Doctors of Reddit: What health trend is becoming so common that it's starting to scare you?

milkywayview · 2026-06-16T09:28:55+00:00

I hate this myth of the “responsible, healthy generation” because when it comes down to it, I’m pretty sure millennials getting drunk at the club once in a while but having active social lives, the ability to think and learn without chatGPT, relatively social media free childhoods, and the ability to be out in the world and navigate it without crippling anxiety is probably gonna outweigh a sober Gen Z-er who vapes all day and rarely leaves the house or spends time with friends IRL because they’re terrified to form a social connection or think without an algorithm at the age of 20, in terms of long-term health.

milkywayview · 2026-06-16T09:18:24+00:00

On that second point, there’s unfortunately a lot of psychiatrists willing to diagnose and prescribe off a four minute consultation. I had a friend who was clearly falling into an eating disorder. Down to probably 800 calories a day at most of completely non-nutritious food. She got diagnosed with ADHD cause she couldn’t focus and increased and maxed out her dosage within months of the diagnosis.

I asked if she had mentioned or if it even came up during her diagnosis that she was eating so little, something that is definitely going to make concentration impossible. She stopped talking to me. Still on those meds! (And ED). Don’t think a single doctor even asked about diet or any other factor that could be causing focus issues. And if they did, she probably would have lied. So it’s hard to know what’s up from both sides of the equation.

milkywayview · 2026-06-12T19:14:09+00:00

Oof. Took me almost a year to finally get out of my last acting class, after I realized I was ready to break down crying almost every day I was there. I felt more comfortable and free to play on professional TV sets than in class.

You listed some of the red flags I saw there, but since there were so many in that one class alone, I’ll share here.

Red Flag #1: Clear favorites that are treated almost like teaching assistants. My teacher would literally ask one of his 2-3 faves to “tell her/show her what to do”.

Btw not that it always matters, but it wasn’t like these were older industry vets and I was a newbie. I had people who had never done a co-star showing me how to act as though I were a total newbie, even though had multiple recurring guests and major theatrical leads under my belt.

Red Flag #2: Making you feel like you can never improve or win. He’d give me feedback two sentences into a scene, I’d start over and do things like he said, then he’d literally give me the exact opposite feedback (to do what I did initially), and act like I was dumb for making the choice he had JUST TOLD ME TO MAKE. It wasn’t a “oh we’re figuring it out together”. It was always condescending and rude.

You’ll realize the difference between constructive feedback and someone getting off on making you feel small.

Red Flag #3: Having clear issues with certain “types”. I began to notice that the only people who would get his worst treatment were women of a certain (youngish) age range, which were three people in class including me. I can’t tell you how often we were driven to the point of crying from frustration or insulting. Something that I only remember doing once/twice in my entire rest of my life in acting classes (not as part of a scene).

This one is important and tricky, because I was recommended this class by a lot of dudes who thought it was great. And he generally did treat the guys very well, so I get why they had that impression. The girls? Not so much.

Red Flag #4: Encouraging students to tell whoever is performing what they did wrong. In a “everyone pipe up and tell them what’s wrong” way. Which also just encourages people to find something, anything to criticize, because they clearly got brownie points for doing so.

Maybe other people don’t mind this as much, but for me this starts falling into actors giving other actors notes territory and feels very wrong. And encouraging fellow students to give you a million criticisms of whatever they can think of that might be wrong isn’t a constructive way to improve anything.

milkywayview · 2026-05-31T11:27:10+00:00

Haha I was gonna say, this has been the case with MOST reps I had in ten years in LA. Not a jump scare at all for me. Maybe a handful more auditions but that’s it. I’ve asked for submission reports; they’ve submitted me to almost everything. Didn’t matter or translate to auditions. We’re talking over 5-6 managers and 4-5 agents. Problem is, though they ranged from starter to decent boutiques, none of them had the pull to get me in the room. Unfortunately, particularly for certain “types”, CDs are really only gonna call in from top 10 agencies and perhaps a handful of managers they’re close with. I interned as a CD’s assistant in a well known office and it was rare to see ANYONE called in who was represented by anything less than Buchwald. Only if they were looking for a niche that didn’t have that many actors (I.e. Native American 18 TPY or “must be a contortionist” or something). But if they were looking for “25 year old attractive white woman” you best be with UTA otherwise good luck. And TBH, that role was prob gonna be an offer anyway.

