Neverending nepotism in Hollywood?

[Too Much Garlic]

I've always thought big stars should be more willing to take smaller supporting roles in other movies. It's cool when the movie is good. Top stars usually don't do it (during their peak years) because they fear it will damage their status/pay grade. But I think that fear is kind of overblown. It usually won't damage their career unless the movie is crap, and the big star's name gets used all over the marketing to sell it.

There may also be the fear that a viewer seeing a star in a smaller supporting role may take them out of the experience.

 

[batguy]

There may also be the fear that a viewer seeing a star in a smaller supporting role may take them out of the experience.

Yeah that's a factor.

 

[Riceball]

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.

It's because of human nature that we like and, for the most part, crave the familiar. We see someone on screen, the radio, the stage that we liked and enjoyed, we naturally want to see more. Then the execs in charge recognize that and give us more of them because they know that it sells, which makes them money and making money, after all, is the name of the game. This has probably been going since the first entertainers came about, people in Medieval and Renaissance Europe probably had their favorite minstresls, trubedours, and actors that they loved to see over and over again. Even before then, back in the time of the Roman Empire, gladiators and gladiatorial games were a huge thing, and people had their favorites that they loved seeing fight in the arena time and time again. So wanting to see your favorite actors over and over again is just an extension of that and is nothing new.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

It's because of human nature that we like and, for the most part, crave the familiar. We see someone on screen, the radio, the stage that we liked and enjoyed, we naturally want to see more. Then the execs in charge recognize that and give us more of them because they know that it sells, which makes them money and making money, after all, is the name of the game.

Does this explain Pedro Pacal??

The man is in everything…I think he’s even playing the part of my neighborhood mail man…

 

[Riceball]

One thing to consider about nepotism/being a nepo baby is the expectations placed upon you. Sure, having famous parents gets your foot in the door but once your foot in the door you have to perform and the expectation is often that you perform to the same level as your famour parent(s). An example of this, not acting or even directly nepotism related, but following in your famous parent's footsepts is the son of famous Marine Corps General Chesty Puller. Chesty was and still is a very famous person in the Marine Corps. right up there with R. Lee Ermey and is loved and revered by Marines. His son, once he got old enough, went and followed in his Dad's footsteps and became a Marine himself. This was during the '60s so he got shipped off to Vietnam, where he eventually lost his legs. After coming home, not being able to continue his Marine Corps career, and probably disappointed in himself because he couldn't live up to the reputation of his famous father, he committed suicide. So, sometimes being a neop baby or simply following in your parents' footsteps can add extra pressure that someone who has no prior connections to the industry might have.

 

[batguy]

One thing to consider about nepotism/being a nepo baby is the expectations placed upon you. Sure, having famous parents gets your foot in the door but once your foot in the door you have to perform and the expectation is often that you perform to the same level as your famour parent(s). An example of this, not acting or even directly nepotism related, but following in your famous parent's footsepts is the son of famous Marine Corps General Chesty Puller. Chesty was and still is a very famous person in the Marine Corps. right up there with R. Lee Ermey and is loved and revered by Marines. His son, once he got old enough, went and followed in his Dad's footsteps and became a Marine himself. This was during the '60s so he got shipped off to Vietnam, where he eventually lost his legs. After coming home, not being able to continue his Marine Corps career, and probably disappointed in himself because he couldn't live up to the reputation of his famous father, he committed suicide. So, sometimes being a neop baby or simply following in your parents' footsteps can add extra pressure that someone who has no prior connections to the industry might have.

Yeah it's definitely a double-edged thing.

But the downside is mainly after you have already gotten your big shot(s). Most people never get that far. Hence the jealousy/resentment.

 

[mattycsi]

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.

To be fair, she had one hell of an audition tape.

 

[Riceball]

Yeah it's definitely a double-edged thing.

But the downside is mainly after you have already gotten your big shot(s). Most people never get that far. Hence the jealousy/resentment.

All I can say is that life's not fair, and at the end of the day, filmmaking (to include stage and TV) is a business Producers and directors are more likely to cast the child of a well-known actor than some random actor off the street because they're hoping that name recognition brings more butts in seats/in front of screens thus making the production more money. Wouldn't you do the same thing if you were in charge of a multi-million dollar production?

