There was a meme going around a few years ago about Pedro Pascal “being in everything.” It also seemed the internet had a hate hardon for the guy, I could never figure out why, but “overexposed” was the dominant “neutral” take.
Since we have analytics for things, has anyone done the numbers to see if Pedro Pascal was objectively more exposed than other actors?
Ryan Gosling, who also seems to similarly be in everything (especially in similar genres to Pascal) but without eliciting any complaints, would be a good point of comparison…
There are thousands of movies made every year.
Do *you" think one single actor was objectively in most of them?
He rose to fame very fast and charmed everyone and their uncle so every studio wanted to milk it while it lasted. There was a wave that led arguably to over exposure but of fucking course he wasn’t in most movies.
Bravo. Well done.
Is it possible that “in everything” is in quotes for a reason?
Tell me your ideas.
My idea is that you can look up on IMDB how many movies he was in that particular year and compare with your favourite actors instead of asking somebody else to do it for you.
Will IMDB also tell me how many viewers he was exposed to compared to other actors?
You could be in 20 movies in a year, and if nobody saw them, it wouldn’t make you “overexposed.”
They used to, but now it’s behind IMDb pro, though you are able to lookup box office numbers for movies elsewhere to give yourself an idea.
Box office is something, but isn’t going to capture streaming, like GoT (which I think at least has Nielsens) and Narcos (Netflix views are a black box).
Thanks for at least addressing the issue. Amazing how many people can’t.
Don’t say “objectively” when it isn’t objective?
why do i bother to write anything past the title
I guess nostupidquestions implies nostupidanswers.