To wonder why so many actors are often unemployed when there are so many plays, TV etc being made?

There’s also the law of diminishing returns. I gave it a really good crack for 5 years post drama school, but I’m working class and had no family support at all. Eventually - because I wanted to do things like eat and have a home and a life - I had to move into work that would actually support me, rather than waitressing 70 hours a week while trying to audition.

The people that I know that built a sustainable career lived at home/came from well off families and so managed to do a few shifts a week while they waited on jobs coming in, while also doing unpaid stuff and workshops and all the rest of it. Sometimes it’s not so much nepo baby as reasonably well off and well supported baby.

It's not as simple as that op, it's just as important for the actors to choose the right part as it is the part to find the right actor. I have some experience in this and followed the method actings principle, do you have any idea of how exhausting this is? One cannot simply turn up for a role and 'give it a go'.

Here is the thing though - if they spread the work around more, would there be enough for them all to make a living?

There are only ever going to be so many roles. It's better if some can make a good living at it.

It's not only that so many people want to be actors. Many will get a little work - enough to keep them trying - but not really enough to call it a very successful career. And that includes many who had a good role in something fairly significant.

I don’t think it’s anything to do with not being a threat. Unless you’re a totally leading man type, a jobbing actor is better off not being too distinctive-looking and more of a chameleon. You want to be castable as Laertes, a cop and the guy on the washing up liquid ad, ideally.

It’s an absolutely brutal field. I know an extraordinary actor who got her start in a two-hander play that took off and her co-star, not one whit better than her, went on to global fame on stage and screen, while she was dropped from the film adaptation, and only realised when she accidentally found out they were doing auditions. She’s still made a career, and a good one, but it was a brutal introduction to the vagaries of looks, luck, etc.

The broadcasters stick to the names they know get the views. Hence why you seem to only have the same 8 actors on the BBC.

Because the same people get the majority of roles. Like the music industry, acting is very difficult for newcomers to break into, unless they know someone with influence.

My brother-in-law is an actor, as well as several friends.

It is an incredibly difficult industry to thrive in. My BIL has been extremely famous at one point, had great film parts, brilliant TV series and has acted alongside very revered actors on stage. But he still struggles to get roles. He's stunning looking, always has been, and we do sometimes wonder if that works against him because he is very distinctive.

Another friend has been in everything from Bond films to Midsommer Murders. Small parts, but he gets lots of regular work and earns more than enough to live a decent life. He has a very unmemorable face, although he's a nice-looking guy. He claims this is why he is quietly successful: he's no threat to anyone on set.

A third friend is A-list famous. He's almost a national treasure. He had his lean years but he's been a major star for a long time now.

A fourth friend was in Game of Thrones and is incredibly charismatic. He walks into a room and people hold their breath; he's that impressive. But he has had to move abroad to get the parts he wants.

The whole industry is like alchemy. Thousands of actors out there are easily as brilliant as the biggest stars... and we will never hear about them.

I remember an actress who’d had a bit part on Eastenders as a gangster’s (played by Goldie?) girlfriend. She very briefly appeared in an episode of King of Queens as a flight attendant I think. She was then on something like Celebrity Big Brother and described as the ‘star’ of King of Queens which must have come as quite a surprise to Leah Remini, Kevin James and Jerry Stiller!

I heard that at any one time, 90% of actors are “resting”. One of these resting actors sometimes worked as a supply teacher at my secondary school. Many years later, he appeared in Game of Thrones and I believe he no longer works as a supply teacher. He was lucky to hit his stride in his 50s.

A lot will slip into allied professions - drama teaching, agents, voice coaching. I’m aware of a couple of barristers who are former actors.

I remember reading about an actress who had a part in EastEnders, now she is a security guard for B&M.
My DB went on a similar path. Got a few screen acting jobs, then dropped down to teaching acting... is now an office cleaner.

I think it’s the same for all of the creative fields. There are vastly more people wanting to be actors, writers, artists, musicians and dancers than there are jobs.

It does drive me nuts that the same actors are used over and over again regardless of their suitability for the part. I know that they are considered to be box office draws, but I would far rather watch an unknown actor who fits the part over a big name who doesn’t fit the part at all and distracts from the story.

Because there are about 2-3000 actors applying for each role. There are about 100,000 registered actors and 90% of them are not in an acting role at any given time. There are about 26,000 new roles for actors every year. These range from film to TV to commercials and theatre, starring roles to background. So not every role is going to be lucrative or even last more than a few days. It’s a very tough business.

You've really thought this through. Well done. If acting was less popular there really would be less competition for roles, yes.

Lots of people who would say they are actors if asked their profession in fact spend most of their time doing other work. I knew a woman once whose husband spent most of his time painting and decorating but once in a way got a TV part. I also had a job where we employed temps occasionally and two were resting actors (both pretty hopeless at basic admin, sadly, but entertaining company). Another was trying to make a career as a drummer having trained as a dancer (she was very good at our work). In another job we hired actors to do role playing with students. Some of them were able to get occasional work in film, TV, theatre, voiceovers, audiobooks - all much better paid than our work, but harder to get. The remainder of our actors had basically given up on conventional acting work and supplemented what they got from us with dogwalking, teaching drama classes, running craft workshops and anything else they could get. It's a very tough life. If you can get work, though, you can often carry on working well into extreme old age.

OP have you never noticed how actors leave TV soaps then reappear years later having failed to get enough acting work beyond the soap?

One of my friends does quite a bit as an extra. More like a hobby for him though.

There are an estimated 52,400 actors, entertainers, and presenters working in the UK. While the wider acting pool is substantial, the industry is heavily concentrated, with over 60% of all UK actors based in London, and the majority of the remainder residing in cities like Manchester, Glasgow, and Birmingham.

From Google.
London restaurants, coffee shops and bars are awash with actors as waiting staff.

Actor with a supporting role in a TV show or film - maybe in a couple of scenes. What’s that, one or two days work? Not really going to pay the mortgage, is it, unless you get plenty of it.

Everyone uses the same actors that’s why! Had a conversation with my brother about this just yesterday. Netflix use Richard Armitage and/or James Nesbitt in most of the Harlen Coben adaptations. Channel 5 use Sally Lindsay and Jo Joyner in their dramas.