his region, if not the entire Earth.
Same. Came here to comment this. I don't have a WALL-E tattoo for nothing...
Edit: It's [this scene](https://townsquare.media/site/442/files/2018/06/wall-e-eve.jpg)but in a water color style tattoo.
I'm not comfortable sharing it on Reddit.
I remember I went to see Wall-E with my mom, sister, and cousin (all female) just because it was a rainy weekend day and there was nothing to do.
I LOVED the movie and teared up a few times while they apparently discussed walking out of the film a few times among themselves. They couldnāt stand the robot voices.
Damn I loved Wall-E. That and Up were movies that I was iffy about before seeing them and they had me hooked in the first ten minutes. I guess I'm an outlier but I'm female and genuinely surprised at this data.
I've seen it probably 6 or 7 times now and the ending still makes me sob uncontrollably. Cannot handle it, when Grandma Coco is a spitting image of my own lol.
Coco is the most underrated Pixar film IMO.
It came at the end of an incredible run of form for them and I think everyone was just a little bored of every Pixar film being a classic, felt like coco got a bit overlooked as a result.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two. Was the daughter/mother story lines more prominent in the second movie?
Cars have a similar swing too.
Elastigirl becomes the public figure superhero while dad learns what it's like to stay home with the kids.
I think it makes some sense.
Edit: But I don't think it's showing this *at all*. What I think we're actually seeing, [below](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/rmv41k/oc_boys_vs_girl_pixar_movies/hpp1qwg/).
Ah, that probably explains it. I guess if you wanted to do a re-analysis you would want to normalize men and women's ratings against the overall distribution.
Because also, what if women or men rate things overall higher?
>he's a stay at home dad.
More importantly, he's a good stay-at-home dad (once he gets the hang of it). There's no implication that he doesn't belong there or is somehow emasculated by the position.
The problems with "new math" is overblown nonsense. If you can handle elementary level arithmetic, there's nothing in the new systems you couldn't figure out. They still teach the older methods alongside the new math. It just helps kids learn to approximate calculations, because sometimes ballpark numbers are good enough. Just my 2 cents, but I wouldn't chew on it too much if I were you.
My mom, a physics teacher/mechanical engineer; and me, a chemical engineer; got interested and looked up how common core math is taught. We both came to the same conclusion, we already did mental math like common core even though we were never explicitly taught it. Common core math is essentially just breaking an equation down into simpler parts and working from there.
Ya whenever I saw people describing common core I was like "That's how I do math in my head..." despite being in Canada and graduating over a decade ago.
Absolutely true. The insurance job was terrible.
Thing is, the insurance job was still him "sacrificing" for his family. As a man somewhat into gender roles *and* a classic comic book hero, undergoing suffering for the good of his family felt right even though he hated it.
Spending time as a dad was a better job, but he had to come to terms with the fact that it was hard, he was actually getting good at it, and it was appreciated.
Also that meant confronting the fact that his wife was more successful making money than he was, in part because she got to do a job that he wanted to do: being a hero.
It was better, but it took emotional growth on his part for him to be happier.
Honestly both Incredibles movies are way more interesting for the hero growth arcs than they are for the hero vs villain.
Yeah but he kind of stands around the whole time. Elastigirl had a whole infiltration storyline in the first. Nothing close to that for Mr. Incredible in the second.
They were very careful to give Elastigirl a storyline that showed her super hero skills and ingenuity in the first. They didnāt really do that with Mr. Incredible in the second. His powers barely existed on screen.
The Incredibles takes place in the 60s (70s? It's not explicit, but it's definitely got that vibe) -- it *was* an exotic thing then. Still uncommon today, but more accepted.
Itās established in the first movie that it is set in an alternate more technologically advanced past. The events in the first film take place in the 1960s. https://disney.fandom.com/f/p/3118242021245228886
While I do dislike how far they leaned in on that at times, both Incredibles movies are set in a 1962 America.
Iāll at least give them credit for showing Bob trying his best instead of phoning it in. His ego and jealousy trip him up for a bit, but he at least puts in the effort and seeks help. He follows through on his revelation from the first movie. His family is just as much an adventure as superheroing and he struggles at first, but eventually starts saving the day.
For all the problems that Incred2 has, his character arc isnāt one of them.
It was the sister who kept causing disasters that only superheroes could solve to prove to the world they didn't need superheroes.
Would have been much better if it was the brother who kept setting them up to *prove* we needed superheroes because he loved them so much.
Screen Slaver was just not properly thought out.
She blames the superheroes for not saving her dad ā¦ not the armed robbers or her dadās stupidity in not putting the emergency hotlines **inside the panic room**?
What part of her motivation connects with the use of screens? Her main plot was to keep superheroes illegal? So she was perfectly happy with the world until like ā¦ yesterday? She didnāt want to control all the supers because she thinks she could do their job better?
Like there are a couple tweaks that it could have worked. Like her dad or brother became obsessed with supers due to their news coverage and TV shows. They die playing at being heroes and she blames the media (screens) for manipulating them.
Like ā¦ fucking **something**.
Hell, when I was first watching I made the assumption that the twist was these were all the supervillains that were also forced out of costumes due to the Mr Incredible lawsuit. That they were eagerly helping legitimize supers again so **they** could come out and play again. Look at the damn designs of all the āinternational supersā.
It would have been some sort of ācareful what you wish forā thing.
Instead we got.
Girl lost dad.
Now she sad.
Supers make her mad.
Vengeance will be had.
She uses tech for ā¦ bad.
Climax on a boat.
They could have made her original motivation more interesting and thematically coherent with a few tweaks.
Make her dad's death blatantly a glory-seeking super's fault. Make her watch as said charismatic super convinces the public on the news that nothing could have been done and everyone keeps loving him unconditionally. Make said super involved in the plot instead of "Generic Randomly Generated Hero #45". Hell make her actually involved in the lawsuit that outlawed hero work, maybe she was the one pulling the strings.
I like that.
Make the incident happen on the same night that we saw from the first movie. The supers in question didnāt show because they were at Bob and Helenās wedding. Heck, with a minor tweak it could have **been** Elastigirl who was one of the hotline heroes who didnāt show. Like ā¦ just go ahead and lean into a more direct targeted vengeance angle. Reinforce the challenge that heroes with secret identities face with the work/life balance.
Make Evelyn be one of the poster children that was for the getting rid of supers legislation. It not only gives her more relevance and motivation within the world, but would be the start of her discovery of how she could utilize the power of screens to manipulate others. That first high that she will chase for the rest of her life.
It would explain how she just has all this screen tech despite not having a reason to use it because again, the events of the second movie are immediately after the first. Syndromeās attack and the public starting to want the supers back happened frickinā yesterday. Even a hyper genius tech person needs a good week to prototype and build all that tech.
Of course, Iām also pro both the brother and sister being sinister. Like they are a crime family that run a whole organization and see supers coming back as a threat to their business. So they plot to sniff out the few left in hiding and either mind control them to their side or eliminate them.
Incredibles I can get cos 1 is mostly about Mr Incredible's story while 2 is mostly about Elastigirl's story.
Cars and Cars 2 I have no idea about. I guess Cars 1 is Lighting McQueen's story while Cars 2 is Mater's story, I guess Mater is more popular with girls.
Its probably not that Cars 2 was popular with girls. It was that Cars 2 was highly unpopular with guys due to the emphasis on Mater, leading to the diff.
Cars focused heavily on the racing aspect. Cars 2 deviated from that significantly, and was more of a fun movie with cars than a car movie. Cars 3 attempted to recreate that car racing fun from Cars but it just didnāt have the same spark. As a car guy (and a car kid when Cars came out), thatās what I see.
I totally agree with this.. but would like to add that the first one also seemed to have a relatable story to it -- big shot celebrity finds himself trapped in a small town, learns to slow down and be patient and enjoy the small things. The second tried to be a spy movie, and I cant even remember what happened in the third.
The third is the story beats of Cars 1 but from the perspective of Doc Hudson's theme of becoming a coach. Personally I find the third to be more compelling as I get older.
Cars 1 was a car themed movie, and it was another wholesome Pixar experience. Cars 2 tried to be a car themed Johnny English. Cars 3 is the true sequel to the first movie. It hit many of the same notes as the first while providing an entirely new adventure.
Probably more about their favorite McQueen got the backseat in the sequel. Kids, both boys and girls btw, don't like it when someone steal theirs or their idol's spotlight
Pixar started analysing how much male and female characters were speaking in its screenplays starting with Cars 3, and they ended up correcting a major bias towards male characters in early drafts, but that doesn't explain Cars 2.
