this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2023
85 points (84.0% liked)

Movies and TV Shows

2111 readers
10 users here now

A community for entertainment industry news and general discussion about movies and TV shows.

Rules:

  1. Be civil.
  2. Please do not link to pirated content.
  3. No spoilers in the title of submissions. And please use spoiler MarkDown in the body of discussions. This is a courtesy to other users.
  4. Comments solely criticizing headlines and/or journalism will be removed for being off-topic.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The first part you say was guaranteed to happen no matter what. That also happens with rich people who aren’t actors.

Nepotism is still nepotism whether it happens for actors or rich people with connections.

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.

It only takes one or two to get the ball rolling.

If my view of Hollywood is innocent then what’s yours, considering that I work in the industry?

Less rose tinted and more objective. Also, you mean to use "than" when comparing things, not 'then." Another simple misunderstanding, also pretty common though!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is just getting silly. Again, re-read the definition of nepotism:

Nepotism, the unfair practice of granting jobs and other favours to relatives, whether by blood or marriage.

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.

Secondly, someone having opportunities that others don’t based off of wealth isn’t 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:

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.

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