this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
83 points (83.7% liked)
Movies and TV Shows
2022 readers
17 users here now
A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.
Rules:
- Be civil.
- Please do not link to pirated content.
- No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
- Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Plenty of struggling actors have a good work ethic but don’t have powerful/successful mommies and daddies giving them a foot in the door, Meg.
It’s not dismissive to call him a nepo baby. It’s just a reflection of reality. It doesn’t make him a bad actor, it’s just acknowledging he was privileged by being the son of two very famous actors. Besides, [puts on Jeff Foxworthy mustache] If the biggest hardship you face in your life is being called a “nepo baby” then you just might be a nepo baby
Exactly. If he was a bad actor it would be totally different. But he's fine. And his parents are two of the top actors of their generation... He's simply a nepo baby. It is what it is.
I would be grateful to be in a position to be called a nepo baby. That means my life is pretty good and I wouldn't want to struggle unnecessarily if I don't have to.
Nothing wrong with it, but call a spade a spade.
Exactly. Call a Quaid a Quaid!
A society that gaslights itself with the lie of being based on meritocracy requires them to engage in these mental gymnastics.
It is true that he likely received special treatment because of his parents, and it is just as true that it is dismissive to call him a nepo baby.
That's a specifically derogatory infantilizing name that dismisses the entirety of an actor's own work and attributes it solely and dismissively to their genetic legacy.
Successful movie stars, especially those with successful parents, do need to be coddled, but infantilizing someone and misattributing all of their success and their very personhood is dismissive and insulting.
They don't need to be coddled, but it happens. And it's absolutely tone deaf for people who benefit from their parents fame to deny said fame had anything to do with it.
"it's absolutely tone deaf for people who benefit from their parents fame to deny said fame had anything to do with it."
That's a very specific condition that most of these actors have not fulfilled, at least that I've come across in these articles.
It seems, by and large, these actors say something along the lines of "of course having ______ as my parent benefits me, but that doesn't invalidate all of my own work."
Then there's more bullshit, narrow-minded bullying.
It's popular to bash actors right now and safe to do so, so all the bullies are pitching in.
Nobody is calling out Picasso's father or ernst Klimt for profiting off their famous relatives, it's cool to bash jack quaid or Angelina Jolie, so those are the latest targets of largely unsubstantiated, whiny bullying.
They're people, and it's shameful and hypocritical to bully them, especially without evidence of the very measure of ingratitude or narcissism you and your ilk are accusing them of.
This whole thing is fucking dumb on both sides. I'm not sure why she is defending so much. I've heard Jack on a few podcasts taking jokes/comments about it in stride, so clearly he's not offended despite your weak attempt at a derisive Jeff Foxworthy reference.
On the other side, why does it matter now. The leg has been upped for these kids, that's already done. It's done in every industry the world over (born into a family farm? You're a nepo baby). Nothing to do now but judge their actual work product to see if the success is somewhat warranted. Jack has a pretty good track record of his own and he is humble about it. That's good enough for me compared to many other nepo babies.
Oh no some rando didn't like my Jeff Foxworthy joke!
Good rebuttal.
Doesn’t “nepobaby” imply that he didn’t earn it since nepotism is literally defined as “without merit”? If there’s another word to better describe his successes while also acknowledging his worth ethic, it is a bit unfair to call him a “nepobaby”.
Edit: Why is this getting downvoted when that’s the premise of the word? Nepotism means getting favorable treatment due to relation rather ability.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/nepotism
I mean nepotism happens everywhere and it happens in a varying amount of ways. The fact you know the right someone is typically called "networking" but its nepotism with a fancy coat of paint on it. Sure people who get hired to due to nepotism probably do a ton of work but its clear the nepotism got their foot in the door to be where you are. Having 2 famous actors as parents probably helped move his career far more than most since yeah most people who work from the ground up with no reference probably work as hard as him (likely even more than him) but he had the luck of having the right parents.
I’m not denying that. But that’s not nepotism. Nepotism is getting being shown favoritism because of your relation to someone rather than your abilities. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.
You don't think his first set of gigs weren't because he had actor parents to the point, his first role was as an antagonist in the blockbuster Hunger Games (this doesn't imply that film series is good but its big enough to make a huge splash in your career). Most upstart actors start as extras and take far smaller role, its pretty obvious he had preferential treatment because of who is related to. Good for the dude for making use of the opportunities given to him and he does good work today but at least he isn't denying that his bloodline is a decent part of his success.
That’s not the same thing. Having opportunities that other people don’t have because of who your parents are is not the same thing as being given a job because of who your parents are. If he had to audition, it’s not nepotism. If he didn’t, it is.
Really, like fucking really? Are you suggesting if you "interview" for the job its no longer nepotism. What are you talking about? That is such an absurd concept.
No. I’m suggesting if he got the job because he earned it then it’s not nepotism. Read what I’m writing. Stop building up some straw man because you’re not able to read.
Again how did he get into the position to earn it. He had a privilege many don't have. If he biggest concerns are being called a nepobaby, I think he is doing just fine with himself. There are many talented people who simply don't get these opportunists. So its great for him that he was able to make use of the opportunities given to him but its undeniable. You are the one trying to force the definition of nepotism being solely based on "no merit". As I already said most people get their positions because of nepotism we just call it a shiny new thing.
What do you mean? He auditioned for the roles and got them? No one is arguing that he’s not doing fine with himself. No one is arguing that people don’t have the same opportunities. That doesn’t make it nepotism. You know who else does really well for themselves and gets opportunities normal people don’t get, including in Hollywood even when they don’t have family there? Rich people. I’m not trying to force anything on anyone. I’m merely calling it out because it’s not nepotism in this case since he’s not just handed these jobs because of his family connections. For some reason, people want to redefine nepotism to be about the privilege of being in a family that’s known in the industry but that’s not what nepotism is. It is solely about being given something based on that family connection rather than on merit or qualifications.
