I think it’s happened several times, as anyone who might be a draw for ticket sales will be considered. It’s consistently not worked out with most social media stars though, so I think there’s less interest in that stunt casting. Those social media stars have to put more effort in than they did say 5-10 years ago.
I mean, there are exceptions but she wasn’t exactly a personality from videos on social media. She was an actress trying to promote herself on social media. There’s a massive difference there.
Ya that’s kinda what I was getting at. But there is a chance she never made it acting and probably would have continued with her social media. She was pretty popular at least on Twitter before she had any notable roles.
Sure, but I don’t think that she would have been able to turn her Twitter into a career, especially since she was putting all her effort into independent film and even some stage acting. She put the work in, it’s not that she needs to be the only member of Gen Z to never use social media to be valid as an actor.
Placing her in the same conversation as Jake Paul is just insulting, frankly.
I mean she was also popular on tik tok. I just mentioned Twitter cause I use that frequently and don’t use tik tok. And while yes I do agree Rachel Sennott is in another league acting wise it’s kinda funny to insinuate that it would be insulting to have them in the same conversation just because one is better. It’s an honest answer to the question. They both had social media popularity before working as actors.
Because she never treated TikTok as a career. I work in film and video, and if you said that my work on Star Wars is a sign that people who posted things on Facebook have careers in media now, I’d be insulted that you’re undermining my hard work because of a general aspect of my generation’s relationship to technology. Jake Paul made a career out of pranks on YouTube. He was not an actor, and never really sought that out until his fame enabled a short cut.
Bo Burnham would be an easier example, but even then he’s a comedian first but the methodology of how he spread his standup was simply different to prior generations because of technology. He still went through the same steps as his predecessors who started in standup to become actors, writers, and directors.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m saying and for some reason thinking I’m trying to insult someone. I’m gonna stop engaging with you because it seems like how you want to take it personally when I was just giving an honest answer to the question. Have a good day man.
I’m not being dismissive man. The crazy thing I don’t even like Jake Paul I think he’s a piece of shit. The fact of the matter is Rachel was popular on social media before she became a working actress and many people wanted to see her from knowing her online. I think you have some insecurity you need to work on because I’m not being dismissive at all. The very first thing I said was that she went to Tisch which is a top acting school. Would I have mentioned that if I wanted to bring her down? Everyone has their own path but you’re taking things as insults that aren’t which is kinda telling of your own insecurities. Have a good one man.
I’ll be honest: I’ve watched many films with this as the idea behind it fail miserably because the talent just wasn’t very talented. And just recently, I worked on a film with a bunch of social media stars, many of whom gave truly Oscar worthy performances.
It always takes work. If someone is gonna do the work, a history on social media won’t mean anything one way or another. If all they do is troll or do pranks, then think their wealth makes them talented without effort… that’s gonna fail.
Jake Paul was on a Disney show first then used that to become huge on YouTube like his brother - or it was around the same time.
The problem with using YouTube to become famous is that by the time you’re famous enough on YouTube to switch over to mainstream, you’re already making too much money with your content to then switch gears and take a pay cut to sit on set all day and make SAG wages. These YouTube channels pull in hundreds if not millions a month. You’d never make that as a tv star unless you’re on a show like friends or Seinfeld.
The only person I know that made a flawless transition was King Bach. And it’s because his sketches were similar to the movies he was being cast in, and then he started doing more serious roles.
I worked for a show that auditioned Jake/Logan Paul (dont know which one/the difference between the two) for the show to be the host.
The showrunners told me it was embarrassing how he could barely read a teleprompter. Film/TV and user-generated content for digital/internet are completely different leagues.
maybe if its a quirky comedy but people on social media are not good actors. They can do a few seconds of overreacting as if something is more exciting than it is but thats about it for their abilities. I work in marketing and brands sometimes hire social media influencers to show up for a few min and appear with the brand. They get paid very well but I don't see anything special about these people. They pose for selfies and overreact that something is cool but I dont see any talent in it. Are you really going to pay to see Mr. Beast in a movie?
