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!
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.
despite your weak attempt at a derisive Jeff Foxworthy reference.
Oh no some rando didn’t like my Jeff Foxworthy joke!
Good rebuttal.
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.
Successful movie stars, especially those with successful parents, do need to be coddled…
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.
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.
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.
Nepotism, the unfair practice of granting jobs and other favours to relatives, whether by blood or marriage. Nepotism occurs in all kinds of workplaces and fields, but it is often associated with favouritism in business and politics.
- Britannica.
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.
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.
I like Jack, he’s a good actor. But he, most likely, would not be acting today if it wasn’t for his parents
Nobody would be doing anything without parents. It’s kind of the nature of genealogy.
I like what I’ve seen of Jack Quaid’s work well enough and, no matter my opinion of his parents’ output, they certainly made a life for themselves.
What gets me is that people conflate work ethics, opportunity, and talent as merit for success. Loads of actors with equal “work ethic” to the ones we see on screens are unable to find full time work as actors. Same in other sectors where opportunities are outnumbered by candidates.
In no way can I accept that the son of two film stars “deserve” his opportunities more than anybody who has trained as hard, has the same amount of talent (however you measure that), and who probably only has a menial job to fall back on if they don’t get the part. That is not Jack Quaid’s fault, though, nor do I think his parents at any point stopped to think “Y’know, imma pull a nepo for Jack”.
I do think Meg Ryan turns a blind eye on the structural advantages that her son has had growing up as he has. It will never hurt an upcoming actor to share a last name and possible likeness with established stars but, more importantly, actors’ kids grow up knowing what agents are, where to get headshots, how much time goes into auditioning and networking — and through their parents’ friends and colleagues they have ample opportunity to climb the ladder faster than others who have to elbow themselves into acting circles from the outside.
So on the one hand children of actors know the ropes from square one, or have seasoned professionals who will mentor them. At the same time, they will probably have opportunities offered to them from producers, directors or casting agents who want to curry favour with their more famous parents. Dismissing those obvious advantages is so tone deaf and privileged that Ryan really undermines her own argument.
It reminds me of a headline I saw yesterday about Tiger Wood’s son winning a high school national championship golf tournament. It made me wonder how many other kids have a similar base talent, and how would they fare if, from the day they were born, they had his access to the absolute best training technology and instructors on the planet, including his father’s unmatched experience in the non-technical aspects of winning tournaments guiding him.
Exactly. And just the fact that Wood Jr makes headlines for a frigging high school trophy plays into systemic/structural nepotism — where media and audiences alike love and enforce the lineage narratives — that might encourage or even pressure him into a sports career.
Mooooom people are bein’ mean about those jobs u got me!
I’ll still look forward to watching The Boys, Star Trek, and Superman, though.
Poor little rich kid.
deleted by creator
If I were him only thing worse than being called a nepo baby would be my mom coming out publicly to tell people not to call me a nepo baby. That’s like further drawing anything to the issue and as embarrassing as a student would be of their parents loudly telling everyone in school to not be bullies.
Yep, sounds like the Streisand effect. I’ve been watching him on The Boys for the last four years and never realized he was Jack Quaid as in Dennis Quaid’s kid. And I certainly didn’t realize his mother was Meg Ryan.
“Don’t call my baby a nepo baby!”
“Wait, the guy from The Boys is Meg Ryan’s kid?” lol
Same I know him from The Boys and never thought of him as the nepo baby, but now I’ll always be reminded of that. Didn’t know he was Meg Ryan’s kid either.
He’s a voice actor/lead on lower decks (animated trek show) I liked him without knowing one of his parents ever got mail… so he holds his own, but privilege is privilege… He’s not not a nepo baby.
deleted by creator
Badgey is waiting for you, whenever you’re ready!
I had no idea that was Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid’s kid.
All was forgiven when he rolled a natural Bog.
Counterpoint to all this nepo baby nonsense: Nicholas Cage. Jamie Lee Curtis. Candace Bergen. John Ritter. They’re all successful actors who rivaled or surpassed their celebrity ancestors.
That doesn’t change the fact that they’re nepo babies. That’s not even a counterpoint, you’ve just listed examples of nepo babies lmao.
Haha yeah it actually shows what a huge initial advantage it even is to be able to get a chance to act in the industry, and highlights how they could have not been in the industry without nepotism. There’s a lot of talented people but only so many people the industry is willing to give a look, so relationships really matter if you don’t want to rely on lottery type luck. Industry doesn’t have a shortage of people.
That’s true of any industry. They may not be as visible as those in popular media, but it’s generally just as true.
The only reason the “nepo baby” epithet has taken off is because of parasocial pop culture relationships.
There’s lots of people who aren’t “nepo babies” who do achieve success. Assuming that these people would never make it without their connections is speculative and not just a little bit petty.
Depends on the industry. Degree based ones like medicine or accounting and or trades are easier to get into the industry to make a comfortable living for the average perdon. Now upper tier is another matter, and that does heavily benefit from relationships if going for like high management level positions.
But, the art and performance based ones like movies and music is one where relationship definitely is heavily shifted to being important, and talent and work ethic guarantees nothing. And financial security is very unstable and hard to attain for the average person to grind it out, so every advantage matters to even be considered for a job that could end up being stable.
So nepotism doesn’t discount their talent or hard work, but there’s no need downplay the role it played to even get a shot.
Which doesn’t change the dismissive nature of the epithet. Painting targets on specific people instead of the culture surrounding them makes them seem like the problem, instead of the very nature of the industry. It says “you didn’t earn this, you just inherited it”.
Just shouting “nepo baby” at people isn’t an argument, it’s abuse. If you want an argument, maybe change your strategy and try the next door over.
Standing on the shoulders of giants helps you stand taller. Besides, you weren’t necessarily around to experience the star power of their predecessors. You have no idea if they’re actually more successful or not.
Nicolas Cage deliberately changed his name from Coppola to avoid suspicion of nepotism.
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.
Reckon why you got so many downvotes, bud?
Self-consciousness plays a role, I expect, with a dose of the 'spose-tas.
Is it possible that you’re wrong?
With the anti-bullying comments? No, but I’m always willing to entertain the possibility if you have a specific point.
Of course your comments are downvoted also, so you’re not really starting out on the right foot with that argument.
I don’t have a specific point. I just wanted to see if you were misunderstood or just insufferable. It’s the latter if you were curious.
Didn’t seem like you had.
I wasn’t.
Sorry you had to look in the mirror, it’ll do you good in the long run.
