Representation of Homosexuality in FILM : Research

This article was written by The Guardian in 2014, broadcasting how Hollywood has been criticised by Glaad a US gay rights organisation for it's "inadequate" representation of LGBT characters.
The article itself does not criticise Hollywood but provides an overview of the criticisms made by Glaad and statistics to support them.
For example, only 17/102 major studio films from the 7 biggest studios (Warner Brothers, Sony, Lionsgate, Paramount, Disney, Universal and 20th Century Fox) featured gay characters with "the majority being offensive and defamatory portrayals"
The CEO suggests that Hollywood is doing "more harm than good" with it's lack of "substantial LGBT characters in mainstream film in addition to the outdated humour and stereotypes"
The Guardian includes the fact that Sony was the only major picture studio to be rated "good" for it's "positive" characters in Battle of The Year and The Mortal Instruments (described as "the most inclusive film release of 2013")

The Guardian highlights the picture studios that failed and the reasons for their failed rating. For example, Paramount and Warner Brothers failed due to "including no positive portrayals of LGBT characters in any of their films". Films like Pain & Gain and We're The Millers were criticised for having elements of "gay panic" and Scorsese's Wolf of Wall Street was criticised for it's gay butler having an orgy.
This article explains what the Vito Russo test is and how it works. It was pioneered by Glaad, similar to the Bechdel test but instead of focussing on the importance of women roles in cinema it focuses on LGBT characters. For a film to pass this test it has to "feature an LGBT character not solely defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity and who if removed, from the film would significantly affect the plot." The Guardian found only 7/17 films that feature an LGBT character passed the test. The portrayal of transgenders was worse with only two appearances, both "tiny" roles neither in a "positive light". The Guardian mentions the damaging effects inadequate representations could have as they quote Glaad saying "these images continue to marginalise a community". It criticises films like Anchorman 2 and Identity Thief for their use of anti-transgender slurs by a main character "for no reason other than to make a joke". Glaad claims that "the media's representation of transgenders has long remained decades behind that of gay and lesbian people"
The Guardian described how none of the films praised by Glaad featured a gay main character as "the starkest fact" conveying it's shock at such statistics.

In my opinion, I feel obliged to agree with the article as there are hard core facts to defend the sad yet true claims that the LGBT are still disadvantaged even in cinema and that it is still difficult even in the most fairest society yet for a LGBT character to land a leading role or even serve a purpose other than fulfil a stereotypical, derogatory, prejudice role insinuating they are only relevant when highlighting their sexuality.
One criticism of the article though is the focus on characters sexuality and not relationships. In some cases, a characters sexuality is irrelevant to their purpose in the narrative. I think there should be more focus on LGBT relationships and not the character itself.