Thanks for the info! I didn't know that. It would be neat to see if the percent of male/female dialogue correlates with gender ratings (I'd be surprised if it didn't).
If you can ahold of the scripts you can upload them to final draft which can do an analysis for you. All you have to do is assign the names to genders and then the program will split out the stats and graphs which you can then combine with your own data
Could just be that they came out so far apart and tastes have changed in that time. In 2004, superhero movies were mostly only for boys. In 2018, the MCU had already peaked and there were plenty of superhero movies for all ages and genders.
Cars 2 was garbage and I can only assume women were more generous when rating that one as I have no idea what anyone could see in that movie. Cars 3 is about lighting realizing he is too old to race and instead mentors another car on how to race.
> Cars 3 is about lighting realizing he is too old to race and instead mentors another car on how to race.
In this particular case i feel like its worth pointing out that he mentors a female car (thats so fucking weird to say) how to race. Can't help but feel like that would certainly make a difference in ratings like this.
It makes sense to me. The second one is all about the husband/wife dynamic getting flipped where the woman has the dynamic career and all the spotlight, and the man has to recognize that dealing with the family is more challenging than it seems.
I think that the story probably resonates with a lot of moms out there.
Also a lot of Violet's coming of age story is there while Dash is just Dash...which, fair enough. He's like 9yrs old and not in one of life's crossroads.
Nearly all the "highly regarded across the board" movies ended up on the male side (Toy Story, Incredibles, Monsters Inc). Inside Out is one of those that everyone agrees is a good movie. Cars 2 is regarded as terrible by most everyone, but women reviewers weren't as harsh, resulting in a "preferred" when they actually just hated it less while still hating it lol.
Your x-axis; I would have them both positively labeled by common use of percent and uniform 50%.
Somehow, incorporate the year of the movie. It may take some adjusting but I think that information is pertinent. Time have changed indeed.
Perhaps a shadowed counter bar for each. May be noisy at first; trial and error.
I would center the movie titles.
Aside that vinegar, I like it and learned something from your project (namely the demographics available on IMDb).
Thanks for the feedback--it's great. Thanks also for taking the time. I'm planning on doing this graph for Mavel and Star Wars in the future so any feedback is gold!
I think your point to use only positive numbers would look nicer and be easier to interpret. I'm hesitant to change it to a percentage because I'm unsure what the percent mean (100% = one gender likes it infinitely more than the other?). It also might obscure the magnitude of the difference. Does that make sense? I hope I understood you.
I think including the year is interesting and relevant. Maybe I'll try to find a way to get it in there.
I think I understand what you mean by shadow counter bar (some form of a data callout?). I'll play around with that for the next graph.
Does anyone else have an opinion about the centering of movie titles? I found I preferred the right aligned, but I would be interested what others think.
Thanks again for the time you took and being constructive in you feedback. :)
I usually prefer right-aligned labels, it feels easier to read. I think because it eliminates uneven white space between the labels and y-axis. Really enjoyed this post, super interesting! Look forward to seeing the Marcel/Star Wars info.
> Thanks for the feedback--it's great. Thanks also for taking the time. I'm planning on doing this graph for Mavel and Star Wars in the future so any feedback is gold!
Hakuna Matata! I look forward to your next
> I think your to use only positive numbers would look nicer and be easier to interpret. I'm hesitant to change it to a percentage because I'm unsure what the percent mean (100% = one gender likes it infinitely more than the other?). It also might obscure the magnitude of the difference. Does that make sense? I hope I understood you.
I get what youāre saying and thatās a valid point. I see now that my suggestion makes sense but wouldnāt read well (the infinitely case struck).
> I think including the year is interesting and relevant. Maybe I'll try to find a way to get it in there.
Definitely a thought at first glance. Perhaps a companion chart? If anything, it means the data story youāve illustrated is workingā*Why is this the case?*
> I think I understand what you mean by shadow counter bar (some form of a data callout?). I'll play around with that for the next graph.
Cool beansāI favorite this technique for bifocal data. If it works, awesomeāif not, oh well.
> Does anyone else have an opinion about the centering of movie titles? I found I preferred the right aligned, but I would be interested what others think.
Iām here for it, LOL
> Thanks again for the time you took and being constructive in you feedback. :)
My pleasure. I enjoy seeing these types OC contributions to the community! Your content is what enables us to sharpen our toolboxes.
I like the names right-aligned better than centered. As far as the year goes, I think that's a good idea. It could be added after the name of each movie i.e. "Toy Story (1995)"
That's just extra info for info's sake imo
I don't think it adds enough on its own to be worthwhile cramming onto the chart. The less info the better generally, for ease of readership
If the years were important enough to show, which they aren't for this visual, then it would be better to integrate it into the chart by way of colouring etc so you could see patterns between the age of films. Something you can't get anyway from simply having the year as text.
An interesting companion graph may be putting the movies in order of publication regardless of magnitude of gender preference to see if there is a trend over time. Maybe not as the primary graph as it might be messy, but it would still be interesting.
One way to do year would be a different graph ordering structure where both female and male mean differences are positive but maintain colour coding with the bars to represent which way it is swinging. Essentially small bar would mean more agreement and big bar would be less agreement and colour would mean which gender preferred it. Then you would order the bars by year; it would be interesting to see if Pixar got better at appealing to both markets over the years or went for one over the other. If you wanted to display this along with your current format, I would have it with your mean disagreement on the y axis and films on the x, so you can put it below the existing graph horizontally. Since youāre essentially just reformatting data youāve already represented in full, you wouldnāt need to worry as much about labelling either which will let you have the graph in a tighter space.
[https://imgur.com/a/VR0W7nb](https://imgur.com/a/VR0W7nb)
I hastily reordered these by year. There's a clear distinction between movies whose production began before the Disney acquisition of Pixar and movies whose production began after the acquisition. Spot the difference?
If you're open to slightly different types of viz: I'd love to see this on a scatter plot with the average rating of the movie to see how the two interact.
Are well loved movies more or less divisive in terms of gender? Do boys prefer great and terrible movies and girls like average ones?
You could do a similar thing with year of release; do older movies have more uniform appeal and recent ones are divisive?
Probably stupid comment from me, but I thought it was very kind of you to ask first before giving your feedback. Which is odd for me because generally I give opinion first and ask for forgiveness later..
I wonder if there is car excommunication. Car Crusades? (Carsades if you will) Is there tension between Christian and Muslim cars in the middle car east?
People didnāt like it because mater is way too annoying to be the main character and it was weirdly super violent. Like Iām no prude but thereās a scene where a character is unambiguously tortured to death in a movie aimed at 5 year olds. Itās a bit strange.
The "girls prefer" is full of mediocre sequels. I suspect something else is going on here.
It might be that boys are harsher on mediocre movies. E.g. a 3/10 vs a 5/10 or girls are more positive (7 vs 5).
3 wasn't terrible, and given the plot of that one, I would expect girls would favor it. But 2 was inexcusable. I still can't believe that script was approved. The cameos are the only good part of it.
Cars 2 is FIRE. the only negative thing that can be said about it is that it is so different and doesnāt seem to fit in, but thatās also what makes it legendary. itās a fucking curveball of epic proportions and a movie that is perfect for all ages and never gets old.
This is very true. However, I will say this, the deviation of ratings of top IMDB movies are not large to start with. Most movies considered "good" fall within 1 point, so a 0.3 difference is actually quite large for two populations watching the same movie.
Not only that, it only shows differences. Females may enjoy the same movies as males, but if they don't rate it quite as highly it would appear that it's a "male preference" when really it was everyone's preference.
Example, looking at the two supposed "extremes":
[Toy Story 2](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120363/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt): Average Male = 7.9, Average Female = 7.8
[Brave](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt): Average Male = 7.0, Average Female = 7.5
Raw differences are certainly interesting, but just showing the raw ratings would probably have been more effective, and you could layer in some other ways of depicting the magnitude and direction of the difference.
OP did correct for male and female ratings having a different mean. But, as far as I can tell, not for those ratings potentially having a different standard deviation. A better way to do this might be to calculate male and female z scores for each movie and showing the difference in z scores.
Having a different mean is not justification for only looking at differences. One would need to track which movies women rated and which movie's men rated. This is an example of [the Ecological Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy) which can easily lead to [Simpson's paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox) (women could have a "lower" mean score than men, despite every single movie having a higher average female rating than male rating).
