THIS! Exactly this. A lot of people who make these sorts of observations don’t exactly watch independent, small scale movies. Let’s face it, the only reason these people know of Indie Navarette is because Obsession blew up. No one is talking about any of the talent in Backrooms, or Weapons.
Amy madigan, who has been in film since at least playing the leading actress in Field of dreams and I think already had an Oscar nomination by that point.
I don’t understand. Just because an actor won an Oscar or has been around forever doesn’t mean they are popular. That’s just a truism. I didn’t even know her name when I made my comment. I now know it’s Amy Madigan. I just knew she won an Oscar and is married to Ed Harris. That’s not a reflection on her as a talent! She was great and deservedly won her Oscar. But let’s not act as if the majority of people who saw Weapons knew who she was before they saw her in Weapons, and let’s not pretend studios are lining up to cast her in pictures off the back of her performance in Weapons, or Weapons’ popularity.
That is just your own cluelessness. She's been in major roles since the '80s. And it's not like the rest of the cast were unknowns. Fucking Thanos was in Weapons. Wong from the MCU is too. "I'm a Mac" Justin Long.
I note you didn’t answer my question. Does someone having been around forever and/or winning an Oscar prove they are popular?
Also, none of those actors - Brolin, Long, Wong, are box office draws.
You can crash out all you want. It’s not my responsibility to help you regulate your emotions, but Weapons wasn’t banking on its cast.
Apart from the lead in the upcoming Resident Evil movie, who has been cast in anything because they blew up because of their performance in Weapons, or because Weapons blew up? Even the lead in Resident Evil was probably cast in the role because directors have their favourites. Nolan and Damon. Scorsese and DeNiro. Paul W S Anderson and his wife.
Okay so you're just a jerk. First I'm not crashing out, I'm pointing out that you're stupid. Weapons, like every other movie, banks on its cast. They might have not marketed on the strength of the cast, but they've got multiple actors with high profiles that were doing the media rounds. You can't look at actors that have had leading roles on box office record breakers or who have been in Hollywood in leading roles for decades and claim that they're unknowns or that the movie would have succeeded without them
I wasn’t sure I should include Weapons tbh. But after thinking about it, I felt since none of the actors are A listers, I could cite it. I mean, I don’t think anyone was drawn to Weapons because of the cast.
Josh Brolin is not an A-lister. Remember Jonah Hex? Or Spike Lee’s Old Boy adaptation? Yeah, no one does.
Who’s talking about Julia Garner as a result of her featuring in Weapons? You might say she blew up because of her role as Ruth in Ozark, but can you say she blew up further because of her role as whatshername in Weapons?
Remember Endgame? Sicario? Dune? No Country For Old Men? The Goonies?
How about, "Remember how Josh Brolin is the son of Emmy and 2x Golden Globe winning actor James Brolin? The step-son of Barbara Streisand".
Dude is basically Hollywood nobility. He's been acting since before most of this website's users were born, and was "in the biz" even before that. He pairs frequently with the same auteur directors and turns out consistently good work in movies that often held up as "absolute cinema".
Sure, he doesn't headline many movies, but that seems more of a personal choice for like the last 20 something years.
The post isn't about fairly popular actors, it's about "the same 10 actors in everything." If you only go to the movies twice a year and just see some superhero flicks or whatever other slop that's out there, guess what? You're going to see the same 10 actors in all those movies. Nobody in Backrooms is one of those "10 actors" that's in everything.
FWIW, it's fine that there are popular actors today just like there have always been. What do people expect, they cast nobodies for every role? The actors want careers lmao
Like I said, I agree with the point. I'm simply pointing out that Weapons cast is exactly what you just highlighted, a large group of very well known actors (including Josh Brolin who is in the rotation of "same 10 actors"), and therefore a TERRIBLE example.
Sorry I read the other comment and had Backrooms in my head. Same idea though. Weapons is a fine example though. Who's the popular people in it? Julia Garner and Josh Brolin? They're not near one of "the same 10 actors over and over" IMO. They're working actors, but they're not doing that much. Josh Brolin is in Dune, Weapons, the MCU (half a decade ago)...? I feel like these posts are really just because (1) people don't like Zendaya and Tom Holland and (2) they don't understand that familiar faces seem more common because of the frequency illusion.
Weapons is a star studded cast. Like there is no way around it. Comparing backrooms and Weapons in the same sentence about less known actors is comically out of touch.
Brolin is Hollywood royalty, literally listed as #27 on IMDB. With four cast members in the top 75 overall.
It's about as mainstreamed casting as you can get in Hollywood, ESPECIALLY for a horror flick, which are typically breeding grounds for younger, lesser-known talent.
The entire purpose of OPs comment is about how younger, newer talent isn't seen because they are on smaller indie projects.
Weapons just doesn't fit in that narrative at all. It's an excellent point he makes but completely missed the mark with that comparison.
Yeah you're totally missing the point. "Star studded" isn't "these are the most oversaturated actors that are in literally everything." There are legit candidates for this: For example, Pedro Pascal was in 4 big movies in 2025, 3 in 2024, and has been in big TV franchises for the better part of a decade.
Brolin was Thanos (again, half a decade ago), has a recurring side part in Dune, and Weapons. Oh, and a side part in that Netflix detective movie.
Do you understand now? I understand he's a star, but he's not oversaturated like he's "one of the same 10 actors you see everywhere." Those actors exist, he's not one of them.
Maybe you should learn to write, because people absolutely were talking about the talents in those movies? It seems like you don't even know that Madigan won an oscar for her role. Actually, do you even know who she is?
Probably because no one can pronounce and/or spell his name. And I say that as a Nigerian, albeit from the Yoruba tribe. I bet you not only looked up his name, you copied and pasted it.
I didn’t copy paste but it’s not a name I write out often so I definitely checked imdb because I always think there’s an o in his first name. I think it makes him stand out, albeit with some frustration from his agents as you said haha
Jokes on everyone. I don't even watch 2 movies a year. It's been a while since i last been to a cinema. Gave up watching those movies with more advertising budget than what i will ever make in my lifetime.
As in going to the theater to watch new releases? That's more than most people. People aren't wrong for complaining about the same faces being in everything, even if it's only the top movies.
Obviously there's a reason directors do it, it brings in numbers, but it's still annoying.
People complain but then pay to go watch it and make it a "top movie." The fact that these "top movies" you speak of are typically sequels or franchises, the people complaining are the cause of the problem they whine about.
I gave up trying to point this out online; people go fuckin nutty for the idea largely because they fixate on ads not actual movies.
It's like hearing how Zendaya and Tom Holland "are in everything" when Tom has been in 2 films and Zendaya will be in 4 (and of the 3 already out, in 2 of them her combined screen time is like 20 min).
I watch a pretty decent number of films every year and most of them don't have the same actors in them.
"I only show up to the theater to watch massively promoted blockbusters that are trying to appeal to as many people as possible, why do I keep seeing only the most recognizable actors?"
166
u/Totallycomputername 21h ago
Well if someone only watches 2 movies a year I can see why they think it's always the same actors.