Hollywood never gave a sh*t..
Credibility score: 42/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "Hollywood never gave a sh*t.." and rated it 42/100 for credibility (a BS score of 58/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-06. Its weakest claim — "Uses height comparison to argue identity is secondary to physical casting limits" — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false equivalence. 6 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 6 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 5 between 40 and 69, and 0 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Hollywood blackballing him because he's trans — no evidence offered — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 0:04
States the discrimination is real, then presents zero casting data or timelines. Confidence without receipts.
Why this score: The speaker leaps from 'no calls' to 'Hollywood hates trans people' with nothing connecting the two. Missing the part where industry gatekeepers give actual reasons, or where other trans actors are working. The framing sells systemic bigotry while skipping any evidence the industry is actually turning him down for that reason.
Original quote: “Elliot Paige says he's received no roles despite being a huge success of the Odyssey and believes being transgender has made it harder for him to get cast in Hollywood.”
Claims private viewing habits expose hidden public rejection of trans content — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:02
Box office numbers don't show the massive boycott he describes — missing the actual data that would prove it.
Why this score: He treats 'quiet compliance' as proven fact but offers no viewing figures, ratings, or market research. The leap from 'people might skip it privately' to 'this is the real public opinion' skips every piece of evidence that would actually test the claim.
Original quote: “I think this is the reality and I've said this before. The public really isn't as accepting to trans stuff as some people make it out to be. I think that there's a massive amount of kind of quiet compliance that people have. But I think that when you give people the option to choose to consume…”
Attributes casting difficulty to being trans — frames it as obvious industry rejection — Missing Context (45/100)
At 1:48
Ignores height, age, post-transition marketability, and every other factor actors face — pins it all on identity.
Why this score: He presents the casting drought as solely about trans identity while the conversation itself just mentioned his 5'1" stature and compared it to Tom Cruise's documented height struggles. The 'obvious reasons' line erases every other variable the industry actually weighs.
Original quote: “No, Kevin. I'm not. So, let's if someone wants to call me Elliot Page, can someone please give me another opportunity like that? You know, like that's the feeling. It's just like it's a little tricky for me to get cast right now. I think that's probably for obvious pretty obvious reasons.”
Uses height comparison to argue identity is secondary to physical casting limits — False Equivalence (20/100)
At 2:04
Compares cis actors using tricks to pass as taller with a trans actor whose entire career narrative is being rewritten — not the same problem.
Why this score: Tom Cruise and RDJ are managing an existing marketable persona. Elliot Page is asking to be cast as a 5'1" male lead after a decade of being marketed as a female lead. The 'just height' framing erases that the industry already sold a different body and now has to resell a new one.
Original quote: “It's also like isn't Elliot Paige 5'1 or something as a male? Like there were even problems with Tom Cruz who's 5'7 in like Top Gun because he was shorter. Robert Downey Jr. uses elevator shoes. I didn't even know that. Like you want to be cast as an actor and have your roles be agnostic of your…”
Mocking an actor's appearance and emotional state to dismiss their career concerns. — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 2:33
Dismissing someone's legitimate career frustration by reducing them to a caricature. Classic. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses highly descriptive, demeaning language about the actor's physical appearance and emotional state ('built like a 12-year-old boy,' 'constantly on the verge of tears') to invalidate their surprise about a lack of work. This appeals to contempt rather than addressing the underlying point about industry casting biases.
Original quote: “Paige is shocked that there isn't more work for an aging 5'1 actor that's built like a 12-year-old boy and constantly on the verge of tears.”
Posing a rhetorical question to imply unfairness based on looks. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 2:46
Oh, the eternal question, mortal. As if 'cute' isn't a currency in this realm. 💀
Why this score: This is a rhetorical question, delivered with laughter, that highlights a perceived double standard in casting based on attractiveness. It's more of a comedic observation on superficial industry practices than a factual claim to be verified. It's a 'just asking questions' moment, but for laughs.
Original quote: “Why is a cute Why is a cute girl getting cast in more stuff than a weirdl looking man? [laughter]”
See the full analysis with timestamps →