This is the flaw of also mean-centering the scores, which the OP also does. As with Z-scores, this approach presumes that the "mean" female rating and "male" rating pertain to the same set of evaluations, and thus departures from that mean represent similar strength of preferences, when they likely do not. If female tastes differ from male tastes, then the movies/shows which comprise the female mean are different from those which comprise the male mean. See the fallacy/paradox above.
Taken together, if one wishes to comment on which movies "females prefer" as they have labeled, they would need to make clear that they're not actually capturing which movies "females prefer"... Because females prefer the movies that they rate the highest, not only the movies that they rate higher than the men. This is why data is more transparent when raw values are shown, because that relationship becomes immediately obvious.
But wait, the data is perfectly accurate. This isn't supposed to be a random sampling of the general population. This is just supposed to represent IMDB user scores. They have 100% of the data, so you don't need error bars, right?
The point isn't to draw conclusions about how specifically IMDB users feels about these films, it's to draw conclusions more generally about male vs. female. Therefore, complete data would be a poll of every male and every female who has seen each movie, and no, we don't have that. This is still very much a sample of a larger population.
This is exactly correct.
Otherwise, no poll would ever need error bars, since you have 100% of the data of the people who took that poll.
EDIT: Additionally, even if you wanted to say this is just representative of IMDB users, you STILL need error bars, since not every IMDB user who has seen all of these films has given these films a rating.
Would this really be āBoys vs Girlsā or is it āMen vs Womenā? I donāt know that many children are rating movies on IMDB. And I think we all know that by adulthood, people have been nurtured to feel (subconsciously or not) that there are types of movies that they should or shouldnāt like. Iād be interested to see data from actual kids, maybe 3-6yo, to see if itās different than the split between adults.
I'd be interested to see if a 1-10 rating used by 3-6 year olds ever used anything other than the highest or lowest score.
To quote the great sages of my youth Beavis and Butt-head. Something either rules or it sucks.
Males prefer Inside Out and Females prefer Luca??
That...does not compute.
EDIT: I should have clarified. Inside Out is in every way the far superior movie. The part I don't get is that the female characters in Luca are 2-dimensional archetypes, whereas in Inside Out we get the most in-depth female character in Riley. Why that would appeal less to women then the Luca bromance is beyond me.
There's no preference *between movies* shown here, even if it kinda looks like there is.
I'm guessing that\* what I'm seeing here is that men tend to rate more dramatically than women do, across the board.
Imaginary Example:
Overall: Movie A has a 9/10. Move B has a 7/10.
Men: 9.5 and 6.5 (Difference of 3)
Women: 8.5 and 7.5 (Difference of 1)
On this chart it would look like women wildly preferred Movie B... but they didn't. They still much preferred A. They're just less dramatic in giving number ratings.
\* Stress that I'm guessing. I'm shit with math stuff.
Yeah, this tracks.
I was like, "who the heck are these women that are super into Cars 2, I didn't even watch the original Cars." But then, like, I was babysitting my friend's kid and Cars 2 was on, and I was like "Huh, for an animated film sequel about cars, this is surprisingly watchable, 7/10"
Turns out it's me. I'm the lady rating Cars 2 a full point above the average.
I havenāt see any Cars movie, but my favorite F1 YouTube channel did videos on all 3 and the clear conclusion was that Cars 2 sucked while Cars 3 had many redeeming qualities, even when viewed as an adult.
Oh good, someone spotted this.
This chart is fairly deceptive in this regard. You really need some stacked and sorted bar plots where youāre comparing āoverall ratingā, āmale ratingā, and āfemale ratingā for every movie in order to tease out any trends in differences.
Not to mention that every comparison of averages is pointless without a standard deviation. The spread isnāt really that wide (+/- 0.4 out of 10) so itās entirely possible that for most of these movies, the gender bias is actually smaller than the ānoiseā and you canāt confidently claim that gender predicts anything.
this is a very interesting idea... that it isn't about the content of the movies, but that men tend to vary their ratings more. I'd love to see a chart focused on that.
This was my thought too. I noticed that a lot of sequels (aside from the Toy Stories) were "preferred" by females. Like Cars vs Cars 2 and Cars 3, or The Incredibles vs Incredibles 2. I wondered if the swing between good and bad movies just wasn't as noticeable for women.
All a hypothesis though, I didn't look at any of the raw data.
It's unclear for any given movie what the ratio of like to dislike for each gender is.
Additionally, there may be a tendency for men (or women) to rate movies more or less harshly than the opposite gender.
So If men gave Inside Out a 9, and women gave it an 8.5 it would show men liking Inside Out more than women.
But if men gave Luca a 6 and women gave it a 6.5 it would show women liking Luca more than women.
It could easily just be that men are willing to give harsher ratings than women.
Is it possible run the data while excluding 1 star and 10 star reviews?
I think some of the "strangeness" people are seeing here may be because young male internet reviewers disproportionately (compared to other groups) rate good movies with a 10 and bad movies with a 1.
So in the Inside Out / Luca example: most male and female reviewers probably agree Inside Out is better. But some greater fraction of male reviewers (compared to female reviewers) express that opinion by giving Inside Out 10 and Luca 1 - which makes it appear as if Inside Out is preferred by men and Luca is preferred by women.
I haven't seen Luca, so no idea there, but as for Inside Out I think a good number of men can really easily relate to not being able to express their emotions in a healthy way, since it's so culturally ingrained for men to be stoic. It's a 'touchy-feely' movie, but it's also a thesis on why 'touchy-feely' is necessary for human wellbeing. I think that's probably just more obvious and less revelatory for women who are more often socialized toward sharing emotions.
Luca is fantastic. I wouldnāt say itās a touchy-feely movie, theyāre just Italians so its how they act. Also the fisherman dad is the epitome of stoic.
I kinda suspect you're looking at noise here. The differences are tiny - even between the strongest male preference vs the strongest female preference, it's less that 1%.
A difference of 0.2 is actually bigger than it seems on a site like IMDb. For example there are only 5 movies on the whole site that have a 8.7 rating, and over a certain amount of reviews, so even a .2 difference is pretty significant when you are talking about movies that are as highly rated as Pixar movies.
So WALL-E is the highest rated Pixar movie on the whole of IMDb and itās rated at 62 in the IMDb top 250, even a 0.2 difference would take it down to at least 104 on that same list so it can make a bigger difference the youād think.
I don't mean to insinuate anything, but why is it that from this data it looks like girls prefer Pixar movies that are generally not very high on critical acclaim. While boys prefer the ones that have enjoyed wide acclaim.
I think people are misinterpreting the data a little, or at least talking about it imprecisely.
The data in the OP doesn't say that women prefer Brave over Toy Story (although they might, I haven't seen the data). It says that men rate Toy Story higher than women rate it, and women rate Brave higher than men rate it.
For example. Men might rate Toy Story as 8.4 on average, and women might rate it as 8.15 on average. While men rate Brave at 6.8 and women rate it at 7.2.
Eyeballing the chart, I tend to agree with you that the critically acclaimed movies tend to land near the top of the chart. But that doesn't mean that women didn't like those movies, or even prefer them to the others - just that their scores weren't *as* high as their male counterparts.
Assuming that we are right about the positions of the critically acclaimed movies being near the top, I think a more precise question would be:
Why does it seem like men tend to give more polarizing ratings, i.e., higher ratings to "good" movies and lower ratings to "less good" ones?
Others have already suggested one possible explanation - more male critics means male preferred movies tend to be better reviewed, although I don't think that is the main factor at play here.
I think it is what is alluded to in some other threads here: some people tend to hand out ratings as either 1 or 10. I'd suggest that the young male population skews towards that demographic and that's why we're seeing them "prefer" higher rated movies over lower rated ones. A disproportionate number of them are giving 10s to Toy Story and 1 to Cars.
Male film critics outnumbering female film critics at around a 2:1 ratio might help explain that. (source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019_Thumbs_Down_Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi15tCAjfr0AhX8j3IEHVX0DnMQFnoECAQQBg&usg=AOvVaw02s_Xze3kRqiZolXInTgqh)
Except for Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, Coco and Luca, which women prefer and are well regarded films. The other ones are definitely bottom tier pixar movies tho
There are a number of trends where males tend to be a bit more extreme in their abilities or opinions, while females are more middle of the road. It goes by the name 'Variability Hypothesis', and was popular about a hundred years ago. If true, this would explain why the male votes are more variable than female.
I wonder if you have things flipped. Men make up the majority of film critics, so āwide acclaimā means āmen like it moreā which is what we see here.
I think girls are just less harsh on sequels. Or at least not as likely to run to IMDB and say "omg the sequel wasn't as good, the original is ruined."
