Culture Audiences Prefer Films With Diverse Casts, UCLA Study Finds - Take a shot everytime you read 'BIPOC'

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Link / Archive
Mar 12, 2026 6:00am PT
By Arushi Jacob


Increasingly diverse audiences across the United States also prefer diverse content in theatrical film releases, according to UCLA’s newly released Hollywood Diversity Report. Published on Thursday, the full report takes a deep dive into audience preferences, casting diversity, and box-office trends.

Films with casts that were 41–50% BIPOC performed the best across several categories, including the highest median global and domestic box office receipts, the largest average theater releases, the highest average opening-weekend rank, and the widest international distribution. The diversity range closely mirrors the 45.2% BIPOC share of the U.S. population, suggesting that films reflecting demographic reality resonate with audiences. BIPOC moviegoers also over-indexed as ticket buyers for films with 21–30% BIPOC casts and for films with more than 40% BIPOC casts.

The report also investigated genre trends in 2025 to further dissect audience preferences. Science fiction films generated the highest median global box office earnings, while horror films achieved the highest median return on investment. Audience composition varied by genre as well: White moviegoers dominated the audience for biographies, documentaries, and dramas, which coincidentally had the lowest median box office receipts. In contrast, BIPOC audiences made up the majority of viewers for animation and horror films and nearly half of the audience for action films.

Ticket-buying patterns also revealed the growing influence of diverse audiences. BIPOC moviegoers purchased the majority of opening-weekend domestic tickets for five of the top 10 films and 11 of the top 20 films ranked by global box office in 2025. Female moviegoers bought the majority of opening-weekend tickets for two of the top 10 films and four of the top 20, while audiences aged 18–34 purchased the majority of opening-weekend tickets for four of the top 10 films and 11 of the top 20.

Casting diversity was also common among the highest-grossing films. Six of the top 10 films and 12 of the top 20 featured casts that were more than 30% BIPOC. Additionally, three of the top 10 films and eight of the top 20 had casts that were over 40% women, while two of the top 10 and four of the top 20 included casts in which more than 20% of actors had a known disability.

Among each BIPOC audience group, 10–13 of their top 20 films featured casts that were more than 30% BIPOC. Even among White moviegoers, seven of the top 20 films included casts with more than 30% BIPOC representation. Similarly, 13 of the top 20 films favored by female audiences featured casts that were over 40% female, and 12 of those films centered on women-focused stories.

The report concluded that Hollywood must focus on maintaining diversity across race and gender to ensure people keep attending the movies.

Female leads fell sharply after a historic high in 2024, and among the top 20 global box office films, female-led titles dropped from nine to six. Films where women made up the majority of the audience also declined from eight to four. In 2025, 19 of the top 20 films with the largest share of female opening-weekend audiences had a female lead or co-lead, 13 had gender-balanced casts, and 12 featured women-centered stories. According to the report, box-office successes such as “Barbie,” “Inside Out 2,” “Zootopia 2,” and the live-action “Lilo & Stitch” highlight this demand. Meanwhile, women’s total roles fell from 41.3% in 2024 to 37.1% in 2025, while majority-male casts increased from 51.5% to 66.9%.

In the report’s conclusion, the co-authors state, “People want stories they can relate to and connect with in the movies they watch. In a society where people increasingly do not interact with each other in person, film affords people the opportunity to connect with others who they may never come in contact with in real life and helps them to understand their shared humanity. This is why meaningful representation in film is so vital and why Hollywood must adapt to meet this need.”
 
“We didn’t let anyone make a big movie without filling it to the brim with globohomo, and all the movies that performed at all were filled to the brim with globohomo. Therefore audiences love globohomo.”
 
Films with casts that were 41–50% BIPOC performed the best across several categories, including the highest median global and domestic box office receipts, the largest average theater releases, the highest average opening-weekend rank, and the widest international distribution.
Yeah because to be even considered for awards now you must conform to some bullshit DEI rules. So people spend money on projects that will be able to be considered for awards, rather than ones that can't/won't because of the rules.

