this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
752 points (99.2% liked)

Microblog Memes

9993 readers
2871 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 157 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)

Hollywood is almost psychotically convinced that this is true, even though 9/10 times a new star turns out to be someone’s kid. Even the old actors we love are mostly someone’s kid.

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 19 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

There is a known phenomena among the wealthy where they vastly over rate their classes accomplishments relative to others. So rich kid paints a picture and it should be in a gallery. Poor kid wins an art scholarship and it's due to affirmative action.

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 2 points 1 hour ago

True, and they don’t even understand how vital that art scholarship is. There was a recently noted phenomenon where all the big breakout British actors got the last two decades were pretty much all from wealth or from an acting dynasty (T Hidds and Benny C, not Benny W), because for the working and lower-middle class the cost of trying to get into the arts and failing is too damn high - what’re you going to live off for years while you try to get a role? The 80s and 90s seem like a golden age for non-silver-spoon actors by comparison, because of “affirmative action”.

[–] Donkter@lemmy.world 27 points 8 hours ago (4 children)

For the slightest bit of defence: it makes sense. "Nepo baby" generally refers to some kid who doesn't have the qualifications for their role but got it through their parents giving them an unfair chance.

But it makes perfect sense that if you grow up in a house with actors and writers for parents they can both teach you about the business, they'll be happy to pay for that kind of education, and they'll be super encouraging because unlike most families, to them becoming an actor or director is a perfectly reasonable goal.

It's like a child of doctors growing up to become a doctor. On one hand their parents could have just pulled some strings, on the other hand, having parents excited to teach you organic chemistry and advanced math in middle school probably helps you a lot when it comes to qualifying for med school.

I don't think all Hollywood nepo babies are like this. I'm just saying you would expect to see children of great actors become actors themselves.

[–] ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 hours ago

While what you say is true to a degree the part you’re leaving out is that the kids who don’t have actor/musician/doctor/etc parents are still perfectly capable of learning these things.

They’re arguably better to bring into the various fields to challenge entrenched perspectives that get perpetuated by systems of momentum that you describe. In acting it’s what creates what led to metoo, in medicine it’s what creates wildly unfair work expectations and elitism, mainly because the old guard did it that way, and if you question the entrenched power “it’s because that’s the way we do things”. New blood is arguably more likely to push back against this because they aren’t as conditioned to play into the system from birth.

The other part that you leave out, as a result, is that these nepo kids then get an unfair advantage. Take kid A - a nepobaby like Kate winslets son, and kid B, just some kid who was obsessed with acting and writing. Let’s say your perspective is true and the nepobaby kid is obsessed with acting and writing in a wild environment of access to intense creative minds. But kid b is no slouch either, living and breathing acting and writing, constantly accessing whatever mentors they can, watching content online giving advice on process, and most importantly just constantly writing (or playing, acting, whatever) for years and years and years.

They’re both immensely talented individuals at this point. But what’s the difference? Kid A has connections capital to make films and eventually to production deals if they are any good. Kid B, at best, can scrape together a few grand to make a student film because they’re not affluent and their circle of peers is also broke. Even if they scrape together something noteworthy they have no connections whatsoever to industry.

In more extreme examples it’s a mediocre singer getting connected to hitmaker producers and media promotion while there are 10,000 excellent artists on Spotify with under 1,000 streams because they don’t have the capital to professionally record and promote their shit

Etc

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 24 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don't think qualifications are relevant for nepotism to occur

[–] Jax@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Yes but the modern colloquialism of nepotism applies an undeserving attribute to the subject. At least, this is how I've noticed it used.

Edit: oops neoptism

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago

But all of that training and extra support is exactly what that term is referring to. They wouldn't have gotten that support unless they were born into it. The people aren't as giving with their time to just any kid who wants to study their craft. Maybe some do. We need more of that.

[–] Ledivin@lemmy.world 10 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

It's like a child of doctors growing up to become a doctor.

Except these aren't remotely the same scenarios, because it simply doesn't happen as often in any other industry. If anything, the 9/10 number is LOW for entertainment.

[–] thallamabond@lemmy.world 10 points 6 hours ago

It's a terrible comparison.

Nobody's going to give the child of a talented surgeon the chance to do surgery on themselves.

But they might give the child of a talented actor a role in a film, this is a situation of connections not nurture.

Example: After Earth (2013)