Neverending nepotism in Hollywood?

I don't want this to be a hate-thread (despite the title), but I find it disappointing how many current famous actors are famous partly due to nepotism. Or, at the very least, they get their breaks due to the connections of their parents or studios hiring them based in part on their famous lineage.

I was reading casting rumors for the new X-Men franchise, with Patrick Schwarzenegger and Daisy Edgar-Jones being listed for key roles. Patrick, you obviously know who his dad is, but I had looked up Daisy just to see who she was because I wasn't familiar with her by name. While she's not the daughter of anyone famous, her father is the director of Sky Arts and the head of entertainment at Sky (Sky is a British broadcaster, for those unaware). Her mother was also a drama film editor. So, while not a child of fame, she certainly benefited from her parents connections in entertainment.

I noted that there's at least two actors in Thunderbolts* who have famous parents - Wyatt Russell is the son of actors Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, and Lewis Pullman is the son of actor Bill Pullman. Florence Pugh doesn't have actor parents, but her father is a famous restraunteur, and certainly grew up in a more privileged life than most. Her brother is also an actor, appearing in 5 episodes of Game of Thrones, among other theatrical roles.

I'm not suggesting that they're not good actors. From what I've seen, they're all very good. So why am I complaining? Because there's a lot of equally talented people who never get the chances these actors have had. I know the world isn't "fair," but it seems like Hollywood is just perpetuating the "nepo baby" trend. I get that movies are big financial productions and the studios might be looking for any casting that might give them a little extra. Having a famous name obviously helps get noticed. It's disappointing that it sure seems hard to get noticed if you don't have connections from birth. There's tons of actors grinding away that'll never even get auditions for the roles these privileged few are offered.

I guess I'm posting because I'm curious what others think. Does it matter to you who these actors are related to, either positive or negative? Does it influence your decision to see projects if you know who these actors are connected to?

But can you honestly blame them?? I absolutely do not.

I would rather be paid millions to “make pretend like a kid playing dress-up” for a living, rather than getting a “real job”.

Candidly, I would have no problem trading off my parents’ names if that was the outcome…and I suspect every member of this Board would do the same.
 
Last edited:
But can you honestly blame them??

I would rather be paid millions to “make pretend like a kid playing dress-up” for a living rather than getting a “real job”.

Candidly, I would have no problem trading off my parents’ names if that was the outcome…and I suspect every member of this Board would do the same.
I don't know, I think a lot of people want to be known for their own abilities, celebrity children included. You often hear them saying stories like how they don't want to trade on their parents name, but they're probably just kidding themselves thinking they achieved success "all by themselves." I mean, nobody is successful without some kind of help, and celebrity children or children of connected and/or rich people have more opportunities.

I also thought I'd like being a famous actor, working on movies, but the more I hear about the real work behind it, the long hours, the repetitive nature, having little control over the outcome, I think I'd hate it. Even the fame associated with it seems awful - no privacy, always worrying about what you do and say, who you interact with, protecting your "image" so you keep getting more work, etc. I mean, the money would help for sure, but that only goes so far.

I used to be a full-time instrumental musician - not incredibly successful, but enough to get by without having another job for much of the time. I've realized that talent only gets you so far, and the connections you make are more important. Everyone who hears me play, hears tracks I've made, or songs I've arranged (all professionally) is impressed by my abilities, but that isn't always enough to get gigs. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people who are willing to do what I do for cheap or free, so the difference between me wanting to make a living and be paid for my ability and decades or hard work and experience often loses out to people that work for less that are just "good enough." To tie it into the nepotism, I feel like there's a lot of "hood enough" actors out there that keep working based on their connections.
 
To me, the Biggest loss is Paris Hilton. How this over-privileged piece of shi* and her huge nose made it to the screen is one of man’s greatest mysteries.
I don't really agree with mocking people's appearance, but yeah, she's a child of fame and privilege for sure.
 
I also thought I'd like being a famous actor, working on movies, but the more I hear about the real work behind it, the long hours, the repetitive nature, having little control over the outcome, I think I'd hate it. Even the fame associated with it seems awful - no privacy, always worrying about what you do and say, who you interact with, protecting your "image" so you keep getting more work, etc. I mean, the money would help for sure, but that only goes so far.

…Timothy Olyphant had a pretty candid take on “the craft of acting”…

It doesn’t sound like bricklaying or performing brain surgery. My hat is off to anyone who can break into acting, even if it is through nepotism. Nice work, if you can get it…



acting jon lovitz GIF
 
Last edited:
Also, why do we want to keep seeing the same actors over and over in different roles? Yes, we like good actors for their abilities and feel that it's more likely a project will be good if they're involved, but it also kind of ruins the suspension of disbelief seeing the same people over and over. Shouldn't we want to see new people whom we don't have any preconceived notions about? Or do we just like that certain recognizable people can "trick" us (for lack of a better term) into making us believe they're a different character?

I guess some of these things are just human nature, wanting to like and be liked based on shared experiences and such. Lately, I've been thinking about lot about why we do things, our motivations, and basically how everything we do is driven by our animal impulses. Wanting to be liked and going along with trends is herd mentality - in nature, animals are safer as part of a group. Even things like why we like shiny things - Christmas-type lights, a shiny car, etc - and found that, while no one knows for sure, the prevailing opinion is that we're attracted to shiny things because of shiny things in nature that humans need, like water. Or, a brightly colored, shiny piece of fruit - I assume the bright color and shine are usually denoting ripeness.
In Old Hollywood and the Studio System, they churned movies after movies (fast productions at that) with the same actors/actresses all the time!
Whether Humphrey Bogart (he averaged a movie every two months!o_Oo_O) was featured with the same players: Bergman, Greenstreet, Lorre and all. Talk about seeing the same people again and again. I don't mind seeing the same people in different roles; as long as I'm transported into the movie.
 
I don't know, I think a lot of people want to be known for their own abilities, celebrity children included. You often hear them saying stories like how they don't want to trade on their parents name, but they're probably just kidding themselves thinking they achieved success "all by themselves." I mean, nobody is successful without some kind of help, and celebrity children or children of connected and/or rich people have more opportunities.

I also thought I'd like being a famous actor, working on movies, but the more I hear about the real work behind it, the long hours, the repetitive nature, having little control over the outcome, I think I'd hate it. Even the fame associated with it seems awful - no privacy, always worrying about what you do and say, who you interact with, protecting your "image" so you keep getting more work, etc. I mean, the money would help for sure, but that only goes so far.

I used to be a full-time instrumental musician - not incredibly successful, but enough to get by without having another job for much of the time. I've realized that talent only gets you so far, and the connections you make are more important. Everyone who hears me play, hears tracks I've made, or songs I've arranged (all professionally) is impressed by my abilities, but that isn't always enough to get gigs. Unfortunately, there's a lot of people who are willing to do what I do for cheap or free, so the difference between me wanting to make a living and be paid for my ability and decades or hard work and experience often loses out to people that work for less that are just "good enough." To tie it into the nepotism, I feel like there's a lot of "hood enough" actors out there that keep working based on their connections.
There are actors/actresses that never make the press/tabloids, etc...why? Because they develop, from the get-go, a private life, private information about their private life and never call the paparazzi as to where they gonna shop next, or make their grocery shopping:rolleyes:
Sure, they have to make interviews about the movies they made (the normal T.V. junket circus), but, at the end of the day, you know nothing personal about these folks. Others are getting high on being followed by the photogs everywhere they go...
 
Back
Top