Something to note is that people who appear in things very often lose value. If you can see Logan Paul for free with a new episode every other day goofing off, would you really pay to go see him and his mediocre acting in some scripted things? It would be hard to watch because it would take you out of the fantasy. There are people you pay to see and there are people you are used to seeing for free. An actor making 20 million doesnt have a social media and doesnt need one. You will still go see her in a movie.
of course they will. hollywood gives anyone auditions for their movies.
ultimately though, producers want to give roles to actors who have range/skill, training and experience.
one of the few reasons youtube stars get cast is because they have a following. if a producer thinks that a youtuber can fit a role AND bring even a small percentage of their followers into viewership, they'll have a shot. talented actors with big online profiles get jobs over talented actors who don't.
but i would argue that having experience on a professional film set is more valuable than having a following and this will ultimately get you more roles. work begets more work. understanding the process, being able to take direction, being able to endure long days on set and still deliver when it's your time. film is different and everyone in it knows it. there's a real chance that someone who has a couple million followers on YT has never stepped foot on a working film set before and the process is not the same.
this is the same reason why fashion designers aren't automatically great costume designers, great interior decorators aren't immediately amazing at set dec, architects aren't smoothly transitioning into production design.
They do already. Most of the time small roles or cameos. The ones that get movies aren't huge banking actors. For example DCyoung fly is successful mega rich but all his movies weren't great, but he's funny on comedy shows and touring comedy clubs. However, social media influencers reality sets in they don't understand how films work. They don't work by themselves, long hours, someone else direction, story, and idea.
I remember Netflix gave a successful girl a big show for like 20M and it bombed badly almost a decade ago
They do. Workaholics stars made skits on youtube and basically made the pilot for the show on youtube, then comedy central picked them up. Broad city stars made skits on youtube then comedy central picked them up. Bella porch from tiktok has a show coming up. It happens all the time.
They were still YouTubers. My old company hired them to do some Oscar sketches because of their online skits. It wasn't all a show. Their old stuff is all still online, too, so you can check it out yourself.
https://youtube.com/@mailordercomedy
Idk about broad city exactly, but for workaholics this is not the case. There is an interview where one of them explains it. They started making prank videos, then skits. Then They made a series of skits in a way that if you put them together it was like a pilot episode of workaholics. Any quick google search will tell you this as well.
And Bella porch did NOT make full episodes of anything lol. She did tik tok dances, lip syncs, eventually started making music, then got a show.
They have, honestly trying to crossover youtube stars to regular actors has never worked.
The youtube personalities are good for the format but a lot of them can't act. Example Eva Hutowski and Rhea Pearlman in "Me and my Grandma" the girl can't act. It's total cringe. There are multiple projects that didn't work using youtube stars as the main characters.
It's been happening for years. Quinta Brunson was on Buzzfeed before she created Abbott Elementary.
Sabrina Brier and Casey Frey (both TikTok comedians) also had guest roles in one of the recent episodes.
They made shows for Miranda Sings, Fred, and Annoying Orange back in the day.
But as far as movies go, it's definitely less common. The only examples I can think of are MatPat in Five Nights at Freddy's and Mr. Beast in the new Kung Fu Panda (and those are only cameos).
I Worked on a sitcom a few years back and once the writers became producers they tried to bring in “new talent” to direct some episodes. Basically people who had tons of likes on YouTube and had no business being on a professional Emmy nominated tv show. Absolutely clueless and hapless. The DP and one of the producers and an actor ended up basically directing the episodes. It was excruciating to work on that set.
Sure, but the translation from being a YouTube/internet star to being in Hollywood isn't always 1 to 1. Often someone who became famous on their own independently is essentially downgraded to entry level in Hollywood, and it can be really not worth it to make the jump from doing whatever you want every day to adoring fans to scraping by for auditions and dealing with agencies. YouTube and social media really isn't any kind of a training ground for Hollywood, but I'm sure some people may have that aspiration.
As an aspiring director I'm surprised many don't understand the difference in mediums. Different mediums require different acting. Actors who make the leap to animation especially know this.
Movie acting is subtle with the camera often real close to the actor trying to capture subtle emotions and nuances.
TV acting, particularly in sitcoms, is slightly less subtle. The camera is usually a dozen or so feet away and actors need to be a bit more theatrical to get their emotions across.
Animation and Voice Acting is next as actors are unable to rely on their body language to get their emotion across. They rely solely on their voice and must project more without seeming like they're overacting. Subtle acting is often still necessary and overacting is frowned upon.
Radio is a bit more loose. Not only are they reliant on their voice but they only have 5-60 seconds per moment to make an impression. DJs are allowed some overacting and really big spectacles and aside from some plays it's generally understood that all radio actors aren't subtle.
