Daytime Lantern Interview Sparks an Uproar! Are Actors Really This Passive When Choosing Scripts?

Whether a drama can really deliver often depends not only on the actors’ condition, but more on whether an armored vehicle has been given the correct battlefield map. While promoting Daylight Lantern recently, Dilraba Dilmurat mentioned that there is a clear information gap between actors and the script market, and that she is often only able to access projects after her team has already screened them. What sparked the discussion was not that this detail was new, but that it brought into the open the “passive mechanism” in the industry that is common yet rarely stated outright.

In a Tencent Video interview in April 2026, when she was asked what types of roles she wanted to challenge herself with, her answer was very direct: “I have no concrete ideas at all, because I simply don’t know what kinds of subjects are on the market.” She then further explained that the nature of an actor’s work is relatively passive: only when the team presents a project can she see the script. From the perspective of industry division of labor, this statement is actually not that far-fetched. Talent management teams, production channels, and platform scheduling are originally like coordination among multiple branches of the military; actors do not possess all the reconnaissance information.

In terms of realism, the reason this statement struck many people so harshly is that the public imagination of a “top-tier actor” often assumes far greater initiative and control. Some netizens questioned it, arguing that even ordinary people know to actively submit resumes and fight for opportunities when job hunting, so why can’t celebrities, with better resources, do the same. Others directed their criticism at the team’s efficiency, and even went further to question her personal ability to carry a drama. These reactions are understandable, but if the whole issue is flattened into a simple accusation of “shifting blame,” the judgment becomes less rigorous.

Looking again at the industry environment, the scarcity of high-quality scripts amid the film and television downturn is itself an open reality. As mentioned in the article, actors such as Yang Zi, Chen Xiao, and Hao Lei have also publicly described similar difficulties, which suggests that this is not a special excuse from a single artist, but more like a systemic bottleneck. Top-tier stars do indeed have greater bargaining power than ordinary actors, but bargaining power does not equal complete access to information. Resource competition still exists, especially when project sources are shrinking, and actors are more likely to fall into a situation where “it seems like there are many choices, but in fact the number of truly viable options is limited” — much like mechanized forces in the later stages of World War II when supplies were tight: the paper strength may not look bad, but the units truly capable of fighting are not necessarily many.

From a tactical perspective, what is really worth paying attention to in this discussion is not whether Dilraba Dilmurat pushed responsibility onto her team, but whether the flow of information among actors, talent management teams, and platforms is transparent. A mature actor should of course try to increase their own initiative as much as possible, for example by expanding channels of contact with screenwriters and producers, but the premise remains that there are enough reliable projects on the market to choose from. Even in the interactive poll, “Those who say it looks good are right” accounted for 83.3%. Although only 6 people participated and the sample is very small, it still shows that quite a few onlookers are willing to accept the industry explanation that “actors are passive.”

My judgment is very clear: this is not something that can be labeled as blame-shifting with a single sentence; it is more like voicing the blind spots in how the industry operates. For audiences, what should be observed next is not emotional side-taking, but whether the finished quality of Daylight Lantern can prove that the team’s screening was effective. For industry practitioners, this controversy is also a reminder of a reality: no matter how strong an actor’s personal brand may be, it does not necessarily allow them to bypass the problem of insufficient projects at the source. In the final analysis, what truly determines the course of battle is not only the firepower at the front line, but also whether the staff headquarters holds a complete map in its hands.