[ SECRET POST #6644 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6644 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 46 secrets from Secret Submission Post #950.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree that there aren’t any under 30 but I do agree that talent pool has been drying up. There aren’t many truly greats under 70. And none of the 31-69 crowd have the talent and screen presence of the generation before them.

But I don’t think casting for average or below looks will help. There are many average or below looking actors on the small screen right now and their shows don’t get nearly the ratings of shows with better looking casts. People don’t want to see ugly in high definition.

[(Anonymous)]

What has happened in the industry to stifle the development and flow of talent? Was, and I can't believe I'm even contemplating this, the studio system good, actually?

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
It feels icky to say it but yes, I think it was. It was also highly exploitative and criminal in so many ways! I do think a modern day studio system without the extortion, rape, and slave labor is possible and would result in much better acting and productions.

[(Anonymous)]

The same thing has happened in music. It seems like there's a real need for competing studio/label executives to find and grow talent, if we're going to have exceptional talent. But yeah, that system inevitably leads to abuse and exploitation.

[(Anonymous)]

The consolidation of the radio industry in the eighties and nineties was what destroyed the music industry. It removed vital rungs on the ladder.

[(Anonymous)]

That's part of it, but in recent years, it's also that interest in live music has declined, and a lot of the venues where up-and-coming bands could build a following have closed. Combine that with the triumph of algorithm-driven streaming over traditional radio, and you've got an environment that's really inhospitable to young musicians trying to get a break.

[(Anonymous)]

It became almost impossible to make a living in the industry unless you were either independently wealthy or had really, really good contacts from the beginning.

[(Anonymous)]

Absolutely not, the studio system was shit. The issue is instead social mobility and money. It's hard to get into acting or music (with the shining exception of rap) unless your parents are at least middle class, because you can't afford to not constantly work. There's nowhere to live. I'm Gen X and it was vastly easier when I was younger than it is for young people today and the constant demand to monetize.

[(Anonymous)]

Man, people back then had to work all the time, too. Part of the reason "selling out" was such a temptation is because it was fucking hard to be a musician who wasn't getting paid for it.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, but as someone who was alive back then, rent was a fuckton cheaper. Unemployment benefits were never good, but they were much higher than they are now (at least in my country). I'm not saying it was easy, I'm saying you were much less likely to end up homeless than you are now. And I say this as someone who had to move from a rural area to a major city for education, and had very little financial support (my parents were supportive, I could have moved home, but I couldn't go to university AND stay home).

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not gonna gainsay your experience, but there's a reason songs like 'Mother Mother' resonated with people. Avoiding homelessness often meant having a bunch of roommates and going without things like food or heat. Costs have gone up, no doubt, but I just don't think the issue is that the starving musician was not a starving musician 30 years ago. I think the issue is that the starving musician will have less of a chance of getting out of that situation because it's harder for them to get their music heard, and because fewer people are willing to pay for it.

If I may, something that really steams me is the attitude that "art should be free." It should be accessible, certainly, but an environment where no one is expected to pay for art is one in which only the rich and people lucky enough to land rich patrons can afford to produce it.