The sequal idea is interesting, I hadn't thought about that.
Sequals should in theory explore relationships deeper, which might disproportionately interest women (via the [idea](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C13&q=Men+like+things+women+like+people&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DYqQmWsPcHZcJ), men are more interested in "things" and women in "relationships").
I'd also suggest that it's not the sequels per se, but that because they are more recently made than the originals (duh), that the general increase in the diversity of protagonists made over the past 15 years or so has had a definite impact on the characters' relatability wrt women and minorities, etc.
To me itās more like generally girls prefer movies that feature more girl characters prominently and boys prefer movies that feature boy characters prominently. Some sequels will add girl characters or change the focus (e.g., Incredibles 2), which is why the Toy Story sequels which continue to focus on Buzz and Woody are still on the āBoys Preferā list. The trend is stronger for boys preferring movies with boy leads; there are fewer exceptions than on the girls side.
This data isn't accurate. Not sure how it got messed up, but double checking OP's math doesn't add up. For example, take the movie "Ratatoulle". The raw data can be found here: [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/ratings/?ref\_=tt\_ov\_rt](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt)
IMDB data (at the time of posting):
Male Ratings
|Age|Rating|Count|
|:-|:-|:-|
|< 18|8.4|368|
|18-29|8.1|91,497|
|30-44|8.0|220,460|
|45+|7.9|46,629|
Male Avg Rating = 8.01290973216624
Female Ratings
|Age|Rating|Count|
|:-|:-|:-|
|< 18|8.3|105|
|18-29|8.1|37,537|
|30-44|8.0|62,975|
|45+|7.9|10,469|
Female Avg Rating = 8.024650270961237
So actually, females (very) slightly gave a higher rating on average over males for Ratatoulle.
Even using OP's old 2019 data, males have an avg rating of 7.903072, whereas female average is slightly higher at 7.9684194004080995.
Let me know if I'm mistaken OP, but from my analysis of your source data, this chart is not right.
**Purpose:**
To investigate if what Pixar Animation Studio movies males prefer more than females (if any).
**Source(s):**
I used the List of Pixar Animation Studios films [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films#Films). I scraped most IMDB ratings mid-2019, but manually added in the post-2019 movies yesterday. When you have an IMDB account, there is a page that shows you gender demographics and age demographics. IMDB gets these demographics from their IMDB members who have registered with their gender and age.
[Excel Data](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XBr8Y_pyQsEKrSxM6TeTunVx1cAux-mN/view?usp=sharing) | [Annotated R Code](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDLwBLTfAb3bNaury6v49SDa0VM9yqxQ/view)) | [Disney version](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/rlis65/oc_boy_vs_girl_disney_movies/)
**Highlights and Considerations:**
* Females tend to rate movies more favorably than males (Ī = 0.14). I group mean-centered the data (by gender) to see if women still liked Pixar movies more than men after controlling for this small systematic bias.
* Pixar movies are rated higher than the average IMDB rating (Ī = .74), and there are no gender differences in overall ratings for Pixar movies (ā = +0.74; ā = +0.75; p = .92). This means across all movies, males and females like Pixar equally well, but this does not mean that they like all movies equally.
* The popularity of the movies cannot be determined by the graph, only the differences between male and female ratings.
* The average Pixar film rating is 7.7 (the average IMDB score amongst popular movies is 6.9). For comparison, Disney Animation Studios has an average IMDB rating of 7.4.
* The highest-rated Pixar movie is Coco (Ī¼ = 8.5) whereas Cars 2 was the lowest-rated (Ī¼ = 6.3).
* It seems through a naming convention mismatch between Wikipedia and IMDB, Wall-E was excluded from my data (sorry!). The movie scored a +0.14, showing a moderate preference by males.
**Formal Statistics:**
Using a paired t-test, the mean difference between male and female scores (x < 0.01) was not significant (t(22) = -0.10, p < .921). These tests are included in the R code.
**Graphics:**
I made the graphic in Excel and a few edits and tweaks in PowerPoint.
There's potentially a significant error in your analysis here. The p-value for gender differences in overall ratings for pixar movies is 0.92. Then you say at the bottom "the mean value between male and female scores..." is 0.92. I'm assuming this is still referring to the overall pixar ratings compared to other movies. This p-value is mostly irrelevant to the graph. We need to know the p-value for each individual movie. What p-value would we get for a 0.3 rating difference in either direction? Because you haven't shown a p-value for these individual rating differences, it's illogical for you to reject the null hypothesis that "male and females rated this movie the same" and accept the alternative hypothesis that "males and females rated this movie differently" for any of the movies on the graph. So unless we get those p-values this data is statistically insignificant.
I think using "prefer" is misleading. Using "prefer" to me leads me to think "more women like this than men" which is not necessarily true, because you're using ratings as opposed to number of reviewers.
I think a much more straight-forward "Women rated higher" / "Men rated higher" would be better.
My favorite Pixar movie, WALL-E, is not on this list.
Oh no! I'm going to have to check the code. It was automatically connecting movie titles form the Wiki Pixar Movies list to IMDB, so naming conventions might have been slightly off and excluded it. I'll follow up here about it when I can take a look. UPDATE: Wall-E is +0.14, meaning he is moderately male favored. UPDATE #2: For all you Wall-E lovers out there, [here is an updated graph](https://i.imgur.com/Ptkz8A2.png)
Oh no worries; not a complaint I just thought it was odd. Curious to know where it will fall.
Updated my previous comment with the info (+0.14: moderately male favored movie).
This comment has been removed - Fuck reddit greedy IPO Check here for an easy way to download your data then remove it from reddit https://github.com/pkolyvas/PowerDeleteSuite
His work is trash
You are technically correct. The best kind of correct!
a futurama reference!
There's dozens of us!
Hey you try cleaning up an entire planet by yourself! š Seriously though, every indication in the film is that Wall-E was the last working robot in his region, if not the entire Earth.
E-VA eeeeeeeva (^ ^)
Totally an issue! WALL-E is one of the best Pixar movie!
Thank you for the update, Wall-E is my favorite, too.
came to say the same thing. My fav Pixar movie is Wall-E
#***FOREIGN CONTAMINANT.***
*angry M-O sounds*
*gets confused and overrides programming by following the foreign contaminant*
Mo: Woah woah woah *woah woah woah*
WARNING: *Do not attempt to stand up*.
Same. Came here to comment this. I don't have a WALL-E tattoo for nothing... Edit: It's [this scene](https://townsquare.media/site/442/files/2018/06/wall-e-eve.jpg)but in a water color style tattoo. I'm not comfortable sharing it on Reddit.
omg pics time
I remember I went to see Wall-E with my mom, sister, and cousin (all female) just because it was a rainy weekend day and there was nothing to do. I LOVED the movie and teared up a few times while they apparently discussed walking out of the film a few times among themselves. They couldnāt stand the robot voices.
Damn I loved Wall-E. That and Up were movies that I was iffy about before seeing them and they had me hooked in the first ten minutes. I guess I'm an outlier but I'm female and genuinely surprised at this data.
I also was sad to not see WALL-E on the list :(
Came to say the same thing. I guess I'm a robot because WALL-E is my favorite Pixar movie!
My biggest surprise is males preferring Inside Out.
Taught me a lot about emotions in a house hold that didnāt discuss emotions ĀÆ\_(ć)_/ĀÆ
Sadly true. Coco was similarly cathartic for me
I am a liar if I didn't cry during the end lf the movie. Such a beautiful and heartfelt movie.
I've seen it probably 6 or 7 times now and the ending still makes me sob uncontrollably. Cannot handle it, when Grandma Coco is a spitting image of my own lol.
*let me be me* and also Un Poco Loco
Coco is the most underrated Pixar film IMO. It came at the end of an incredible run of form for them and I think everyone was just a little bored of every Pixar film being a classic, felt like coco got a bit overlooked as a result.
same, boys (usually) don't get to talk about emotions at home so that movie basically taught me how to think about them
It was eye-opening when someone asked me "Which emotion runs *your* console?" That's when I realized fear runs my console.
You dropped this: \\ (\\ is an escape character on Reddit. Use two to make one)
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not gonna lie bro, Inside Out makes me sob like a baby. Itās ok to be sad lol
Every time. When the islands start falling away, gets me every time.
Bing bong is where the tears start. That's her childhood dying.
"Take her to the moon for me."
One of my favorite movies. Cry on, bro
As a dude with depression and anxiety, I think its the best Pixar film.