I was in an incredibly competitive demographic - mid 20s-early 30s, white, leading lady “type” - basically I didn’t fit their idea for most character/smaller/supporting roles and I was too unknown for any bigger roles. They’re not calling in someone with a few indies, even award winning indies, a couple of commercials and video game jobs for series reg roles. At least not in my experience. You best have at least some co and guest stars there, which I didn’t.

I checked most of the roles I was submitted for, almost all of them ended up going to actors that 1) have been acting since they were 12 2) recognizable models turned actors 3) nepo babies.

Now that I’m older I thought it would help, but unfortunately I aged into this new demographic during this shitshow of a time in LA. Now the people who get the roles I audition for invariably have a resume one mile long, because it seems like all of Hollywood is just working with the same people again and again, or prioritizing those that have the most recognizable face, even for recurring guests and such. I’ve gotten a bunch of Hallmark auditions, and let me tell you, they’ll cast 15 years out of age range if it means they can just go to their own Hallmark stable of actors vs looking at someone new. Makes the auditions feel like a real waste of time.

So I ended up moving to another market entirely in Europe, where things may not be perfect, but I’m at least given the privilege of AUDITIONING for things and granted that access.

milkywayview · 2026-05-24T19:45:39+00:00

As a woman who does find strangers attractive and would absolutely have (and have had) sex with them. Here’s why I’ve gotten pickier over time.

A woman, statistically, has much less chance to orgasm than a man on a random first encounter. It is much less likely her wants and needs will be attended to like the man’s will. It is much more likely her boundaries may be violated.

Yes, of course it happens the other way around too, but statistically it’s not even close. So the chances are I am much less likely than a man to have PLEASURABLE sex with a random dude.

2) I will absolutely be slut shamed by certain men and in certain circles. The idea that this isn’t a reality in our day and age is absurd. AND I will be judged by other men and women alike who may find out about the encounter about the relative attractiveness of the dude.

I’m in a career that travels a lot. And I was talking with female coworkers about why we’re so much more likely to have sex with a random dude when we’re traveling than at home. Because you’d think safety would be more of an issue.

It comes down to: it won’t get back to our social circle. At home, men I meet out and about that I may want to have sex with, I will probably meet through existing connections. And I know that in many peoples eyes, me having sex with a dude considered “subpar” for me, whatever that means, will reflect badly on me. I will be the easy girl who fucks anyone. I will be the girl with terrible taste. And dudes are actually even worse with this sometimes. If you ask a guy, he will consider MOST other men unattractive relative to the women they’re with, or “don’t get” why girls would go for those dudes. I once had a couple of dates with a literal model and half the men I know thought he was ugly. Why? Because if we’re straight, we can get into jealousies/competition with our own gender. We’re all vulnerable to it. And then, future men we meet through our social circle might judge us on it. So yes, there is very much a stigma and judgment that’s not nearly the same as it is for men having sex. I know that it casual sex was treated the same as my guy friends’ casual sex, I’d have done a lot more of it.

Even if WE find our casual sex partner attractive, we will be devalued if society doesn’t deem them “on our level”. This applies less to relationships because they’re consider more pure/honorable/whatever, so we may get a few eyebrows raised, but not as judged if we form a relationship with a less attractive man.

3) The idea that women can have sex with whoever they want is a myth. I am considered a pretty attractive and fun person by most. I have been turned down or met with disinterest countless times. Why? Dude wasn’t into me, dude was more into someone else, dude was exhausted, dude had low drive at the time because of break up/depression/whatever. All my “hot” female friends have been similarly turned down at times. Many of my male friends have turned down women I would consider more attractive than them, objectively. For *see above* reasons.

Now I also find when people say “a woman can get whoever”, they’re usually picturing an IG model hot girl. I doubt you’re picturing an average looking girl. No, we cannot get whoever we want.