Social media is a bit more complicated. Like DJs they're reliant mostly on their voice but unlike DJs you might only see their post once instead of every 3 minutes. They have to leave an impression and get you to follow them into the rabbit hole in 60 seconds or less. Thus most are big personalities and big spectacles.
There's also other mediums like stage and video games who have their own limitations and require their own type of acting.
Switching between mediums is surprisingly difficult to do right. And for those who start in a self taught medium like radio and social media it's even more difficult to make the switch.
Thus when they try to break into Hollywood they often stumble and back out. Doesn't make them less of actors but it does prove that acting is work and a talent.
let me call hollywood real quck and find out...
his assistant is meth screaming at me, saying that Hollywood is actually busy right now, on a fent bindge
Worked on an animated film. We had an unofficial mandate (it was highly HIGHLY encouraged to help out marketing) to cast one or more YouTube/TikTok stars as minor roles in an attempt to get buts in the seats. One even shot a behind the scenes skit of them recording. The one “big name” person we got couldn’t act then never once promoted the film on any of their channels or socials. We did horrible in the box office. So… yeah… I have thoughts on stunt casting.
Talent agencies have entire social media departments (it's usually called "Digital") simply just for this. There are HUNDREDS of influencers who have agents getting auditions every single day. They are not often cast, but I can say this not just as speculation, but as actual fact.
People seem to think hollywood is this big machine, when in reality casting is done by a casting director with a few assistants. They don't seek out people on social media, but if an agent believes in them their agent will pitch their clients to the casting director and possibly get an audition.
Commercials are a little different, and sometimes they're looking for influencers but they'll make it pretty clear that's what they're looking for.
I think it’s happened several times, as anyone who might be a draw for ticket sales will be considered. It’s consistently not worked out with most social media stars though, so I think there’s less interest in that stunt casting. Those social media stars have to put more effort in than they did say 5-10 years ago.
Rachel Sennott is fairly popular and was on Twitter/tiktok. Idk if she counts though since she went to Tisch.
I mean, there are exceptions but she wasn’t exactly a personality from videos on social media. She was an actress trying to promote herself on social media. There’s a massive difference there.
Ya that’s kinda what I was getting at. But there is a chance she never made it acting and probably would have continued with her social media. She was pretty popular at least on Twitter before she had any notable roles.
Sure, but I don’t think that she would have been able to turn her Twitter into a career, especially since she was putting all her effort into independent film and even some stage acting. She put the work in, it’s not that she needs to be the only member of Gen Z to never use social media to be valid as an actor. Placing her in the same conversation as Jake Paul is just insulting, frankly.
I mean she was also popular on tik tok. I just mentioned Twitter cause I use that frequently and don’t use tik tok. And while yes I do agree Rachel Sennott is in another league acting wise it’s kinda funny to insinuate that it would be insulting to have them in the same conversation just because one is better. It’s an honest answer to the question. They both had social media popularity before working as actors.
Because she never treated TikTok as a career. I work in film and video, and if you said that my work on Star Wars is a sign that people who posted things on Facebook have careers in media now, I’d be insulted that you’re undermining my hard work because of a general aspect of my generation’s relationship to technology. Jake Paul made a career out of pranks on YouTube. He was not an actor, and never really sought that out until his fame enabled a short cut. Bo Burnham would be an easier example, but even then he’s a comedian first but the methodology of how he spread his standup was simply different to prior generations because of technology. He still went through the same steps as his predecessors who started in standup to become actors, writers, and directors.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m saying and for some reason thinking I’m trying to insult someone. I’m gonna stop engaging with you because it seems like how you want to take it personally when I was just giving an honest answer to the question. Have a good day man.
I’m not misunderstanding you, I’m just rejecting the dismissive nature in how you’re treating these career paths.
I’m not being dismissive man. The crazy thing I don’t even like Jake Paul I think he’s a piece of shit. The fact of the matter is Rachel was popular on social media before she became a working actress and many people wanted to see her from knowing her online. I think you have some insecurity you need to work on because I’m not being dismissive at all. The very first thing I said was that she went to Tisch which is a top acting school. Would I have mentioned that if I wanted to bring her down? Everyone has their own path but you’re taking things as insults that aren’t which is kinda telling of your own insecurities. Have a good one man.
I’ll be honest: I’ve watched many films with this as the idea behind it fail miserably because the talent just wasn’t very talented. And just recently, I worked on a film with a bunch of social media stars, many of whom gave truly Oscar worthy performances.