I don’t see “without merit” in the definitions of nepotism I looked up. Calling someone a “nepobaby” is forcing them to confront their privilege, but also calling out a system that gives advantage to the children of privileged people.
Did he have to wait tables and suck dick until he got his big break?
That’s not what I meant when I said you have to show some gumption to get into the biz.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/nepotism
The whole point of “nepotism” as a term is that someone is getting favoritism based on their relation rather than their actual merits. Look up the etymology and history of the word. It comes from the same root as “nephew”.
Where have you found a definition that has "without merit" ?
Read the full page that you pulled that definition from.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nepotism
“The opposite of nepotism, and of favouritism in general, is meritocracy, in which positions and rewards are granted to people based on their abilities.”
The entire point of nepotism is not that the relation “helped” but that it is the reason given without merit or without regard to the person’s abilities.
https://www.wordnik.com/words/nepotism
I think you're slightly misunderstanding.
Yes, the opposite of nepotism is reward based entirely on merit. But nepotism doesn't mean that someone is entirely without merit. Consider the first example they give, legacy admissions. Nepotism can get you further than a better applicant but you still had to have some degree of merit to get into the school. Or the example of Murdoch's daughter, who was overpaid for a tv channel but still had to have one etc.
I’m not misunderstanding. You dishonestly left out and ignored the last part of that example - “primarily on the basis of their family connections.” The entire point is that you don’t have to get the good grades and do the volunteering that everyone else does. You gain entry just by virtue of the family connections aka “legacy admissions”. And the Murdoch example is also disingenuous because her father owned the network doing the purchase. He didn’t overpay because she had a great station. He overpaid because she was his daughter. That is clear nepotism.
Here's the entire text of that example:
"In education, nepotism occurs when the children or relatives of wealthy or influential people are admitted to elite schools (known as “legacy admissions”). **It can also occur **when they receive better grades and more opportunities primarily on the basis of their family connections."
Again, you are misunderstanding. Yes, nepotism can be made without any merit at all but that's a rare case. More often they have merit but not as much as their peers. Look into legacy admissions, it doesn't mean you can barely read and write and still go to Harvard, more that your grades don't have to be at the same level.
It's a classic "all" sort of error and totally understandable. Nepotism is advancing/promoting etc someone because of their connections rather than their merit but while someone can be advanced without any merit that's not a requisite condition for nepotism. Does that make more sense?
No, it doesn’t. If two people are equally qualified (meaning that their level of qualification is irrelevant) and one person gets the job because of who their family is, that’s nepotism. If their family connection isn’t taken into account or is unknown, it’s not nepotism. Unless Jack Quaid got selected because of his family connection, it’s not nepotism even if his opportunities were greater in number because of his wealth or his exposure to those opportunities was greater because his family already worked in the industry. That’s privilege but it’s not nepotism unless the result is directly and primarily on the basis of those connections.
To he clear, you think Jack Quaid's name was never passed along to producers, casting agents and the like because his parents were iconic actors? Sure, capable actor but the reason his name is passed, in your mind, was never because of Ryan or Quaid?
Or, that he wasn't as good as the next best choice but given the role as a favour to Meg who banked how many reliable hits? Like casting agents and producers just forgot who Meg Ryan is?
Frankly, that's such an adorably innocent view of Hollywood I'd rather just let it be.
The first part you say was guaranteed to happen no matter what. That also happens with rich people who aren’t actors. The 2nd part is far less likely as the types of films and shows Jack works on have very little overlap with the type of work Meg Ryan does.
If my view of Hollywood is innocent then what’s yours, considering that I work in the industry?
Nepotism is still nepotism whether it happens for actors or rich people with connections.
It only takes one or two to get the ball rolling.
Less rose tinted and more objective. Also, you mean to use "than" when comparing things, not 'then." Another simple misunderstanding, also pretty common though!
First off… you don’t need to be a condescending ass, especially when you’re wrong. I used the correct “then” as I wasn’t comparing two things so take your misunderstanding and shove it back where the sun don’t shine.
Secondly, someone having opportunities that others don’t based off of wealth isn’t nepotism. The shared root of the word nepotism comes from the word “nephew” as the entire etymology of the word comes from a king who appointed his nephews to roles to keep his family in power, ignoring their qualifications for the roles to which they were appointed. So, unless people who are wealthy are also being given those opportunities because of their family connections, it’s still not nepotism. Stop trying to redefine the term, especially incorrectly, because you don’t understand what it means or what its historical context is.
Lastly, unless you have evidence of “one or two” instances where Jack Quaid was given roles that he didn’t deserve because he was Meg Ryan’s kid, the point still stands and your response is just as dismissive as the rest of what you’ve said.
This is just getting silly. Again, re-read the definition of nepotism:
Passing along Jack's name to producers, casting agents etc is a favour which is being granted simply because of who his parents are. Which is exactly the definition of nepotism.
Sure, if Meg Ryan paid for extra acting classes etc, that's a different type of privilege. But, her passing along his name to folks on the basis that she's his mom, that is nepotism.
Look at literally the first example of definition of nepotism:
If his mom is passing along his name and giving him more opportunities primarily based on being family, that is nepotism. I'm not sure how to break it down for you any further. You can insist that Britannica is wrong but that just seems silly.
Edit: Handy link so you don't have to hunt for the definition