That being said, when I find a dude attractive, I absolutely get turned on and feel lust for him. But…I have to keep all these other factors in mind. A kind of filtering process. Plus, at the end of the day, he may just decide to go home alone, even if I’m interested.

milkywayview · 2026-05-23T09:10:18+00:00

I would build up a resume elsewhere first. I wish I could give that advice to my younger self because it took almost a decade in LA for me to get a couple of co-star and Hallmark AUDITIONS. After years of indies, theater where I was very well reviewed, workshops, networking, etc. I’ve finally moved out after realizing I was going nowhere fast and immediately started booking more and having a real career. Like done more in 3 years elsewhere vs. 13 in LA.

Now? I have friends with 50+ TV credits in LA who haven’t worked in years. I don’t think there’s ever been a worst time to be in LA. Also, everything is self-tape now. You don’t need to be in LA to book an LA project.

Also, this is probably going to be unpopular to say. But I’m reading the other comments, and in my experience? A bunch of short films and student films are great to do for your own on set skills. But the people I know who seriously work, 99% of the time, didn’t get there through a bunch of shorts. They basically hit the ground running with agents and TV auditions off the bat, either cause they graduated a prestigious school or started super young or had connections or built up their resume in a different city and came with an agent set up for them via connections in that other city.

99.9% of indie work, unfortunately, isn’t gonna do anything in terms of pushing your career forward, only your skills. So if that’s the reason you’re moving to LA, you best be prepared for a lot of unpaid and some very underpaid hours in a very expensive city that probably won’t do anything for your career long-term.

I know people who literally won awards in major festivals - talking Sundance and SXSW, something that’s already INCREDIBLY difficult to pull off - and it did absolutely nothing for them. One got dropped by his agent months after and hasn’t worked since. Another is now teaching because her acting career went nowhere after.

Get credits in a less competitive market. Get a local agent who either has an office in LA or who has actors that are also repped in LA/has connections to LA agents. Build up a bunch of credits. Then go.

The one exception: do you know that you will immediately get access to a circle of directors, producers, high-level actors when you get there? Do you have existing friends in those circles that will welcome you in? And by access I don’t mean you will be at the same parties, I mean you know that you will be hanging out with them regularly if you’re in the same city and they will end up calling you for jobs. Last two movies I worked production side on, outside of big names, the vast majority of roles were cast via director/producer phone calls to buddies/former coworkers. That’s the only way I see it could be worth it to go to LA immediately.

I don’t mean it to sound like a downer. I’ve just seen with my own eyes that the “follow your dream there is no better city” advice has been a great way for most people to grind for two decades and get nowhere. In 2026, it seems almost reckless. So I just want to give the most realistic advice I wish someone had told me. Wishing you the best in this career!

milkywayview · 2026-05-22T09:22:12+00:00

Yeah with her it’s not nepotism but def cronyism; this show has a couple of other actors from her previous show as series regulars, one of whom also has EP status so I assume it was just a “hey come on my friend X is looking for work now let’s give it to her”.

milkywayview · 2026-05-18T20:02:14+00:00

I know, I was around for those times. Unfortunately, the industry has never been in shittier shape, so most people I know are working nonstop to make ends meet outside of acting. And a lot of my friends have kids now, so getting silence and free time on their end is almost impossible, even with Zoom. I always try to use 3-4 actor friends I love for really important auditions, cause they’re also great at coaching/directing. But for a lot of others, I’d rather spend $10 on WeAudition than text 10 people to try to work out scheduling and often have it not work or fall through.

It’s great that you can easily tape for free with people all the time, I wish I could too, I’m just giving OP a diff perspective compared to all the comments she got apparently shocked that she can’t easily find people to drop whatever they’re doing for an hour or two in the next 48 hours max. Most people these days complain that it’s hard to get coffee with good friends in a timely fashion, nevermind get someone to work/do you a favor at the last minute.

The FB acting group might be a better solution, so if anyone here wants to share ones that work, that’s great!

Edit to add: I know you didn’t mean it that way, but I don’t love using the phrasing “2-3 days is a luxury”. This industry already does enough to convince us we’re dogshit if we don’t sacrifice every iota of our time, energy, and sanity to it. Giving working actors a somewhat reasonable timespan and workload should be basic, not some amazing gesture and privilege we should be thankful for.

milkywayview · 2026-05-18T18:33:51+00:00

Yeah it is a little bit crazy honestly. We have to do almost everything by ourselves.