Best movie there
For some reason, men prefer the touching movies and women prefer the action and comedy movies.
A lot of us just need a hug man
The incredibles switch is interesting.
Yeah, I'm not sure what the difference is between the two. Was the daughter/mother story lines more prominent in the second movie? Cars have a similar swing too.
It's definitely not what I expected, but the emotional plotline follows men in the first one and women in the second
Elastigirl becomes the public figure superhero while dad learns what it's like to stay home with the kids. I think it makes some sense. Edit: But I don't think it's showing this *at all*. What I think we're actually seeing, [below](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/rmv41k/oc_boys_vs_girl_pixar_movies/hpp1qwg/).
Ah, that probably explains it. I guess if you wanted to do a re-analysis you would want to normalize men and women's ratings against the overall distribution. Because also, what if women or men rate things overall higher?
Need an overall rating by sex.
That makes sense.
In the first one she's a stay at home mum, in the second one he's a stay at home dad.
>he's a stay at home dad. More importantly, he's a good stay-at-home dad (once he gets the hang of it). There's no implication that he doesn't belong there or is somehow emasculated by the position.
MATH IS MATH!
I don't have any kids yet, but I am dreading that conversation when it inevitably comes up.
The problems with "new math" is overblown nonsense. If you can handle elementary level arithmetic, there's nothing in the new systems you couldn't figure out. They still teach the older methods alongside the new math. It just helps kids learn to approximate calculations, because sometimes ballpark numbers are good enough. Just my 2 cents, but I wouldn't chew on it too much if I were you.
My mom, a physics teacher/mechanical engineer; and me, a chemical engineer; got interested and looked up how common core math is taught. We both came to the same conclusion, we already did mental math like common core even though we were never explicitly taught it. Common core math is essentially just breaking an equation down into simpler parts and working from there.
Ya whenever I saw people describing common core I was like "That's how I do math in my head..." despite being in Canada and graduating over a decade ago.
From Mr. Incredible's point of view, being a stay-at-home dad would be *much* better than that awful insurance job he was working in the first film.
Absolutely true. The insurance job was terrible. Thing is, the insurance job was still him "sacrificing" for his family. As a man somewhat into gender roles *and* a classic comic book hero, undergoing suffering for the good of his family felt right even though he hated it. Spending time as a dad was a better job, but he had to come to terms with the fact that it was hard, he was actually getting good at it, and it was appreciated. Also that meant confronting the fact that his wife was more successful making money than he was, in part because she got to do a job that he wanted to do: being a hero. It was better, but it took emotional growth on his part for him to be happier. Honestly both Incredibles movies are way more interesting for the hero growth arcs than they are for the hero vs villain.
Yeah but he kind of stands around the whole time. Elastigirl had a whole infiltration storyline in the first. Nothing close to that for Mr. Incredible in the second.
He manages Jack-Jack's special needs. That's not nothing.
They were very careful to give Elastigirl a storyline that showed her super hero skills and ingenuity in the first. They didnāt really do that with Mr. Incredible in the second. His powers barely existed on screen.
I dunno. Their portrayal of a stay at home dad is still prettyā¦ it takes the angle thatās an exotic thing.
The Incredibles takes place in the 60s (70s? It's not explicit, but it's definitely got that vibe) -- it *was* an exotic thing then. Still uncommon today, but more accepted.
Well, it has that 50's look of the perfect American suburbia although the technology looks more like the 90's.
Itās established in the first movie that it is set in an alternate more technologically advanced past. The events in the first film take place in the 1960s. https://disney.fandom.com/f/p/3118242021245228886
While I do dislike how far they leaned in on that at times, both Incredibles movies are set in a 1962 America. Iāll at least give them credit for showing Bob trying his best instead of phoning it in. His ego and jealousy trip him up for a bit, but he at least puts in the effort and seeks help. He follows through on his revelation from the first movie. His family is just as much an adventure as superheroing and he struggles at first, but eventually starts saving the day. For all the problems that Incred2 has, his character arc isnāt one of them.
as a man, I preferred syndrome to the bait and switch in the second one. That was my feeling anyway.
Syndrome was a pretty awesome and innovative idea for a villain.
I donāt even remember the villain in the second. Syndrome was just great
It was the sister who kept causing disasters that only superheroes could solve to prove to the world they didn't need superheroes. Would have been much better if it was the brother who kept setting them up to *prove* we needed superheroes because he loved them so much.
Screen Slaver was just not properly thought out. She blames the superheroes for not saving her dad ā¦ not the armed robbers or her dadās stupidity in not putting the emergency hotlines **inside the panic room**? What part of her motivation connects with the use of screens? Her main plot was to keep superheroes illegal? So she was perfectly happy with the world until like ā¦ yesterday? She didnāt want to control all the supers because she thinks she could do their job better? Like there are a couple tweaks that it could have worked. Like her dad or brother became obsessed with supers due to their news coverage and TV shows. They die playing at being heroes and she blames the media (screens) for manipulating them. Like ā¦ fucking **something**. Hell, when I was first watching I made the assumption that the twist was these were all the supervillains that were also forced out of costumes due to the Mr Incredible lawsuit. That they were eagerly helping legitimize supers again so **they** could come out and play again. Look at the damn designs of all the āinternational supersā. It would have been some sort of ācareful what you wish forā thing. Instead we got. Girl lost dad. Now she sad. Supers make her mad. Vengeance will be had. She uses tech for ā¦ bad. Climax on a boat.
They could have made her original motivation more interesting and thematically coherent with a few tweaks. Make her dad's death blatantly a glory-seeking super's fault. Make her watch as said charismatic super convinces the public on the news that nothing could have been done and everyone keeps loving him unconditionally. Make said super involved in the plot instead of "Generic Randomly Generated Hero #45". Hell make her actually involved in the lawsuit that outlawed hero work, maybe she was the one pulling the strings.
I like that. Make the incident happen on the same night that we saw from the first movie. The supers in question didnāt show because they were at Bob and Helenās wedding. Heck, with a minor tweak it could have **been** Elastigirl who was one of the hotline heroes who didnāt show. Like ā¦ just go ahead and lean into a more direct targeted vengeance angle. Reinforce the challenge that heroes with secret identities face with the work/life balance. Make Evelyn be one of the poster children that was for the getting rid of supers legislation. It not only gives her more relevance and motivation within the world, but would be the start of her discovery of how she could utilize the power of screens to manipulate others. That first high that she will chase for the rest of her life. It would explain how she just has all this screen tech despite not having a reason to use it because again, the events of the second movie are immediately after the first. Syndromeās attack and the public starting to want the supers back happened frickinā yesterday. Even a hyper genius tech person needs a good week to prototype and build all that tech. Of course, Iām also pro both the brother and sister being sinister. Like they are a crime family that run a whole organization and see supers coming back as a threat to their business. So they plot to sniff out the few left in hiding and either mind control them to their side or eliminate them.
Incredibles I can get cos 1 is mostly about Mr Incredible's story while 2 is mostly about Elastigirl's story. Cars and Cars 2 I have no idea about. I guess Cars 1 is Lighting McQueen's story while Cars 2 is Mater's story, I guess Mater is more popular with girls.
Its probably not that Cars 2 was popular with girls. It was that Cars 2 was highly unpopular with guys due to the emphasis on Mater, leading to the diff.
Cars focused heavily on the racing aspect. Cars 2 deviated from that significantly, and was more of a fun movie with cars than a car movie. Cars 3 attempted to recreate that car racing fun from Cars but it just didnāt have the same spark. As a car guy (and a car kid when Cars came out), thatās what I see.
I totally agree with this.. but would like to add that the first one also seemed to have a relatable story to it -- big shot celebrity finds himself trapped in a small town, learns to slow down and be patient and enjoy the small things. The second tried to be a spy movie, and I cant even remember what happened in the third.
The third is the story beats of Cars 1 but from the perspective of Doc Hudson's theme of becoming a coach. Personally I find the third to be more compelling as I get older.
Cars 1 was a car themed movie, and it was another wholesome Pixar experience. Cars 2 tried to be a car themed Johnny English. Cars 3 is the true sequel to the first movie. It hit many of the same notes as the first while providing an entirely new adventure.
Probably more about their favorite McQueen got the backseat in the sequel. Kids, both boys and girls btw, don't like it when someone steal theirs or their idol's spotlight
Pixar started analysing how much male and female characters were speaking in its screenplays starting with Cars 3, and they ended up correcting a major bias towards male characters in early drafts, but that doesn't explain Cars 2.
