The Future Faces of Hollywood According to TIME Magazine
Among the many top lists published by media outlets, you’ve probably heard TIME’s lists mentioned repeatedly. The only reason I paid attention to this fall’s edition was seeing Jack Quaid’s name among the future faces.
This year, Jack Quaid was selected as one of the future figures in the TIME100 Next 2025 list. That means Jack has established himself as an independent actor with charisma, high emotional intelligence, and a strong collaborative spirit. In TIME’s write-up, Jack is described as someone who has walked the path of fame with heart, known for his humane choices, humility, and professional kindness.
The list in question is published annually and features 100 emerging and influential figures shaping today and tomorrow’s world. It doesn’t necessarily include people who are already widely famous. It includes individuals from various fields who show signs of influence, innovation, or leadership potential in the future. The goal of this list isn’t just to showcase successful people—it aims to predict who will play key roles in shaping the world in the years ahead.
These lists have faced criticism at times, though not necessarily for the concept itself, but for the inclusion of certain figures deemed controversial or contradictory by critics. For example, Erika Kirk, wife of political activist Charlie Kirk, was included this year and faced backlash. Critics argue Erika holds extreme views that clash with public values, and her inclusion was seen as a political endorsement. In the TIME100 Climate edition, some executives from major oil and industrial companies were featured, sparking reactions from environmental activists who accused the list of hypocrisy and superficial commitment to climate issues.
Lack of transparency in selection criteria, mixing cultural and political figures, and the tension between fame and real impact are among the common criticisms. TIME’s main list focuses on established, famous individuals, while the Next list highlights those still growing but showing signs of global influence.
TIME publishes several lists each year, with seven main ones: In spring, the 100 most influential and established figures; In fall, the 100 emerging future-shapers; In late fall or winter, leaders and environmental activists; In December, a person or group with the year’s greatest impact; In March, outstanding women across fields; In November, top innovations of the year; And at an unspecified time, influential figures in health and medicine.
TIME officially presents itself as neutral, but over time, some media analysts and critics believe the magazine leans toward liberal or progressive ideologies in the U.S.—especially in its choice of figures, coverage of social issues, and focus on racial justice, climate change, and women’s rights. In the TIME100 and TIME100 Next lists, many cultural, scientific, and social figures with progressive views are featured. In recent years, there’s been extensive coverage of topics like climate change, social justice, and minority rights. Still, TIME occasionally includes conservative or right-leaning figures and is generally seen as a socially and culturally liberal-leaning outlet.
Personally, my issue with these lists is how they fuel competitive culture in American society. They don’t necessarily encourage responsibility or creativity—instead, they can push people to seek fame and attention through performative means. These lists may appear to celebrate talent, but underneath, they reinforce competitive norms and measure value through visibility. In this dynamic, creativity becomes a tool for entering lists rather than a response to genuine need or experience, and people may shift from honest living to crafting marketable personas.
Such lists can heighten social anxiety and create feelings of being left behind, unseen, or inadequate compared to those featured. These criticisms aren’t always voiced directly, but whispers of them exist in media and analytical spaces. Some social psychology critics believe these lists can increase anxiety around invisibility and symbolic deception—where people reshape their identities to fit into these lists. On Twitter and in informal critiques, users sometimes say: these lists feel more like popularity contests than real evaluations of impact. Yet, there’s no comprehensive critique that deeply explores the psychological and social effects of these lists—only scattered, brief mentions.
Summary The TIME100 Next list was first published in 2019 as a complement to the main list. Many figures introduced in 2019 were expected to shape the future, but gradually faded from the spotlight—some by choice, others by circumstance. We still see names that linger, but each year, many fade away and are essentially forgotten. From the 2024 list, Sabrina Carpenter arguably rose to fame the fastest. Last year, she was one of the three cover stars.
Fame in this world is a double-edged sword. It’s hard to say whether it’s more dangerous when a corrupt soul is exposed to it or a pure one. Only time reveals what fame makes of people, and the psychological pressure behind it is the most tragic part of the journey.