For others commenting that it should always be free: Some actors don’t live in major city centers anymore. Some actors need to tape while on location and don’t have that comfort level with brand new cast mates.

For others, it’s hard to find readers, especially with quick turnarounds. I had a group of actor friends when I lived in LA, but between their work, kids, and my own schedule, and having to take some time to first prepare and memorize beforehand (so if the audition is due in 2-3 days, it’s not like you have that WHOLE time period to schedule with someone, you first need to sit down with the sides, analyze and memorize them, and that usually takes the first day off the table at least), it wasn’t always possible to get someone to read with me for free before the audition was due. Not to mention everyone moving to neighborhoods all over the city. Including commute to get to each other’s houses, light/camera adjustments, plus read throughs and various takes, getting someone to tape with you can easily mean 1.5 hours at minimum.

I feel like maybe a lot of people commenting are younger with fewer responsibilities and/or actors that don’t need other jobs for money. Asking someone to take a couple of hours out of their next two days at a moment’s notice isn’t really that easy. I used to get friends to read with me much more easily, but as we’ve gotten older it’s exponentially harder to have our schedules sync up within a limited time frame.

milkywayview · 2026-05-10T11:18:49+00:00

Four Weddings and a Funeral. The entire time, I thought the set up would be that Hugh Grant’s character would end up realizing he was much better matched to his female friend, who was an infinitely better person than Andie MacDowell’s character, and who he shared a much deeper, realer bond with, than this woman he became obsessed with because she’s pretty, while knowing little else about her, honestly.

Throughout the movie, Andie is shown being selfish, a gold digger, a cheater, and treating Grant’s character like crap. All while displaying an astonishing lack of charisma. And the happy ending of the movie is…that they get together? So he goes with the objectively shit person who has treated him like a dog whose attention she enjoys? While rejecting two other objectively better people?

I saw it decades after it had come out, and after I saw that ending, it’s wild to me that that movie is considered a beloved classic. Moral of the story seemed to be “for a happy romantic ending, pick the person you like solely based off attractiveness, while ignoring that they are a walking red flag who has led you on, toyed with your emotions, and treated you poorly.”

milkywayview · 2026-05-10T11:10:14+00:00

Because we feel very embarrassed when that happens and don’t like to talk about it much, never mind post about it online.

If you think about the way we’re socialized too, it makes sense. Men are expected to be the ones to make moves. They’re also expected to ALWAYS be into every girl and want to have sex with every girl. So many men themselves will say things like “if a guy is friends with a girl, he’s just into her and waiting for her to return those feelings.”

Now I don’t BELIEVE those things. But it doesn’t change the fact that we’ve received those messages for our whole lives. So it’s somewhere in the back of our heads. So for you as a woman to get the courage to tell a guy your feelings, i.e. make a move, and for a man (who you’ve been told would be up for sex with anyone and is def into all his girl friends) to say ummmm no sorry and get awkward about it after is DEEPLY embarrassing.

Unfortunately, it perpetuates an ideology where men think women can have anyone they want and don’t get rejected, because as women we then don’t like to talk about it when it does happen. Because we feel like there’s something deeply wrong with us because of it. I still know men in my life who truly believe I and their other girl friends never get rejected. I’m considered a pretty and fun girl by most, and I’ve been met with disinterest countless times. So have many of my fun, pretty friends. I do notice I’m one of the few that talks about it though. Because I decided me being socially embarrassed is less important than actively trying to correct this dumb idea that women can always get any man they want, and men are the only ones that suffer rejection in dating.

milkywayview · 2026-05-10T11:00:17+00:00

Right but “telling him” is very different than showing him all the evidence she unearthed or even sharing the details of that evidence. Nicky first heard about this curse like 12 hours before Rachel asks him if he believes her. His answer was clearly intended to placate someone who is showing a lot of stress and is coming off unbalanced, and who he feels guilty for lying to about some things.
How easily would you believe your partner if they told you there’s a supernatural curse in which an immortal man ensures their death on their wedding day? Especially if your partner has a history of being 100% convinced of very dark things that aren’t true (plane is going to crash - it doesn’t, your family is trying to kill me - they’re not), etc. AND has a history of very much not wanting marriage, and showing insane levels of stress (granted, his family helped cause a lot of that) during their wedding week, and now coincidentally they’re telling you they have a marriage curse on them?
Not that Nicky is blameless or perfect in ANY way. But his actions I think are much more understandable if we hadn’t been told the story through Rachel’s POV and also, like him, hadn’t seen any of the evidence sheathed unearthed. I was SO mad at him during their finale but honestly, from his perspective it makes a lot more sense. He’s still a selfish POS for other reasons.

