And? These companies are money making organizations, unless they are Disney, so of course they would attach themselves to writers, directors, staff and actors that MAKE THEM MONEY. This stupid, agenda driven ACLU/UCLA study, is moronic at best. When all the study is worried about is sexual ordination and skin color is is overtly racist in it's presentation. The sources used are less than scientific. Some of those data sources are Luminate Film & TV, bills themselves as "The only DE&I dataset detailing ethnicities in multiethnic individuals, countries of heritage, language spoken and personal pronouns, and other key attributes." If that is not agenda driven datapoints I don't know what is. IMDB, an open source database. Talkwalker, a social media, and internet monitoring system that predicted what will work and what won't work. Based on marketing, social trends and such. But all these things miss the mark, because they are based on an agenda not quality movie or TV making. They don't care about script generation, just what color or sex the person was that wrote it. They care more about what color the camera operator is than how well they can shoot film. When your "study" is about sexual orientation, color, languages spoken, and how many mixed gender staff a show or movie has you are looking at the wrong metrics. For this particular "study" it looked at:

Racial status of lead talent

Gender of lead talent

Disability status of lead talent

Show creator racial status

Show creator gender

Genres and arenas

Viewer and social media ratings and total minutes viewed

None of that has shit to do with the likeability of a movie. If it did, Ghostbusters (2016) should have made more money than Avatar. Ghostbusters (2016) tried to "refresh" the classic 1984 version with a diverse cast, and and a budget 5X higher than the 30 million of the 1984 movie. The 1984 version made 296,640,120.00 on a 30 million dollar budget, a hit movie by every metric. The 2016 version brough in 229,147,509.00 on a budget of 144 million dollars. A dismal failure all the way around. People who care about the racial status of the lead, gender of the lead, disability status of the lead, racial and gender status of the creator, are not people going to enjoy something they are watching. They are people checking boxes and will never enjoy something because it's good. A movie with almost a total lack of diversity can be just as good, when done right. Take for example, Sinners 2025. I freaking love that movie. Almost a totally black cast, black writer and director and the movie is amazing. Ryan Coogler has made a number of movies with largely black casts that I really liked like Creed (2015), Black Panther (2018), and of course Sinners (2025). I don't go into a movie or TV show asking myself how many blacks, whites, Asians, Hindu, etc. folks are in the cast, or on the crew, in the marketing department. I ask myself is this moving going to suck or is it going to be great because of the script , directors, producers and actors involved in the project. How shallow and dim your world must be if for a movie or show to appeal to you you have to know who a person has sex with, who their ancestors were, and what gender they want to be this week. Before one of you dipshits say "Its easy for you to find a movie that represents you, you're white." I say to you, I'm Native American and White, other than Wes Studi, Adam Beach, Lily Gladstone and Graham Greene (R.I.P.) there are not a lot of Native American actors.

Here's a crazy idea: let's all stop using the hashtag "Tadeo Jones 4" "Tad 4" or any tags related to Tadeo with the number 4 if it's not for the official Tadeo Jones movie.

"Live action remakes~!"

that are 99% CGI from overworked people who are going to get laid off as soon as the company starts pocketing the record-breaking profits,

and more

"Professionally filmed and captioned Live Musicals that are all budgeted Practical Effects"