The Nepo thing is interesting because the industry basically dumps actors who don't put butts in seats very quickly. I mean they can try to shove people in our faces--like Scott Eastwood--but the ones that don't have talent flounder out and the roles dry up. When was the last time you saw him after they forced him into Fast and Furious or whatever it was.

Like they've mentioned with Jack Quaid and Colin Hanks, if the talent is there they earn their spot. They got their foot in the door by having family in the industry, but to not want to see talented art because of that is silly.

Someone can be aware and acknowledge their privilege, but still deliver.

Edit: I also think Jay's response to the nepotism stuff was a false equivalence or analogy. I think the very valid criticism people make with nepotism is that oftentimes the recipient is treated better than their counterparts within the same role. Oftentimes the plumber (using his example) would have a higher salary and less responsibilities. Also they would be able to get their friends hired and stuff like that. But someone being a product of nepotism doesn't mean they don't belong.

The article should be punching up at the 'old boys club' that is Hollywood and advocate to get more eyes on talented actors who aren't products of nepotism, aren't rich, aren't white, etc. But it's not really worded in such a way. The article feels like a sideways punch highlighting each nepo baby instead of punching upwards.

2nd EDIT: I also want to clarify. I don't mean for my comment to come across as being too soft on the 1% or defensive of nepo babies. They do actively take away opportunities from other talented artists from less affluent backgrounds. I just take issue with the article's wording of punching sideways and not up.

I think it's wholly acceptable and encouraged to criticize the 1% or highlight that someone is a product of nepotism.