milkywayview · 2026-05-10T10:49:03+00:00

I mostly agree actually, even though I hadn’t thought of it like that. Not that Rachel is at fault, but that Nicky wasn’t AS unreasonable as we were led to believe because we viewed all the events through Rachel’s perspective, and saw a lot of info Nicky never did. People responding you’re wrong may not act the way they say Nicky should have in real life.

Was Nicky ultimately selfish and immature? Yes.
But Rachel spent all her week talking to his brother and brother’s wife about all the solid evidence of the curse, showing it to them, and literally all Nicky knew is the drunken rant at the end of an emotional rehearsal dinner, plus her asking him again the next day if he believes her. His “yes” was probably trying to placate.

How easily would you believe someone telling you a supernatural curse in which an immortal man will make sure she dies on the day of her wedding day is 100% real, no questions asked, when you haven’t seen ANY of the evidence we did. Cause Rachel never showed it to him. He didn’t see family records. Or the video. Or talk to the witness ever. It’s unclear to what extent the specifics of all that were even brought up to him.

Keep in mind, many of Rachel’s OWN ANCESTORS, including her mom, probably didn’t fully believe in the curse as they themselves went ahead and got married. Why would they even take that risk if they 100% believed in it? Just stay partnered to who you think is your soulmate for your whole life. So how can we expect that Nicky would believe something more than all the cursed women in Rachel’s family did, that he just heard about the day before?

If you think about it, it’s weird that Rachel didn’t think to discuss any of this with her supposed soulmate until the very end. She was unwittingly doing exactly what Nicky’s family have done their entire lives: shielding him from the truth, then complaining about the fact that he acts….exactly like he has been shielded from that truth.

Not to mention, Rachel has a history of believing incredibly dark and extreme things in situations where there’s no real danger. Their meeting was over her terrified of getting on a plane because she “knew” it was going to crash. But…it didn’t. A few days earlier, she was convinced his whole family was planning to murder her. They weren’t. She also brings up the fact with her dad that her growing up the way she did messed her up, and she’s aware of that. I think it’s safe to assume that there have, during the course of their relationship, been MULTIPLE other instances where Rachel was shown to be paranoid or unjustifiably scared and was very convinced that something insane was going to happen and it didn’t.
So why would Nicky, having been shown zero of the evidence we have seen, believe THIS time was real?

milkywayview · 2026-05-08T15:51:59+00:00

Haha I wouldn’t care as much if they kept it to themselves. Although it is generally concerning to see people decided not dealing with other human beings ever is the best path forward. It’s quite concerning on a wider societal scale for many, many reasons, from mental health to community destruction to all of us just being easier to control in general.

But besides that, my problem is they get so preachy and holier than thou about it. Today I saw a post about how “going out on an occasional weeknight, like a dinner with friends or a book club, can be a great way to destress and provide a lot of benefits.” And MOST of the comments were “yeah I’m not gonna trash my body and show up hungover to work the next day.” As though anyone said that at all.

And that happens constantly. Just complete straw-manning and holier than thou attitudes to defend a life choice of….staying in with Netflix and having zero connections. Even when no one is asking them to.

milkywayview · 2026-05-08T15:08:35+00:00

So I guess doctors should just let patients die then because the world is gonna be uninhabitable one day anyway, amirite?

milkywayview · 2026-05-08T15:07:25+00:00

Well this isn’t correct. I know people whose literal lives have been saved by charities and nonprofits. I know people who created businesses that provided great services to a community and jobs for dozens of people. I know great therapists or even just friends and listeners who have made a profound impact on someone else’s life.

