Not at all, what i am saying is that she is, in my opinion, a terrible actor, and i feel that she doesn't get her roles through merit, but through family. Now, if someone is a great actor and comes from a family of actors, great well done them, but they shouldn't be given roles just because of who their family are.
Another perfect example is Jaden Smith, completely talentless, once again in my opinion, but he gets roles because of his father
Capitalism: beep on the little guy whilst making him feel like he has a chance.

So you are saying there should be only one person in a family allowed to act ? If theres more than one, its instantly considered nepotism

moaning about a good looking girl getting parts in movies because of her parents,makes the OP sound like a big fat producer,who would normally get a bj from the actress for handing her said parts.

I agree with OP. The same people that say it isn't nepotism are probably the same ones whining about Will Smith's son.

If you want to complain about nepotism in Hollywood at least have the balls to call out the jews. They control Hollywood entirely through nepotism, and have since the beginning. I could argue that Alice Eve would still be getting roles, even without her actor parents, due to the fact that she is drop dead gorgeous, and has decent acting chops.

Look up distinction theory by Pierre bourdieu. My guess is you will find some answers there

It's "should've" or "should have". Not "should of". You're welcome.

I have nothing against her, but I have EVERYTHING against nepotism.
Clearly, you have everything against human nature. And, that does not make a lot of sense.
I doubt that you know what "nepotism" means because there is absolutely zero evidence of "nepotism" in Ms. Eve's case. There isn't even any "legacy." There IS a bit of "expectation knowing her parents" but that is certainly NOT always positive!
For centuries, children have engaged in similar occupations as their parents. For numerous reasons!
Familiarity; they know what is involved.
Ease; they know the people and places already involved.
Clear expectations; they know what is involved, and what is expected, and what gains can be made.
Educational levels; they know what is needed and have already worked toward that end.
Confidence; they know they can perform the job and have reasonable chance of attaining success.
Insider knowledge; they have listened to their parents and know the "ins and outs" of the business.
Love of the business; they "know" the business and can't see themselves doing anything else.
From farming, to reporting, to sports; from TV, to brick-making, to interior design; from art, to music, to criminal justice; from selling paint, to making keys, to working on the railroad; from teaching, to politics, to selling peanuts at the ballpark; from singing, to acting, to life in the military; children FOLLOW THEIR PARENTS INTO THE TRADES!
That isn't "nepotism" per se, but sometimes, someone is needed and they simply fit the bill.
Nepotism is NOT ALWAYS POSITIVE! Sometimes, people have to LIE and/or change their names to avoid the connection that their families would bring that would not be helpful, and can even be harmful.
In the past year, Prince Harry went to Afghanistan on an assumed name, and so did George P. Bush! Young men named Elway, Shula, Griese, Montana, and Young are not helped by their surnames; but challenged and pre-judged!
Imagine, 25 years from now, scouting for baseball and going to see a young pitcher named Madison Bumgarner, Jr; would you not have a bit of dj vu and expectations? He would be better off to change his name!
Finally, "nepotism" involves direct influence, to the detriment of others; most folks are decent and do not want their children to "win by cheating" and won't do anything of the kind. SADLY, the most recent worst examples of "nepotism" involve the Federal government. Probably the MOST EGREGIOUS happened in 1961 when JFK appointed his younger brother as Attorney General; rumor is that JFK didn't want to do it, but their father insisted.
[Why did "old Joe" demand such an impolitic move? Was he afraid that his "dirty dealings" would be brought to the forefront and wanted a good defense? Who knows, but it was a stupid act and not followed by other presidents (who were less "beholden" to their fathers).]
What could anyone do? The sycophant media wasn't about to condemn their darling; not after what they had done to Nixon.

She's clerly going to be Kirk's love interest in the next star trek movie.

Her role in Star Trek was very unimportant. In fact, if you removed her whole part from the film, it wouldn't change that much. Watch "How It Should of Ended: Star Trek Into Darkness" They pretty much sum her role up in that.
And yes. The WHOLE of Hollywood has this massive nepotistic attitude. She probably got the part because her parents are actors as well as they needed some eye candy for male viewers. I have nothing against her, but I have EVERYTHING against nepotism.
Capitalism: beep on the little guy whilst making him feel like he has a chance.

Her role in Star Trek was fairly important and it's nepotism just because she has actor parents? She is a grown woman. What do you have against her?

That job was YOURS, goddammit.
stfu about fking avatars already.