 

[batguy]

All I can say is that life's not fair, and at the end of the day, filmmaking (to include stage and TV) is a business Producers and directors are more likely to cast the child of a well-known actor than some random actor off the street because they're hoping that name recognition brings more butts in seats/in front of screens thus making the production more money. Wouldn't you do the same thing if you were in charge of a multi-million dollar production?

Frank Stallone. Casey Affleck. Nic Coppola. Brian Doyle-Murray.

I don't think a famous last name is really much of a box-office draw in most cases.

 

[Riceball]

Frank Stallone. Casey Affleck. Nic Coppola. Brian Doyle-Murray.

I don't think a famous last name is really much of a box-office draw in most cases.

Maybe, maybe not. But if you were a producer/director, who would you rather bank on some total unknown or the child a well-known actor with the potential of name recognition?

 

[batguy]

I agree the famous last name might help persuade a casting director or producer.

I just don't think it does much at the theater box office.


But the main factor is, you guessed it: Frank Stallone.

 

[CleoTheMagpie79]

I think this topic is on par with those only being hired because of the amount of social media followers the actor has (irrespective of talent), as the finance holders see their followers as a large chunk of paying audience.

I am sick to death of Zendyay and Timothée Chalamet being in everything advertised. Look at the cast of the recent Dune films. I sat there thinking "oh look, Drax is in it', "and Poe Dameron', "ah here's Aquaman" etc. To me, they're not bankable actors, because it takes me out of the films and ruins it.

 

[Ron]

I think this topic is on par with those only being hired because of the amount of social media followers the actor has (irrespective of talent), as the finance holders see their followers as a large chunk of paying audience.

I am sick to death of Zendyay and Timothée Chalamet being in everything advertised. Look at the cast of the recent Dune films. I sat there thinking "oh look, Drax is in it', "and Poe Dameron', "ah here's Aquaman" etc. To me, they're not bankable actors, because it takes me out of the films and ruins it.

True. I have a friend who's an actor (mainly background). A few years back, he told me that social media statistics had become a factor in casting.

I think even some car companies sell their limited-edition models based on who has a lot of followers. Not that I could afford one or want one but if I did, I still couldn't buy one which is ridiculous.

 

[HeartBlade]

Does this explain Pedro Pacal??

The man is in everything…I think he’s even playing the part of my neighborhood mail man…

View attachment 1937065

Funny but definitely think this is a thing.

Actor does a good job in one role. Amazing, lets cast that actor in everything else because people love this guy/gal.

Jennifer Lawrence was also in everything after her success on Hunger Games. So was Tom Holland after Spiderman (and was in several roles that really didnt suit him imo like Nathan Drake). Usually, this results in overexposure, the public getting fed up with the actor, and they kind of take a break. If they are good, they still get consistent work though. Given Pascal can actually act if he is in roles that suit him and he has had a long career, Im sure he will be fine after the hype dies down which is probably soon.

All I can say is that life's not fair, and at the end of the day, filmmaking (to include stage and TV) is a business Producers and directors are more likely to cast the child of a well-known actor than some random actor off the street because they're hoping that name recognition brings more butts in seats/in front of screens thus making the production more money. Wouldn't you do the same thing if you were in charge of a multi-million dollar production?

This. Move away from Hollywood into politics or just business in general and you see the same thing. Having the name Bush or Kennedy as your last name will be a real boost if you want to become a senator (and now I guess Trump). Family businesses are basically nepotism incarnate.

Im guessing capitalism promises the idea of people getting their positions or being rewarded based on their skills and merit but reality is not so kind. Its not just Hollywood. The "fair" thing about Hollywood is a name gets the actor through the door which is better than most but the actor still has to be somewhat talented and likable to have a career. Other industries dont even need that.

 

[batguy]

True. I have a friend who's an actor (mainly background). A few years back, he told me that social media statistics had become a factor in casting

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. It makes sense.

Given Pascal can actually act if he is in roles that suit him and he has had a long career, Im sure he will be fine after the hype dies down which is probably soon.

I dunno. He's been pretty overexposed lately.

Acting ability doesn't maintain a career by itself. The public has to want to watch you.

Travolta could always act. But people got burned out on him in the mid-80s. He spent a decade eating Ramen noodles before 'Pulp Fiction' came along.

