probably doesnt want to be typecasted, alot of actors are unfortunately typecasted.
this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
228 points (98.7% liked)
Television
2588 readers
316 users here now
Welcome to Television
This community is for discussion of anything related to television or streaming.
Other Communities
- !casualconversation@piefed.social
- !movies@piefed.social
- !animation@piefed.social
- !trailers@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Television Communities
A community for discussion of anything related to Television via broadcast or streaming.
Rules:
- Be respectful and courteous to all members.
- Avoid offensive or discriminatory remarks.
- Avoid spamming or promoting unrelated products/services.
- Avoid personal attacks or engaging in heated arguments.
- Do not engage in any form of illegal activity or promote illegal content.
- Please mask any and all spoilers with spoiler tags.
List of Best Rated TV Series as voted by the Fediverse
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
Make way for the TRUE KING OF THE NORTH!
“They cancelled the spin-off I said I was super into doing, so now I’m going to pretend I never wanted to do it. As soon as they offer me enough money, or just offer me another spinoff…enough time will suddenly have passed and I’ll be super excited to do it again.”
Wow, was it really ten years?
Just like how I can’t imagine how and why Jon Ham in a comedy movie..
I mean, the story is over. It's not like there's anything else for him to go back to, is there?
They could say the last season wasn't canon and try again, otherwise totally agree.
If studios can milk even dead characters, how much more for characters that ended up surviving at the end. If there's no story, I'm sure they'll be happy to make one.
But he is dead
He’s been dead before
Did he die again in the end? I honestly have a memory hole in season 8 and much of season 7, despite having watched the entire show twice (the earlier seasons multiple times before that, but I only did a single rewatch after the whole thing was over)
His character in the last season made me want to die. Does that count?
But who's got a better story than Jon Snow? Ah right, Bran did.
I feel like I remember seeing a graphic about Ned Stark having more screen time than Bran, despite dying in season 1.
Arya did in the books.
think it was a joke about what they said in the show in the kings moot or whatever before declaring him king
It clearly was
This was his response to him coming back to the role for the audiobook. He just did Lockheart in new Harry Potter books so it was a natural question.
load more comments
(5 replies)
I feel bad for a few of the actors who aren't in eternal denial about the show being a imploded cultural black hole.
who?
This just means they haven’t offered him enough yet
Kit.. Didn’t Connery ever teach you anything.
NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN.
A film that Connery should definitely have said Dr. No to
He's super keen to be in Harry Potter tho
"I can accept being a transphobe but I draw the line at bad writing and plot structure."
Kit Harington probably.
Having watched the last season, you have got to at least understand his point.
and by it i mean my peanits
I'd bet a substantial amount of money that eventually he will play the part for another pile of money. Probably not for a few years though unless other work dries up. It's not like he was making Friends level money or would ever make anything like those actors make even today in residuals.
Just takes a story set in the future after the events of GoT and a desire for more spending money. Articles mention his net worth being around 10-15m, which is enough to never work if you're content living a upper middle class life... but not enough to really live anything remotely extravagantly.
Isn't his wife (also from GoT) super rich?
She’s no richer than Kit Harrington.
If you’re referring to the fact that her family owns a castle…that’s not worth too much, weighed with her acting bucks.
4m net worth?
At one point I did the math and dividends from 4k in dividend stocks gets you like 100k/year. Hardly “super rich” when houses and condos are practically a million bucks in HCOL
But, when its an indefinite source of 100k for essentially life that it covers the monthly cost of mortgage which ends up steadier than the unpredictability of rent I think that is super rich in my eyes.
Because the big thing is the continued 100k isn't unpredictable like the uncertainty of the job market, which can get worse as people get older with companies looking to lay them off for the next generation who will take less and new skills.
So it might not seem the stereotypical super rich of private jets and mansion, but once you look at the stability of the money source it is deceptively super rich. Like the millionaire next door type rich, and the type of rich that would take the average person decades and decades of saving and investments turning out well to attain and be super old by then.
I don't even know what your point is. Sure, almost everyone in the world would be set for life with 4m. It's still only enough to provide means for a very modest life with dividends in cities like Boston, LA, NYC...
We usually successful performers burn through their monies quick because with no need to work, you can blow cash REAL quick. Few are so disciplined as to live on something like 4m forever if they weren't brought up with wealth and the understanding to live frugally.
Generally the 'safe withdrawal rate' for investments is 4% per year. At this rate, the principal will grow a bit above normal inflation, and you'll have basically a guaranteed inflation-adjusted salary.
Someone worth 10M, with maybe 8M of that in liquid investments (i.e. 2M in real estate) could clear about $320K every year. It's good money, but like you said it isn't unfathomable wealth. It is 'fuck you' money, though, where basically anyone can live comfortably without having to take work they don't want to do.
The key benefit is the money is free - it doesn't need to be saved for retirement because the nest egg is already secured, you already own the house and don't have mortgage, any extra money from an external salary just increases the principal, etc.
Yeah, its fuck you money because it is reliable and constant and you can live comfortably. A job that pays the same on the other hand has the uncertainty of how long can this last? Will I be let go? How long do I have to do this?
Money that is dependable is the best kind of money. Its why people save and invest hoping they can reach a point they aren't reliant on the uncertainty of the job market for money.
Point is people often just view money from what can you buy outright to decide if something is a lot of money, but even wealthy people don't always choose to buy property outright choosing to go with mortgages. They prefer to invest in other things instead of tying up all their money in one lump sum to one real estate property might be one reason.
When you calculate how many years or decades and what age you'd be to have accrued that much money it really sinks in how much money that really is. And how much money you need to be at a stage where you have a livable indefinite flow of money coming in, which is a huge milestone in life.
Like 100k at a glance might not be impressive, but then when you stop and realize that 100k is just coming in every year without reliance on a job and how much uncertainty there can be in the job market you realize how life changing it actually is. And how much wealth it is. People kind of lose sight despite not having that much money because they keep comparing things to the most extravagant displays of wealth.
So sure you might not be able to buy property outright, but you can take out mortage and not work and still have more secure state of finances than someone who is making 100k working and can be let go at any time and doesn't have even a million in savings to fall back on.
view more: next ›