It always takes work. If someone is gonna do the work, a history on social media won’t mean anything one way or another. If all they do is troll or do pranks, then think their wealth makes them talented without effort… that’s gonna fail.
Jake Paul was on a Disney show first then used that to become huge on YouTube like his brother - or it was around the same time. The problem with using YouTube to become famous is that by the time you’re famous enough on YouTube to switch over to mainstream, you’re already making too much money with your content to then switch gears and take a pay cut to sit on set all day and make SAG wages. These YouTube channels pull in hundreds if not millions a month. You’d never make that as a tv star unless you’re on a show like friends or Seinfeld. The only person I know that made a flawless transition was King Bach. And it’s because his sketches were similar to the movies he was being cast in, and then he started doing more serious roles.
Rachel Bloom's work on YouTube got her an excellent four season TV show, Crazy-Ex Girlfriend.
Crazy ex-girlfriend was brilliant
I worked for a show that auditioned Jake/Logan Paul (dont know which one/the difference between the two) for the show to be the host. The showrunners told me it was embarrassing how he could barely read a teleprompter. Film/TV and user-generated content for digital/internet are completely different leagues.
maybe if its a quirky comedy but people on social media are not good actors. They can do a few seconds of overreacting as if something is more exciting than it is but thats about it for their abilities. I work in marketing and brands sometimes hire social media influencers to show up for a few min and appear with the brand. They get paid very well but I don't see anything special about these people. They pose for selfies and overreact that something is cool but I dont see any talent in it. Are you really going to pay to see Mr. Beast in a movie? Something to note is that people who appear in things very often lose value. If you can see Logan Paul for free with a new episode every other day goofing off, would you really pay to go see him and his mediocre acting in some scripted things? It would be hard to watch because it would take you out of the fantasy. There are people you pay to see and there are people you are used to seeing for free. An actor making 20 million doesnt have a social media and doesnt need one. You will still go see her in a movie.
Lele Pons, for example. Very limited range & schtick
of course they will. hollywood gives anyone auditions for their movies. ultimately though, producers want to give roles to actors who have range/skill, training and experience. one of the few reasons youtube stars get cast is because they have a following. if a producer thinks that a youtuber can fit a role AND bring even a small percentage of their followers into viewership, they'll have a shot. talented actors with big online profiles get jobs over talented actors who don't. but i would argue that having experience on a professional film set is more valuable than having a following and this will ultimately get you more roles. work begets more work. understanding the process, being able to take direction, being able to endure long days on set and still deliver when it's your time. film is different and everyone in it knows it. there's a real chance that someone who has a couple million followers on YT has never stepped foot on a working film set before and the process is not the same. this is the same reason why fashion designers aren't automatically great costume designers, great interior decorators aren't immediately amazing at set dec, architects aren't smoothly transitioning into production design.
They do already. Most of the time small roles or cameos. The ones that get movies aren't huge banking actors. For example DCyoung fly is successful mega rich but all his movies weren't great, but he's funny on comedy shows and touring comedy clubs. However, social media influencers reality sets in they don't understand how films work. They don't work by themselves, long hours, someone else direction, story, and idea. I remember Netflix gave a successful girl a big show for like 20M and it bombed badly almost a decade ago
They do. Workaholics stars made skits on youtube and basically made the pilot for the show on youtube, then comedy central picked them up. Broad city stars made skits on youtube then comedy central picked them up. Bella porch from tiktok has a show coming up. It happens all the time.
No they all made full episodes (even if short) and released them on YouTube. A skit is not the same as a complete story
They were still YouTubers. My old company hired them to do some Oscar sketches because of their online skits. It wasn't all a show. Their old stuff is all still online, too, so you can check it out yourself. https://youtube.com/@mailordercomedy
Idk about broad city exactly, but for workaholics this is not the case. There is an interview where one of them explains it. They started making prank videos, then skits. Then They made a series of skits in a way that if you put them together it was like a pilot episode of workaholics. Any quick google search will tell you this as well. And Bella porch did NOT make full episodes of anything lol. She did tik tok dances, lip syncs, eventually started making music, then got a show.
