Simon and I must be on the same Google Alerts.

The One True b!X | March 14, 12:03 CET

Opera Version 8.0 doesn't like this page though it's fine with IE. Which means either I need to upgrade my version of Opera or Bill Gates just bought The Salt Lake Tribune. Or maybe both.

Few tidbits. Good to see him getting work and that the Whedon alums look out for each other where possible (I suppose acting's pretty dog eat dog at the best of times).

Saje | March 14, 17:39 CET

You know, the 'six degrees' reference prompted a random thought: The Whedonverse actors have (or soon acquire) a relatively high clutering coefficient. That is, plotting IMDB as a social network, where vertices are actors and edges signify appearances together in a production, you'd see a greater-than-normal incidence of actors working together with their coappearent's coappearents.

That's not a unique condition, of course, but one wonders whether there would be some statistically significant difference in Whedonverse actors, as opposed to the general actor population called out by IMDB. Hmm, sounds like an interesting paper, if anyone actually felt like doing the research...

jclemens | March 14, 18:49 CET

It does seem that way jclemens. I think there's a number of factors at work including the way the Buffy/Angel writing/producing staff have gone on to work on other fairly high profile shows and so people that know the actors are working on a lot of different things, the way Joss seems to hire people partly on their behind the scenes dynamic so there's a higher proportion of 'nice' talented people that have worked on Whedon shows (and all other things being equal, i'd say 'nice' actors may get hired more) and then there's us, by which I mean, most of the Whedonverse actors bring with them a certain built-in following which makes them ideal for 'stunt' casting.

And finally if I haven't been clear on this, most of them are just plain good actors so they get hired more (which makes me ask the question i've often wondered about i.e. why has it taken Alexis Denisof so long to get a job ? unless it's a deliberate holiday in which case more power to his elbow).

That said, it'd be interesting to see the actual numbers if anyone with more graph theory than the tiny smattering I have (which basically amounts to knowing graph theory exists ;) wants to have a go. I suspect their average degree of connectedness wouldn't be too much lower than any other set of TV/film actors and that Adam might be a 'hub' since he's been in the business a while. It's really easy when you hang around boards like this to get 'a feeling' that the actors are much more widely employed and better known just because of the extent to which we pay attention to them (and we'd also tend to notice connections between them more for the same reason).

Here's a link for anyone that wants to have a play with small (acting) worlds (trying to find more than 3 degrees of separation can be a challenge - even Morena to John Wayne is only 3 and she's 2 away from the ever reliable Kevin Bacon).

Saje | March 14, 20:02 CET

I've changed the link so hopefully those using Opera should be able to read it.

Simon | March 15, 00:14 CET

Apparently David didn't hear Baldwin's commentary on the Angel S5 DVDs.

Elo | March 15, 02:36 CET

jclemens,

Part of that is what I refer to as the post-firefly diaspora, where Nate showed up on Buffy, Adam and Gina found there way over to Angel for a spell, and of course Jewel picked up a gig on Wonderfalls. Did I miss anyone?

pbk | March 15, 02:50 CET

Oh I dunno. This and that.

Simon | March 15, 03:47 CET

Party at Nate's house! :)

I love reading that Whedonverse alums hang out/look out for one another. I'm also not surprised that good folks seem drawn to working with Joss. It's like the 'verse calls to members of the same "tribe", who then manage to navigate the jungles of Hollywood and find each other. Like attracts like, so maybe nice attracts nice?

Wiseblood | March 15, 04:07 CET