 

[joberg]

Funny but definitely think this is a thing.

Actor does a good job in one role. Amazing, lets cast that actor in everything else because people love this guy/gal.

Jennifer Lawrence was also in everything after her success on Hunger Games. So was Tom Holland after Spiderman (and was in several roles that really didnt suit him imo like Nathan Drake). Usually, this results in overexposure, the public getting fed up with the actor, and they kind of take a break. If they are good, they still get consistent work though. Given Pascal can actually act if he is in roles that suit him and he has had a long career, Im sure he will be fine after the hype dies down which is probably soon.


This. Move away from Hollywood into politics or just business in general and you see the same thing. Having the name Bush or Kennedy as your last name will be a real boost if you want to become a senator (and now I guess Trump). Family businesses are basically nepotism incarnate.

Im guessing capitalism promises the idea of people getting their positions or being rewarded based on their skills and merit but reality is not so kind. Its not just Hollywood. The "fair" thing about Hollywood is a name gets the actor through the door which is better than most but the actor still has to be somewhat talented and likable to have a career. Other industries dont even need that.

Life is not fair...period! Whether Capitalism or Communism or others

 

[Bloop]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. It makes sense.




I dunno. He's been pretty overexposed lately.

Acting ability doesn't maintain a career by itself. The public has to want to watch you.

Travolta could always act. But people got burned out on him in the mid-80s. He spent a decade eating Ramen noodles before 'Pulp Fiction' came along.

Travolta wasn't exactly "eating ramen." He's kept working pretty steadily in feature films since the 70s - "Look Who's Talking" was huge and spawned 2 sequels, leading directly to "Pulp Fiction." Here's never really "went away" like people say. Sure, he had a bunch of sub-par films & flops, but he kept getting the lead roles in movies. The biggest lull in his acting career was only about 4 years, from 1985s "Perfect" to 1989s "The Experts" and the hit "Look Who's Talking," which isn't that much time, really. Being in Scientology probably helped, but that's a topic for another thread.

 

[DarkHelmet]

Nepotism is everywhere and it's the way of the world.

 

[batguy]

Travolta wasn't exactly "eating ramen." He's kept working pretty steadily in feature films since the 70s - "Look Who's Talking" was huge and spawned 2 sequels, leading directly to "Pulp Fiction." Here's never really "went away" like people say. Sure, he had a bunch of sub-par films & flops, but he kept getting the lead roles in movies. The biggest lull in his acting career was only about 4 years, from 1985s "Perfect" to 1989s "The Experts" and the hit "Look Who's Talking," which isn't that much time, really. Being in Scientology probably helped, but that's a topic for another thread.

Yeah, I was exaggerating.

But his box-office bankability had fallen way down in the late 1980s. It dramatically increased after 'Pulp.' It was an example of a pop-cultural comeback if there ever was one.

. . . and it lasted until about 'Battlefield Earth' in 2000 . . .

 

[HeartBlade]

Life is not fair...period! Whether Capitalism or Communism or others

Lol definitely true.

I mention capitalism because I feel there is an ongoing narrative (at least in the west) where wealth is predominantly earned through talent and hard work rather than other external factors like plain luck. Its also probably why there is this idealization of the billionaire class like Trump, Gates, or Musk. They have earned insane levels of wealth, there must be something that makes them different and "superior" to the common person who doesnt have that wealth.

Why rich people tend to think they deserve their money

A psychology experiment using a rigged Monopoly game reveals how inequality replicates itself.

www.marketplace.org

Analysis: If you're rich, you're more lucky than smart. And there's math to prove it

A study that claims the predominance of luck over talent in the distribution of wealth has been mathematically confirmed.

www.pbs.org

Maybe its not applicable solely to capitalism but I assumed such a system encourages that view (you earn what you are worth). Doesnt help that even if you have a huge leg up over your peers through things like nepotism, you still have to work hard so you do feel your wealth is earned through hard work and to say it was earned because of luck or an unfair system undermines the hard work you personally put in to get to where you are. Also probably why the rags to riches narrative is so popular and has the person depicted as exceptional in talent rather than someone just insanely lucky (even Forest Gump is incredibly talented as an athlete in the movie although luck is acknowledged as a very big factor for him).