Then the stuff with money behind it gets ads and usually has names attached, and thus will have a head start in terms of making money.

Its confirmation bias at best and useless info at worst
 
"Increasingly diverse audiences across the United States could be here", he thought, "I've never been to this theater before"
 
Actual box office performance for diverse films disproves this claim and / or raises questions how the methodology was developed and then applied by the studios
 
“We didn’t let anyone make a big movie without filling it to the brim with globohomo, and all the movies that performed at all were filled to the brim with globohomo. Therefore audiences love globohomo.”
Was going to say exactly this what is there 1 movie with a mostly white cast released in theaters a year?
 
Firstly, it's pretty hilarious that they repeatedly use the term BIPOC without telling me what the fuck it means. As if everyone just knows.

Secondly, are the Chinese and Indians "BIPOC"? I really have no idea. If they are then I presume that is throwing off the numbers. Basically grouping together black people and Chinese people to make the black audience seem significant.

Thirdly -
White moviegoers dominated the audience for biographies, documentaries, and dramas, which coincidentally had the lowest median box office receipts. In contrast, BIPOC audiences made up the majority of viewers for animation and horror films and nearly half of the audience for action films.
LOL
 
Last edited:
Audiences prefer diverse casts?

So I guess Hollywood is currently going through another golden age, right?

Right?

Right...
 
I genuinely don't give a shit what colour the actors are if they can actually act and their presence makes sense.

Buddy cop black/White combo - kino
Asian actors in Kung-Fu flick - kino
Black actors in hypothetical film about that crazy rich nigga Mansa Musa in the 1300s - kino, no crackers should be in that.

By the same token:
Film set in 17th century Britain filled with niggers and pakis - disgusting
Film based on European folklore like Snow White filled with spics and niggers - hateful
 
I sincerely doubt the methodology of UCLA getting these findings. They used the financial reports and ticket sales along with the cast of the movies and just extrapolated a bunch of bullshit from that?
 
Audience composition varied by genre as well: White moviegoers dominated the audience for biographies, documentaries, and dramas, which coincidentally had the lowest median box office receipts. In contrast, BIPOC audiences made up the majority of viewers for animation and horror films and nearly half of the audience for action films.
First of all, lmao. Second I just saw an ad for another of those black horror with evil white people movies, "They will kill you" and apparently it's an action comedy horror lol. Blacks have a high in-group preference so I guess it's good for business.
 
ONE STUDY DOES NOT EXTRAPOLATE TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION ONLY A REPRODUCIBLE PEER REVIEWED AND TRANSPARENT MULTIPLE NUMBER OF STUDIES OVER TIME WILL EVEN APPROACH SUCH A CONCLUSION IF THAT I DUNNO I AM NOT A FUCKING STATISTICIAN.
 
Chinese no, pull start not push start Indians yes. They made the term BIPOC because POC initially counted Chinese and push start indians and that became inconvenient, so they made a new term.
I asked an AI about it and they said Chinese are BIPOC because even if they aren't I, they are POC.

Also check this quote from the AI.

"While the Han Chinese have a history in China spanning over 3,000 years, they are not considered "indigenous" in modern political or legal contexts because they are the dominant ethnic majority."

"The distinction is based more on power dynamics and international law than on how long a group has lived in a place."

"Why the "Indigenous" Label Doesn't Apply"

"Dominant vs. Non-Dominant: Under the most widely accepted international definition (the Martínez Cobo study), indigenous peoples are "non-dominant sectors of society" trying to preserve their identity against a prevailing culture. Since the Han make up 92% of China's population and hold political power, they do not meet this criterion."

It seems they changed the definition of indigenous to exclude white people in their own lands.
 
Most big movies are now are intentionally diversity cast. You're generally not going to see a cast composition like the 90s or 80s anymore unless its a smaller film and/or its trying to send a political message tied to it ie the evil mostly white humans in Avatar. Of course the writers and 'researchers' know this and that their study is bunk. So this is just more citation trash for sjws to rattle off in passing when arguing about this topic and other topics knowing most people aren't hardcore enough to look up the study and find out how nonsense it is.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom