No, not at all, I too found your info fascinating, junnja, so thanks for sharing.
It rather confirms what I suspected, ie 'known' actors will usually get a part over an unknown. It's the same with any jobs I suppose - a young untried person will almost always be passed over in favour of someone with experience, but how is the young and inexperienced one ever going to get the experience if nobody will employ them.
Classic Catch 22 really.
But I know there are some productions where they insist on using only new faces, and I wish you all the luck in the world in breaking in, if you intend to keep trying.
I hope I'm not too late to the party with this.
One of my close relatives runs a business that, amongst other things, advises major Hollywood studios on the financial viability of film scripts, ie what box office return it is likely to make so they know what upfront investment is worthwhile to still show a profit. A couple of (I think) interesting insights this gives are:
- 'big name' actors do not uplift the box office by as much as their inflated paycheques. They can also actually get in the way of the viewer's experience, ie 'I'm watching so-and-so in X', rather than just watching X.
- it's the story that ultimately determines a film's success. Sounds obvious, I know, but it's not always heeded.
Basically, if the story is good, a talented unknown/relative unknown is the better choice
I don't know if the same holds true for TV, as the PR, publicity, reviewing and word-of-mouth model is different from film, but I'm sure we've all been drawn to watch the first episode of a new series because 'thingummy from whatsit' is in it, and never tuned in for subsequent episodes because the story didn't grab us.