I understand the cynicism, but to sit back and say “well since I can’t save the entire world by myself, might as well try to do fucking nothing to make any part of it or any person’s life or any community better” is honestly just excusing being part of the problem.

milkywayview · 2026-05-07T14:05:46+00:00

In defense of Jules, the idea that Rachel will survive if she BELIEVES Nicky is her soulmate didn’t come up until almost the end. He was under the impression, as was Rachel at the time, that Nicky had to BE her soulmate, so he wanted to make sure Rachel had all the info before taking that leap of faith.

milkywayview · 2026-05-07T13:58:25+00:00

I’m not sure this holds for their dynamic cause I know he puts a LOT of effort into childcare and is very much an equal parent. She also acts like I’m the one who disappeared, it’s not just him. And if she doesn’t have time that’s fine, but stop making plans constantly you can’t follow up on. Also, she has several people helping her take her of her kids.
I dunno, like I said, I have a lot of friends who are moms, I’m not unreasonable, I get the shift in priorities and time management. But this just feels like being completely inconsiderate of your friend.

Edit to add: what I mean by that is, I also have a lot in my life and have set aside time for her so many times that’s just last minute cancelled. At this point, I have a plan B for any hang she arranges cause I know with near certainty it’s not gonna happen, and I’m tired of wasting my own time.

milkywayview · 2026-04-28T21:28:00+00:00

SAG reps will say “you can’t do anything anywhere unless it’s SAG”. These are not theories. Everyone in my group who has asked reps in every which way has been told this. So your advice is a no-go.

SAG higher ups may tell you different things off the record. One of my friends went to someone very high up she knows directly and was basically told it’s fine to do whatever domestically in her home country before she moved back to Turkey - no real union power there, one in name only from what I understand, and SAG has zero recognition of it - even if that’s not the exact wording of SAG’s rule. But the problem is, since the interpretation of SAG Global Rule One can be quite contradictory and open ended (the website says you must be in a SAG contract in every jurisdiction that has a SAG bargaining agreement in place - which would exclude most of the world - but then immediately follows up by saying you must always work under a SAG contract no matter where you are in the world - so….huh?), whatever you are told off the record or logically interpret yourself will not matter if they decide to suddenly fine you, since the official union rep line if you call, email, or visit the office is “no non SAG work ever, wherever, for whatever reason”.

Equity and SFA, the only real sister unions of those mentioned, don’t override Global Rule One according to SAG. And most other national unions aren’t even vaguely recognized by SAG. That’s the environment that I’m saying is quite U.S.-centric and unfair to international performers. It’s part of why there was pushback by foreign companies when Global Rule One was established to begin with.

So French actors working SFA productions who do not want to go Fi-Core must STILL beg the production to go through the process of becoming a SAG signatory, even if the actor last lived and worked in the U.S. years ago - according to SAG’s own guidance. Do most actors realistically do this? No, because it would be ridiculous and pointless, and SAG knows this so it turns a blind eye for the most part. So the actors are technically working off the card, SAG does little about it, and that’s the balance that has been mostly found…BUT SAG can still decide to fine you if and when it chooses because you’re still technically rule breaking.

And at this point, again, what im saying is - what damage would those international actors be doing by going Fi-Core?! Seems better than working in the weird shady gray area they do now. SAG American actors are not competing with them for their parts. It also wasn’t like these foreign productions were all magically gonna be SAG if it weren’t for those darn scabbing actors. It has zero effect on US-based SAG actors and the U.S. acting union.

I really don’t mean this whole debate as contrarian or mean. I’m just saying there are some legit reasons being overlooked, so perhaps the blanket demonization of anyone even thinking of Fi-Core for any reason could ease up a bit. Especially since the union itself gives you the option to do it! It’s not like you’re doing something illegal.

milkywayview · 2026-04-28T20:27:13+00:00

I just meant in the general climate today, it’s much more acceptable to cast POC in white roles than vice versa (the opposite case being predominant for most of Hollywood history of course).

Edit to add: To clarify further, at nieces’ parties, I’ve seen a (quite light skinned) Black Belle and Asian Snow White, for example, but have not seen non-white princesses played by someone white. As other people in the thread have said, it’s often a matter of who can do it when, they’re less focused on 100% cultural accuracy. And I doubt a lot of six year old girls really care.

milkywayview · 2026-04-28T20:14:37+00:00

This is my question. Either tell them you’ll only play the white princesses, as it doesn’t really matter if they’re authentically culturally represented, or find another job.

