|
Post by hardball on Oct 25, 2018 0:04:49 GMT
David Hasselhoff David Duchovny Gillian Anderson Richard Dean Anderson Don Johnson Lucy Lawless
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Oct 25, 2018 0:20:44 GMT
Some people just have a better overall presence suited for a wider range of movies than others do which I suspect is why some who hit it big on TV don't transition to movies as well because while their presence etc might have fit their TV show quite well it does not transition to random movies all that well and then they are limited to supporting roles etc. also, while I know the OP specifically said 'highly successful' actors, I think just looking at TV in general the standards are lower than they are for movies. so a random actor/actress on TV does not require as strong of a presence as those in movies. p.s. in general... I place movies above TV. sure, you can find a quality TV show once in a while but on average movies are better especially given movies take up much less of ones time as if I am going to spend time on TV shows, like ones I would compare to movies, I typically expect a bit more from them because they can burn up many hours of your time. so basically... while I can and do re-watch movies I mildly like, that's not going to be the case with TV shows I mildly like and they would get shoved into the 'decent enough for a viewing but has no re-watch value' category. so in other words... with TV shows the 6/10 score would not really apply as TV shows pretty much have to hit a 7/10 or higher status for me to re-watch them where as with movies I only require a 6/10 or higher as it's simply about enjoyment levels to time spent on it. but in general... the bulk of TV related stuff I watch is disposable entertainment even though I do try to find some quality drama-ish types of shows here and there as, if I can, I want to find shows that are worth re-watching as the years pass just like I do with movies. ArchelausYeah. but I see him more of a good supporting actor than a leading role in movies in general. but then again, come to think of it... while I have not seen Mad Men I suspect that's one of those roles that suited Jon Hamm well. so assuming that's right... even on shows I am a huge fan of like The Sopranos/Breaking Bad (those are the gold standard of quality drama TV), I think even in these cases James Gandolfini(the lead in The Sopranos)/Byran Cranston(the lead in Breaking Bad) are almost guaranteed to not have that level of success in movies as they will likely always be known for those two roles for many, if not most, people. so ask you can see you can basically apply this to quite a few others who hit it big by landing in one TV show that people seem to praise but never really have all that much success outside of it. like the OP said, the cast of Seinfeld you could basically say is inline with this to.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 25, 2018 0:23:14 GMT
I think his is one of the most famous... I think when an actor leaves a successful show to make movies... and it fails... It seems sooo much worse.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 25, 2018 0:43:38 GMT
I didn't mention. Others users were talking about them and I wanted to make my case for them being movie stars, which I don't think it's completely connected to the success of the movie.
you used those movies as evidence of Crantson being a "successful movie star", most of those films weren't huge hits or anything so I don't see how that makes him a successful movie star. I'm quoting my post so you can read it again, because I don't think you did. Otherwise, you wouldn't have replied that.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 25, 2018 0:52:25 GMT
you used those movies as evidence of Crantson being a "successful movie star", most of those films weren't huge hits or anything so I don't see how that makes him a successful movie star. I'm quoting my post so you can read it again, because I don't think you did. Otherwise, you wouldn't have replied that. I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point, so I'm gonna start again. Do you believe Cranston is a "successful movie star" because he starred in some rather forgettable films that no one saw? Yes or no?
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 25, 2018 2:34:02 GMT
Rashida Jones
|
|
|
Post by shannondegroot on Oct 25, 2018 2:36:01 GMT
Dana Carvey
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Oct 25, 2018 10:34:25 GMT
I'm not even sure what you're talking about at this point, so I'm gonna start again. Do you believe Cranston is a "successful movie star" because he starred in some rather forgettable films that no one saw? Yes or no? I guess I'm gonna start again as well. Other users were talking about Bryan. I don't know whether he's a successful movie star, but I do know he's a movie star because he received top billing in studio movies and was nominated for Best Lead Actor, so I wanted to make my case for that.
|
|
loofapotato
Junior Member
@loofapotato
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,476
|
Post by loofapotato on Oct 25, 2018 18:49:17 GMT
I'm not sure if I'd call him unsuccessful in film per se, but Tom Selleck seems to be more well regarded for his television appearances than his movie roles. I like both, but culturally most seem to remember him especially for Magnum P.I. and now Blue Bloods. He's done well on the big screen even with the limited number of films he has done. Runaway, 3 Men and a Little Baby and it's sequal """" Lady, Quigly Dow Under, In & Out, and Mr. Basball were either hits, commercially succesful, or became cult classics High Road to China and Lassiter might be the only ones that didn't do well.
|
|
loofapotato
Junior Member
@loofapotato
Posts: 3,974
Likes: 2,476
|
Post by loofapotato on Oct 25, 2018 19:00:34 GMT
Eric Estrada Bonnie Hunt Bill Cosby Michael Chiklis
|
|
|
Post by lenlenlen1 on Oct 25, 2018 19:22:29 GMT
I'm not sure if I'd call him unsuccessful in film per se, but Tom Selleck seems to be more well regarded for his television appearances than his movie roles. I like both, but culturally most seem to remember him especially for Magnum P.I. and now Blue Bloods. He got screwed out of the role that WOULD have made him movie famous: Indiana Jones. He was cast and ready to go, until the final season of Magnum P.I. pulled him back.