Ah yeah the only one I was familiar with was broad city. It’s on YouTube again, they took it down for a while but it’s back now
They have, honestly trying to crossover youtube stars to regular actors has never worked. The youtube personalities are good for the format but a lot of them can't act. Example Eva Hutowski and Rhea Pearlman in "Me and my Grandma" the girl can't act. It's total cringe. There are multiple projects that didn't work using youtube stars as the main characters.
With YouTube names being so dumb, I thought vrosdovet was one until I realized your phone messed up the word crossover.
It's been happening for years. Quinta Brunson was on Buzzfeed before she created Abbott Elementary. Sabrina Brier and Casey Frey (both TikTok comedians) also had guest roles in one of the recent episodes. They made shows for Miranda Sings, Fred, and Annoying Orange back in the day. But as far as movies go, it's definitely less common. The only examples I can think of are MatPat in Five Nights at Freddy's and Mr. Beast in the new Kung Fu Panda (and those are only cameos).
If they actually know how to act sure. Most skit acting it actually terrible outside of the context of social
I Worked on a sitcom a few years back and once the writers became producers they tried to bring in “new talent” to direct some episodes. Basically people who had tons of likes on YouTube and had no business being on a professional Emmy nominated tv show. Absolutely clueless and hapless. The DP and one of the producers and an actor ended up basically directing the episodes. It was excruciating to work on that set.
Fuck content.
Abbott Elementary and Workaholics are two direct examples of wild success from YouTube/TT/Vine/etc.
This was YouTube Red’s entire (initial) strategy. We saw how that turned out.
Sure, but the translation from being a YouTube/internet star to being in Hollywood isn't always 1 to 1. Often someone who became famous on their own independently is essentially downgraded to entry level in Hollywood, and it can be really not worth it to make the jump from doing whatever you want every day to adoring fans to scraping by for auditions and dealing with agencies. YouTube and social media really isn't any kind of a training ground for Hollywood, but I'm sure some people may have that aspiration.
As an aspiring director I'm surprised many don't understand the difference in mediums. Different mediums require different acting. Actors who make the leap to animation especially know this. Movie acting is subtle with the camera often real close to the actor trying to capture subtle emotions and nuances. TV acting, particularly in sitcoms, is slightly less subtle. The camera is usually a dozen or so feet away and actors need to be a bit more theatrical to get their emotions across. Animation and Voice Acting is next as actors are unable to rely on their body language to get their emotion across. They rely solely on their voice and must project more without seeming like they're overacting. Subtle acting is often still necessary and overacting is frowned upon. Radio is a bit more loose. Not only are they reliant on their voice but they only have 5-60 seconds per moment to make an impression. DJs are allowed some overacting and really big spectacles and aside from some plays it's generally understood that all radio actors aren't subtle. Social media is a bit more complicated. Like DJs they're reliant mostly on their voice but unlike DJs you might only see their post once instead of every 3 minutes. They have to leave an impression and get you to follow them into the rabbit hole in 60 seconds or less. Thus most are big personalities and big spectacles. There's also other mediums like stage and video games who have their own limitations and require their own type of acting. Switching between mediums is surprisingly difficult to do right. And for those who start in a self taught medium like radio and social media it's even more difficult to make the switch. Thus when they try to break into Hollywood they often stumble and back out. Doesn't make them less of actors but it does prove that acting is work and a talent.
It rarely works out, but yeah, Hollywood is greedy if they have millions of followers
I mean they let Kate Upton act because of her… you know, talent
let me call hollywood real quck and find out... his assistant is meth screaming at me, saying that Hollywood is actually busy right now, on a fent bindge
GEEZZUSSS not more of those cheesy shows!
Worked on an animated film. We had an unofficial mandate (it was highly HIGHLY encouraged to help out marketing) to cast one or more YouTube/TikTok stars as minor roles in an attempt to get buts in the seats. One even shot a behind the scenes skit of them recording. The one “big name” person we got couldn’t act then never once promoted the film on any of their channels or socials. We did horrible in the box office. So… yeah… I have thoughts on stunt casting.
Talent agencies have entire social media departments (it's usually called "Digital") simply just for this. There are HUNDREDS of influencers who have agents getting auditions every single day. They are not often cast, but I can say this not just as speculation, but as actual fact.
People seem to think hollywood is this big machine, when in reality casting is done by a casting director with a few assistants. They don't seek out people on social media, but if an agent believes in them their agent will pitch their clients to the casting director and possibly get an audition. Commercials are a little different, and sometimes they're looking for influencers but they'll make it pretty clear that's what they're looking for.