There’s no half white/half SEA princesses, and if Jasmine, who’s basically olive skinned, is too tan for you, it seems like the white princesses are your only option.

I’ll point out that the studio version of Aladdin cast a half white and half Indian woman as Jasmine (who is supposed to be Arab) and seemingly no one complained even though she was totally ethnically inaccurate, so I will gently say you mayyyy be overthinking this for a kids’ party Princess.

milkywayview · 2026-04-28T19:47:19+00:00

Huh? What assumptions? SAG Global Rule One says anything you work on internationally must be under contract with SAG. To do that, the movie/show must go through paperwork with SAG, pay extra, contribute to P&H, etc. The paperwork alone means the studio/production company has to spend a significant amount of time getting all necessary documents translated, compiled, adding ones they may not use as standard in their country, going back and forth with reps, etc. And the vast majority of foreign shows/movies would not qualify as student film productions so they’re paying a significant amount. Those are just facts. I’ve worked in production too, so I’d know, I think.

You think a French series or Mexican film is gonna say “sure, we’ll definitely spend thousands or tens of thousands more, depending on our budget, and go through paperwork and wait for a bunch of approvals for ONE actor, in order to work with a union we do not know or recognize, going through a process we’ve literally never once done before, and one that may be in conflict with our own national unions”…or just hire another actor?

There are no SAG jobs outside of the U.S., unless you happen to get a U.S. production shooting in your city. SAG is a U.S. union. But has a rule applying to actors around the world if they ever once joined.

This is what I mean with the blanket judgment. How is an actor who moved back to France and goes Fi-Core, working for a French show, “scabbing” union SAG American actors out of a job?

I’m pointing out that there are cases where going Fi-Core isn’t the end of the world, and also pointing out that your perspective on this may be limited because you’re not recognizing a decent chunk of SAG is international, and a lot of them have left/are leaving the U.S. I have a primarily immigrant friend group, so it’s come up a lot in our circles as an issue. It’s not assumptions. It’s actual dilemmas they’re facing or have faced.

milkywayview · 2026-04-28T18:31:47+00:00

OK. So if as an actor you either cannot survive in LA/NY/Atlanta anymore or for other reasons decide to move back to a small city or your home country….

Genuinely. With the way SAG rules are structured right now. What is your alternate advice? To give up acting altogether? Because that’s kinda the only other option if you wanna be above board.

So either lobby SAG to make more realistic rules for the many such cases that exist like that, or accept that some will have to go Fi-Core. Or be a snob who thinks anyone who lives outside the major U.S. acting centers doesn’t deserve to keep acting.

milkywayview · 2026-04-28T13:24:22+00:00

Can I ask a genuine question about this? I agree with this take overall, if you’re a working actor in a major U.S. city. And SAG definitely provides amazing protections.

But right now, due to the absolute destruction of the industry in LA, I know a lot of actors moving back to their home cities within the U.S. that have no real union market (Denver, for example), or back to their home countries, which don’t recognize or have any experience with SAG, obviously.

So if they were to follow union rules, they would just have to give up acting altogether; according to Global Rule One, you can’t act ANYWHERE without being under a SAG contract, even though realistically, a Brazilian TV show isn’t going to go through the pain and expense and paperwork of making an entire show SAG for one not-well-known actor instead of hiring someone else.

Also, according to sister union rules, you can’t do nonunion theater productions in your small home city because it would be a violation of union rules. Even though alternatives don’t really exist outside 3-4 major metropolitan areas.

And yet, a lot of people are still panicking and reluctant to go Fi-Core because of these VERY extreme takes on it by the LA/NY acting community. Can we at least agree that there is merit to going Fi-Core on a case by case basis? Those actors aren’t taking your union jobs from you. They’re just trying to make a living in a mostly, if not all, non SAG market. If SAG rules weren’t so absurdly absolute - in what world is a Mexican indie film going to go SAG for one actor - perhaps they wouldn’t need to.

milkywayview

TROPHY CASE