Pierce Brosnan had better luck. The same exact thing happened with him with James Bond over Remington Steele. But fortunately for him Bond came back to him later.
Can you imagine Indiana Jones with a pornstache? wow
|
|
DarkManX
Junior Member
@shadowrun
Posts: 2,266
Likes: 1,100
|
Post by DarkManX on Oct 25, 2018 19:48:20 GMT
David Duchovny comes to mind immediately. He left the X-Files to become a movie star, made one forgettable movie, and was never heard from again until Californication. Gillian Anderson didn't fare any better after she left.
Sitcom actors run into this all the time. I remember Jonathan Taylor Thomas leaving Home Improvement to be a movie star after which he faded into obscurity. Tim Allen is the only one from that show who gained any remote level of fame.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Oct 25, 2018 19:49:42 GMT
Sitcom actors run into this all the time. I remember Jonathan Taylor Thomas leaving Home Improvement to be a movie star after which he faded into obscurity. Tim Allen is the only one from that show who gained any remote level of fame. I thought he left to focus on school.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Oct 25, 2018 20:40:05 GMT
Some people just have a better overall presence suited for a wider range of movies than others do which I suspect is why some who hit it big on TV don't transition to movies as well because while their presence etc might have fit their TV show quite well it does not transition to random movies all that well and then they are limited to supporting roles etc. also, while I know the OP specifically said 'highly successful' actors, I think just looking at TV in general the standards are lower than they are for movies. so a random actor/actress on TV does not require as strong of a presence as those in movies. p.s. in general... I place movies above TV. sure, you can find a quality TV show once in a while but on average movies are better especially given movies take up much less of ones time as if I am going to spend time on TV shows, like ones I would compare to movies, I typically expect a bit more from them because they can burn up many hours of your time. so basically... while I can and do re-watch movies I mildly like, that's not going to be the case with TV shows I mildly like and they would get shoved into the 'decent enough for a viewing but has no re-watch value' category. so in other words... with TV shows the 6/10 score would not really apply as TV shows pretty much have to hit a 7/10 or higher status for me to re-watch them where as with movies I only require a 6/10 or higher as it's simply about enjoyment levels to time spent on it. but in general... the bulk of TV related stuff I watch is disposable entertainment even though I do try to find some quality drama-ish types of shows here and there as, if I can, I want to find shows that are worth re-watching as the years pass just like I do with movies. Archelaus Yeah. but I see him more of a good supporting actor than a leading role in movies in general. but then again, come to think of it... while I have not seen Mad Men I suspect that's one of those roles that suited Jon Hamm well. so assuming that's right... even on shows I am a huge fan of like The Sopranos/Breaking Bad (those are the gold standard of quality drama TV), I think even in these cases James Gandolfini(the lead in The Sopranos)/Byran Cranston(the lead in Breaking Bad) are almost guaranteed to not have that level of success in movies as they will likely always be known for those two roles for many, if not most, people. so ask you can see you can basically apply this to quite a few others who hit it big by landing in one TV show that people seem to praise but never really have all that much success outside of it. like the OP said, the cast of Seinfeld you could basically say is inline with this to. It did suit him well. I can't imagine another person playing the part of Draper, but that has more to do with his look which is very classic. However, I don't think he's acted in anything that mirrored his character in Mad Men and that is possibly the problem. To avoid playing the leading man when you are that great at it is odd and especially since it can transfer to so many roles in the same way Tom Cruise can transition a very similar persona across just about any genre. But again, I think he is simply way more quirky than people assume him to be because of his looks.
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Oct 25, 2018 22:14:56 GMT
Sarah Michelle Gellar
Patrick Stewart
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 25, 2018 22:22:56 GMT
Sarah Michelle Gellar Patrick Stewart I doubt Stewart has ever been that concerned about becoming a major film star, considering that he's a phenomenally successful British stage actor. The money might be nice, but he doesn't need it in terms of prestige.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Oct 25, 2018 22:25:47 GMT
Sarah Michelle Gellar Patrick Stewart "Patrick Stewart" He starred in a billion dollar superhero franchise, that's not successful?
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Oct 26, 2018 0:47:17 GMT
Sarah Michelle Gellar Patrick Stewart "Patrick Stewart" He starred in a billion dollar superhero franchise, that's not successful? He also starred in a " STAR TREK" TV Series that lasted 7 Seasons and 4 " STAR TREK" Movies and Now he is coming back for Another New " STAR TREK" Series.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Oct 26, 2018 2:07:15 GMT
Sarah Michelle Gellar. I'm sure many of us can recall how big Buffy the Vampire Slayer was back in the day, but her movie career never really took off. She starred in a small number of notable movies, but that was the extent of it.
|
|