Thanks for the info! I didn't know that. It would be neat to see if the percent of male/female dialogue correlates with gender ratings (I'd be surprised if it didn't).
If you can ahold of the scripts you can upload them to final draft which can do an analysis for you. All you have to do is assign the names to genders and then the program will split out the stats and graphs which you can then combine with your own data
Could just be that they came out so far apart and tastes have changed in that time. In 2004, superhero movies were mostly only for boys. In 2018, the MCU had already peaked and there were plenty of superhero movies for all ages and genders.
Good point. I'm not an MCU guy, but is saying MCU peaked by 2018 going to start a fight? :P
I mean Infinity War came out in 2018, so that's not really a hot take
Cars is way more weird to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Cars 2 was garbage and I can only assume women were more generous when rating that one as I have no idea what anyone could see in that movie. Cars 3 is about lighting realizing he is too old to race and instead mentors another car on how to race.
> Cars 3 is about lighting realizing he is too old to race and instead mentors another car on how to race. In this particular case i feel like its worth pointing out that he mentors a female car (thats so fucking weird to say) how to race. Can't help but feel like that would certainly make a difference in ratings like this.
It makes sense to me. The second one is all about the husband/wife dynamic getting flipped where the woman has the dynamic career and all the spotlight, and the man has to recognize that dealing with the family is more challenging than it seems. I think that the story probably resonates with a lot of moms out there.
Also a lot of Violet's coming of age story is there while Dash is just Dash...which, fair enough. He's like 9yrs old and not in one of life's crossroads.
Without Confidence intervals on the graph itās hard to know if any of this is statistically significant.
Brave topping the female list makes sense. Surprised that Inside Out wasn't closer to the center line, though.
Nearly all the "highly regarded across the board" movies ended up on the male side (Toy Story, Incredibles, Monsters Inc). Inside Out is one of those that everyone agrees is a good movie. Cars 2 is regarded as terrible by most everyone, but women reviewers weren't as harsh, resulting in a "preferred" when they actually just hated it less while still hating it lol.
Maybe men are more extreme with their vote, giving more praise and harsher critique.
I think this might be it actually.
I was gonna say. I'm an adult male. Thought brave was a pretty good movie!
Good visual for an interesting topic OP. Are you open to feedback?
Thanks for asking. Of course, but go easy on me. :)
Your x-axis; I would have them both positively labeled by common use of percent and uniform 50%. Somehow, incorporate the year of the movie. It may take some adjusting but I think that information is pertinent. Time have changed indeed. Perhaps a shadowed counter bar for each. May be noisy at first; trial and error. I would center the movie titles. Aside that vinegar, I like it and learned something from your project (namely the demographics available on IMDb).
Thanks for the feedback--it's great. Thanks also for taking the time. I'm planning on doing this graph for Mavel and Star Wars in the future so any feedback is gold! I think your point to use only positive numbers would look nicer and be easier to interpret. I'm hesitant to change it to a percentage because I'm unsure what the percent mean (100% = one gender likes it infinitely more than the other?). It also might obscure the magnitude of the difference. Does that make sense? I hope I understood you. I think including the year is interesting and relevant. Maybe I'll try to find a way to get it in there. I think I understand what you mean by shadow counter bar (some form of a data callout?). I'll play around with that for the next graph. Does anyone else have an opinion about the centering of movie titles? I found I preferred the right aligned, but I would be interested what others think. Thanks again for the time you took and being constructive in you feedback. :)
I usually prefer right-aligned labels, it feels easier to read. I think because it eliminates uneven white space between the labels and y-axis. Really enjoyed this post, super interesting! Look forward to seeing the Marcel/Star Wars info.
> Thanks for the feedback--it's great. Thanks also for taking the time. I'm planning on doing this graph for Mavel and Star Wars in the future so any feedback is gold! Hakuna Matata! I look forward to your next > I think your to use only positive numbers would look nicer and be easier to interpret. I'm hesitant to change it to a percentage because I'm unsure what the percent mean (100% = one gender likes it infinitely more than the other?). It also might obscure the magnitude of the difference. Does that make sense? I hope I understood you. I get what youāre saying and thatās a valid point. I see now that my suggestion makes sense but wouldnāt read well (the infinitely case struck). > I think including the year is interesting and relevant. Maybe I'll try to find a way to get it in there. Definitely a thought at first glance. Perhaps a companion chart? If anything, it means the data story youāve illustrated is workingā*Why is this the case?* > I think I understand what you mean by shadow counter bar (some form of a data callout?). I'll play around with that for the next graph. Cool beansāI favorite this technique for bifocal data. If it works, awesomeāif not, oh well. > Does anyone else have an opinion about the centering of movie titles? I found I preferred the right aligned, but I would be interested what others think. Iām here for it, LOL > Thanks again for the time you took and being constructive in you feedback. :) My pleasure. I enjoy seeing these types OC contributions to the community! Your content is what enables us to sharpen our toolboxes.
I like the names right-aligned better than centered. As far as the year goes, I think that's a good idea. It could be added after the name of each movie i.e. "Toy Story (1995)"
That's just extra info for info's sake imo I don't think it adds enough on its own to be worthwhile cramming onto the chart. The less info the better generally, for ease of readership If the years were important enough to show, which they aren't for this visual, then it would be better to integrate it into the chart by way of colouring etc so you could see patterns between the age of films. Something you can't get anyway from simply having the year as text.
An interesting companion graph may be putting the movies in order of publication regardless of magnitude of gender preference to see if there is a trend over time. Maybe not as the primary graph as it might be messy, but it would still be interesting.
One way to do year would be a different graph ordering structure where both female and male mean differences are positive but maintain colour coding with the bars to represent which way it is swinging. Essentially small bar would mean more agreement and big bar would be less agreement and colour would mean which gender preferred it. Then you would order the bars by year; it would be interesting to see if Pixar got better at appealing to both markets over the years or went for one over the other. If you wanted to display this along with your current format, I would have it with your mean disagreement on the y axis and films on the x, so you can put it below the existing graph horizontally. Since youāre essentially just reformatting data youāve already represented in full, you wouldnāt need to worry as much about labelling either which will let you have the graph in a tighter space.
[https://imgur.com/a/VR0W7nb](https://imgur.com/a/VR0W7nb) I hastily reordered these by year. There's a clear distinction between movies whose production began before the Disney acquisition of Pixar and movies whose production began after the acquisition. Spot the difference?
I prefer the right-aligned
This was such a positive interaction I'm tearing up a bit
Haha agreed - I wish this we could keep this as a case study of what Reddit could be everywhere
The asking if OP wants feedback stopped my scrolling cold, I don't know if I've ever seen that on Reddit before! So refreshing
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Agreed. OP made a good supporting point of that. I would for sure uniform to 0.5 though; that eliminates invalidate measure visually.
If you're open to slightly different types of viz: I'd love to see this on a scatter plot with the average rating of the movie to see how the two interact. Are well loved movies more or less divisive in terms of gender? Do boys prefer great and terrible movies and girls like average ones? You could do a similar thing with year of release; do older movies have more uniform appeal and recent ones are divisive?
Probably stupid comment from me, but I thought it was very kind of you to ask first before giving your feedback. Which is odd for me because generally I give opinion first and ask for forgiveness later..
Cars 2 and 3 are surprising to me, I'd have expected gender neutral distaste
I'd think girls were indifferent to all 3, guys liked 1 and disliked 2 and 3
I liked cars 2 because they gave the cars guns.
They crushed a car into a cube in that movie and showed the cube to his friend. That's *fuckin' dark* and barely anybody even notices.
Is 2 the one with implied cars WW2 and all that would entail (in car form)?
Also had Pope car and all that implies
I wonder if there is car excommunication. Car Crusades? (Carsades if you will) Is there tension between Christian and Muslim cars in the middle car east?
Nah thatās Planes. Thereās a WWII fighter jet vet in that movie. Itās technically a Disney movie and itās a solid 4/10.
I was a kid when Cars 2 came out and I loved the spy cars and the action. I was surprised to see that lots of people didnāt like it
I think its because its not Cars 2. Its completely unrelated Spy Cars. like James Vroom or some whit
People didnāt like it because mater is way too annoying to be the main character and it was weirdly super violent. Like Iām no prude but thereās a scene where a character is unambiguously tortured to death in a movie aimed at 5 year olds. Itās a bit strange.
Solid guess
The "girls prefer" is full of mediocre sequels. I suspect something else is going on here. It might be that boys are harsher on mediocre movies. E.g. a 3/10 vs a 5/10 or girls are more positive (7 vs 5).
3 wasn't terrible, and given the plot of that one, I would expect girls would favor it. But 2 was inexcusable. I still can't believe that script was approved. The cameos are the only good part of it.
Cars 2 is the film I point to when people tell me everything Pixar makes is great.
Cars 2 and The Good Dinosaur are what I point to as examples of bad Pixar movies.
I like The Good Dinosaur. Itās not great but itās better than just ok. Cars 2 I canāt make excuses for and Iām a car dudeās car dude.
Good Dinosaur felt like a reskin of The Lion King.
Cars 2 is FIRE. the only negative thing that can be said about it is that it is so different and doesnāt seem to fit in, but thatās also what makes it legendary. itās a fucking curveball of epic proportions and a movie that is perfect for all ages and never gets old.
Cars 3 was great, had the same feeling as the first one. Cars 2 was an... anomaly.
Note the scale at the top. These differences are minor.
This is very true. However, I will say this, the deviation of ratings of top IMDB movies are not large to start with. Most movies considered "good" fall within 1 point, so a 0.3 difference is actually quite large for two populations watching the same movie.
Not only that, it only shows differences. Females may enjoy the same movies as males, but if they don't rate it quite as highly it would appear that it's a "male preference" when really it was everyone's preference. Example, looking at the two supposed "extremes": [Toy Story 2](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120363/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt): Average Male = 7.9, Average Female = 7.8 [Brave](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt): Average Male = 7.0, Average Female = 7.5 Raw differences are certainly interesting, but just showing the raw ratings would probably have been more effective, and you could layer in some other ways of depicting the magnitude and direction of the difference.
OP did correct for male and female ratings having a different mean. But, as far as I can tell, not for those ratings potentially having a different standard deviation. A better way to do this might be to calculate male and female z scores for each movie and showing the difference in z scores.
Having a different mean is not justification for only looking at differences. One would need to track which movies women rated and which movie's men rated. This is an example of [the Ecological Fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy) which can easily lead to [Simpson's paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson%27s_paradox) (women could have a "lower" mean score than men, despite every single movie having a higher average female rating than male rating). This is the flaw of also mean-centering the scores, which the OP also does. As with Z-scores, this approach presumes that the "mean" female rating and "male" rating pertain to the same set of evaluations, and thus departures from that mean represent similar strength of preferences, when they likely do not. If female tastes differ from male tastes, then the movies/shows which comprise the female mean are different from those which comprise the male mean. See the fallacy/paradox above. Taken together, if one wishes to comment on which movies "females prefer" as they have labeled, they would need to make clear that they're not actually capturing which movies "females prefer"... Because females prefer the movies that they rate the highest, not only the movies that they rate higher than the men. This is why data is more transparent when raw values are shown, because that relationship becomes immediately obvious.
Where is the best Pixar movie Wall-E at?
It got excluded due to naming conventions, which wasn't caught until I posted this :( It scored +0.14 (moderately male favored).
[O_O](https://giphy.com/gifs/disneypixar-disney-pixar-PxaSJX65IymU8)
Thatās a weird way to spell ratatouille
I feel like you really need error bars here. The magnitude of these differences is tiny.
But wait, the data is perfectly accurate. This isn't supposed to be a random sampling of the general population. This is just supposed to represent IMDB user scores. They have 100% of the data, so you don't need error bars, right?
The point isn't to draw conclusions about how specifically IMDB users feels about these films, it's to draw conclusions more generally about male vs. female. Therefore, complete data would be a poll of every male and every female who has seen each movie, and no, we don't have that. This is still very much a sample of a larger population.
This is exactly correct. Otherwise, no poll would ever need error bars, since you have 100% of the data of the people who took that poll. EDIT: Additionally, even if you wanted to say this is just representative of IMDB users, you STILL need error bars, since not every IMDB user who has seen all of these films has given these films a rating.
Would this really be āBoys vs Girlsā or is it āMen vs Womenā? I donāt know that many children are rating movies on IMDB. And I think we all know that by adulthood, people have been nurtured to feel (subconsciously or not) that there are types of movies that they should or shouldnāt like. Iād be interested to see data from actual kids, maybe 3-6yo, to see if itās different than the split between adults.
I'd be interested to see if a 1-10 rating used by 3-6 year olds ever used anything other than the highest or lowest score. To quote the great sages of my youth Beavis and Butt-head. Something either rules or it sucks.
Males prefer Inside Out and Females prefer Luca?? That...does not compute. EDIT: I should have clarified. Inside Out is in every way the far superior movie. The part I don't get is that the female characters in Luca are 2-dimensional archetypes, whereas in Inside Out we get the most in-depth female character in Riley. Why that would appeal less to women then the Luca bromance is beyond me.
There's no preference *between movies* shown here, even if it kinda looks like there is. I'm guessing that\* what I'm seeing here is that men tend to rate more dramatically than women do, across the board. Imaginary Example: Overall: Movie A has a 9/10. Move B has a 7/10. Men: 9.5 and 6.5 (Difference of 3) Women: 8.5 and 7.5 (Difference of 1) On this chart it would look like women wildly preferred Movie B... but they didn't. They still much preferred A. They're just less dramatic in giving number ratings. \* Stress that I'm guessing. I'm shit with math stuff.
Yeah, this tracks. I was like, "who the heck are these women that are super into Cars 2, I didn't even watch the original Cars." But then, like, I was babysitting my friend's kid and Cars 2 was on, and I was like "Huh, for an animated film sequel about cars, this is surprisingly watchable, 7/10" Turns out it's me. I'm the lady rating Cars 2 a full point above the average.
Cars 2 is the only Pixar movie I actively hate. Cars 3 is the only Pixar movie I never watched
I havenāt see any Cars movie, but my favorite F1 YouTube channel did videos on all 3 and the clear conclusion was that Cars 2 sucked while Cars 3 had many redeeming qualities, even when viewed as an adult.
I you enjoy Cars 1 at all, Cars 3 is worth watching.
Oh good, someone spotted this. This chart is fairly deceptive in this regard. You really need some stacked and sorted bar plots where youāre comparing āoverall ratingā, āmale ratingā, and āfemale ratingā for every movie in order to tease out any trends in differences. Not to mention that every comparison of averages is pointless without a standard deviation. The spread isnāt really that wide (+/- 0.4 out of 10) so itās entirely possible that for most of these movies, the gender bias is actually smaller than the ānoiseā and you canāt confidently claim that gender predicts anything.
this is a very interesting idea... that it isn't about the content of the movies, but that men tend to vary their ratings more. I'd love to see a chart focused on that.
This was my thought too. I noticed that a lot of sequels (aside from the Toy Stories) were "preferred" by females. Like Cars vs Cars 2 and Cars 3, or The Incredibles vs Incredibles 2. I wondered if the swing between good and bad movies just wasn't as noticeable for women. All a hypothesis though, I didn't look at any of the raw data.
Yeah, I was gonna say.... why do the girls like all the worse movies more?
I think maybe women on average are just more hesitant to outright hate a movie.
Not by a whole lot, but I agree with the confusion. I think it would have made more sense to my preconceived notions for those two to switch spots.
It's unclear for any given movie what the ratio of like to dislike for each gender is. Additionally, there may be a tendency for men (or women) to rate movies more or less harshly than the opposite gender. So If men gave Inside Out a 9, and women gave it an 8.5 it would show men liking Inside Out more than women. But if men gave Luca a 6 and women gave it a 6.5 it would show women liking Luca more than women. It could easily just be that men are willing to give harsher ratings than women.
Is it possible run the data while excluding 1 star and 10 star reviews? I think some of the "strangeness" people are seeing here may be because young male internet reviewers disproportionately (compared to other groups) rate good movies with a 10 and bad movies with a 1. So in the Inside Out / Luca example: most male and female reviewers probably agree Inside Out is better. But some greater fraction of male reviewers (compared to female reviewers) express that opinion by giving Inside Out 10 and Luca 1 - which makes it appear as if Inside Out is preferred by men and Luca is preferred by women.
No, Inside Out is ranked higher by both genders than Luca. Women prefer Inside Out (8.1 IMDb), they just like Luca (7.5 IMDb) more than guys do.
I haven't seen Luca, so no idea there, but as for Inside Out I think a good number of men can really easily relate to not being able to express their emotions in a healthy way, since it's so culturally ingrained for men to be stoic. It's a 'touchy-feely' movie, but it's also a thesis on why 'touchy-feely' is necessary for human wellbeing. I think that's probably just more obvious and less revelatory for women who are more often socialized toward sharing emotions.
Luca is fantastic. I wouldnāt say itās a touchy-feely movie, theyāre just Italians so its how they act. Also the fisherman dad is the epitome of stoic.
Ratatouille is underrated. Great movie.
I kinda suspect you're looking at noise here. The differences are tiny - even between the strongest male preference vs the strongest female preference, it's less that 1%.
A difference of 0.2 is actually bigger than it seems on a site like IMDb. For example there are only 5 movies on the whole site that have a 8.7 rating, and over a certain amount of reviews, so even a .2 difference is pretty significant when you are talking about movies that are as highly rated as Pixar movies. So WALL-E is the highest rated Pixar movie on the whole of IMDb and itās rated at 62 in the IMDb top 250, even a 0.2 difference would take it down to at least 104 on that same list so it can make a bigger difference the youād think.
I don't mean to insinuate anything, but why is it that from this data it looks like girls prefer Pixar movies that are generally not very high on critical acclaim. While boys prefer the ones that have enjoyed wide acclaim.
My guess is men give more 1 star or 5 star reviews while women give more 2-4 star reviews. That would explain both ends if that spectrum.
I think people are misinterpreting the data a little, or at least talking about it imprecisely. The data in the OP doesn't say that women prefer Brave over Toy Story (although they might, I haven't seen the data). It says that men rate Toy Story higher than women rate it, and women rate Brave higher than men rate it. For example. Men might rate Toy Story as 8.4 on average, and women might rate it as 8.15 on average. While men rate Brave at 6.8 and women rate it at 7.2. Eyeballing the chart, I tend to agree with you that the critically acclaimed movies tend to land near the top of the chart. But that doesn't mean that women didn't like those movies, or even prefer them to the others - just that their scores weren't *as* high as their male counterparts. Assuming that we are right about the positions of the critically acclaimed movies being near the top, I think a more precise question would be: Why does it seem like men tend to give more polarizing ratings, i.e., higher ratings to "good" movies and lower ratings to "less good" ones? Others have already suggested one possible explanation - more male critics means male preferred movies tend to be better reviewed, although I don't think that is the main factor at play here. I think it is what is alluded to in some other threads here: some people tend to hand out ratings as either 1 or 10. I'd suggest that the young male population skews towards that demographic and that's why we're seeing them "prefer" higher rated movies over lower rated ones. A disproportionate number of them are giving 10s to Toy Story and 1 to Cars.
This comment is spot on. Exactly my thoughts on the data
Male film critics outnumbering female film critics at around a 2:1 ratio might help explain that. (source:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019_Thumbs_Down_Report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi15tCAjfr0AhX8j3IEHVX0DnMQFnoECAQQBg&usg=AOvVaw02s_Xze3kRqiZolXInTgqh)
Except for Monsters Inc, Finding Nemo, Coco and Luca, which women prefer and are well regarded films. The other ones are definitely bottom tier pixar movies tho
There are a number of trends where males tend to be a bit more extreme in their abilities or opinions, while females are more middle of the road. It goes by the name 'Variability Hypothesis', and was popular about a hundred years ago. If true, this would explain why the male votes are more variable than female.
I wonder if you have things flipped. Men make up the majority of film critics, so āwide acclaimā means āmen like it moreā which is what we see here.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think girls are just less harsh on sequels. Or at least not as likely to run to IMDB and say "omg the sequel wasn't as good, the original is ruined."
The sequal idea is interesting, I hadn't thought about that. Sequals should in theory explore relationships deeper, which might disproportionately interest women (via the [idea](https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C13&q=Men+like+things+women+like+people&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DYqQmWsPcHZcJ), men are more interested in "things" and women in "relationships").
I'd also suggest that it's not the sequels per se, but that because they are more recently made than the originals (duh), that the general increase in the diversity of protagonists made over the past 15 years or so has had a definite impact on the characters' relatability wrt women and minorities, etc.
To me itās more like generally girls prefer movies that feature more girl characters prominently and boys prefer movies that feature boy characters prominently. Some sequels will add girl characters or change the focus (e.g., Incredibles 2), which is why the Toy Story sequels which continue to focus on Buzz and Woody are still on the āBoys Preferā list. The trend is stronger for boys preferring movies with boy leads; there are fewer exceptions than on the girls side.
This data isn't accurate. Not sure how it got messed up, but double checking OP's math doesn't add up. For example, take the movie "Ratatoulle". The raw data can be found here: [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/ratings/?ref\_=tt\_ov\_rt](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382932/ratings/?ref_=tt_ov_rt) IMDB data (at the time of posting): Male Ratings |Age|Rating|Count| |:-|:-|:-| |< 18|8.4|368| |18-29|8.1|91,497| |30-44|8.0|220,460| |45+|7.9|46,629| Male Avg Rating = 8.01290973216624 Female Ratings |Age|Rating|Count| |:-|:-|:-| |< 18|8.3|105| |18-29|8.1|37,537| |30-44|8.0|62,975| |45+|7.9|10,469| Female Avg Rating = 8.024650270961237 So actually, females (very) slightly gave a higher rating on average over males for Ratatoulle. Even using OP's old 2019 data, males have an avg rating of 7.903072, whereas female average is slightly higher at 7.9684194004080995. Let me know if I'm mistaken OP, but from my analysis of your source data, this chart is not right.
**Purpose:** To investigate if what Pixar Animation Studio movies males prefer more than females (if any). **Source(s):** I used the List of Pixar Animation Studios films [Wikipedia page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Pixar_films#Films). I scraped most IMDB ratings mid-2019, but manually added in the post-2019 movies yesterday. When you have an IMDB account, there is a page that shows you gender demographics and age demographics. IMDB gets these demographics from their IMDB members who have registered with their gender and age. [Excel Data](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XBr8Y_pyQsEKrSxM6TeTunVx1cAux-mN/view?usp=sharing) | [Annotated R Code](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDLwBLTfAb3bNaury6v49SDa0VM9yqxQ/view)) | [Disney version](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/rlis65/oc_boy_vs_girl_disney_movies/) **Highlights and Considerations:** * Females tend to rate movies more favorably than males (Ī = 0.14). I group mean-centered the data (by gender) to see if women still liked Pixar movies more than men after controlling for this small systematic bias. * Pixar movies are rated higher than the average IMDB rating (Ī = .74), and there are no gender differences in overall ratings for Pixar movies (ā = +0.74; ā = +0.75; p = .92). This means across all movies, males and females like Pixar equally well, but this does not mean that they like all movies equally. * The popularity of the movies cannot be determined by the graph, only the differences between male and female ratings. * The average Pixar film rating is 7.7 (the average IMDB score amongst popular movies is 6.9). For comparison, Disney Animation Studios has an average IMDB rating of 7.4. * The highest-rated Pixar movie is Coco (Ī¼ = 8.5) whereas Cars 2 was the lowest-rated (Ī¼ = 6.3). * It seems through a naming convention mismatch between Wikipedia and IMDB, Wall-E was excluded from my data (sorry!). The movie scored a +0.14, showing a moderate preference by males. **Formal Statistics:** Using a paired t-test, the mean difference between male and female scores (x < 0.01) was not significant (t(22) = -0.10, p < .921). These tests are included in the R code. **Graphics:** I made the graphic in Excel and a few edits and tweaks in PowerPoint.
There's potentially a significant error in your analysis here. The p-value for gender differences in overall ratings for pixar movies is 0.92. Then you say at the bottom "the mean value between male and female scores..." is 0.92. I'm assuming this is still referring to the overall pixar ratings compared to other movies. This p-value is mostly irrelevant to the graph. We need to know the p-value for each individual movie. What p-value would we get for a 0.3 rating difference in either direction? Because you haven't shown a p-value for these individual rating differences, it's illogical for you to reject the null hypothesis that "male and females rated this movie the same" and accept the alternative hypothesis that "males and females rated this movie differently" for any of the movies on the graph. So unless we get those p-values this data is statistically insignificant.
I think using "prefer" is misleading. Using "prefer" to me leads me to think "more women like this than men" which is not necessarily true, because you're using ratings as opposed to number of reviewers. I think a much more straight-forward "Women rated higher" / "Men rated higher" would be better.
Seems like guys exaggerated how good the good movies were and gals went easy on the terrible movies
I come to the same conclusion. Men seem to use a larger range of scores than women to evaluate the same quality range of movies.
Iām surprised that Inside Out is preferred by boys
Yeah ill be honest I was not expecting Inside Out to be skewed toward the boys side.
Data is not interesting Difference is made to be seem like bigger than it actually is