Movie Actors vs. TV Actors

[That-Guy]

Something that has puzzled me for a long time. How is it that some actors can make the jump from TV to film almost seamlessly, while others never seem to crack the code? What do you think it is? A great agent? Simply having good taste when picking roles? Pure luck?

What made George Clooney succeed where David Caruso failed? How is it that Jennifer Aniston comes out with two or three movies a year, while other (more talented) actresses that were on popular TV shows have faded into obscurity once their shows ended?

Just curious what some of you guys think. Because I'll sit there and watch a show like Lost or Mad Men and think, wow, there are so many good actors here who I'd love to see in movies... and yet they're lucky they can get a bit part while big roles are being handed to mediocre-to-horrid "actors" like Sam Worthington and Channing Tatum.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Most TV actors dream of being big screen film actors but it really comes down to if people are willing to pay to see you on the big screen when they can get you for free on the little screen. There are thousands upon thousands of actors headlining TV shows yet most won't be around even 5 years from now. There are only a handful of actors on the big screen that are headlining their own movies successfully.

 

[Dr. Evil]

There's also been a recent trend of movie actors jumping into TV either as series regulars or guest stars. Laura Linney has a Showtime series coming soon that also features Oliver Platt and Gaby Sidibe, both movie actors. The NBC sitcom 30 Rock had Matt Damon, Julianne Moore and Michael Sheen in the season finale. Sharon Stone appeared in several episodes of Law and Order: SVU and Paula Patton is expected to appear in a few episodes herself. Glenn Close and Gary Sinise headline their own series. Alec Baldwin is one of the headliners on 30 Rock. Forest Whitaker, Laurence Fishburne and Chevy Chase appear on TV shows.

In the fall, both Alfred Molina and Terrance Howard will appear on Law and Order: Los Angeles in recurring roles so that they can do movies when they are not appearing on that show.

 

[That-Guy]

Paula Patton is going to be on SVU? Hmmm... I might have to start watching that show again.

But yeah, you're right. That's something else I wanted to touch on... since many movie actors and actresses no longer feel they are "above" appearing on a TV show, it makes me wonder why it is often so hard for TV actors to do the reverse and appear in a movie.

I understand your comments, DarkKnight88, but I think that if studios are looking at it th way you say they are, then they are being very narrow-minded. I think that, for the most part, moviegoers go to see a film that looks interesting, rather than just seeing a movie because of an actor. It's true, there are exceptions and certain megastars do usually guarantee an audience when they sign onto a project. But I don't think that there are that many people out there who would rule out going to see a movie that looks really good just because they regularly see the lead actor on a TV show.

 

[misjuevos]

i like tim roth, i will try to see any movie he is in. never watched his tv show though. he seems to move from movie to tv.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I understand your comments, DarkKnight88, but I think that if studios are looking at it th way you say they are, then they are being very narrow-minded. I think that, for the most part, moviegoers go to see a film that looks interesting, rather than just seeing a movie because of an actor. It's true, there are exceptions and certain megastars do usually guarantee an audience when they sign onto a project. But I don't think that there are that many people out there who would rule out going to see a movie that looks really good just because they regularly see the lead actor on a TV show.

To an extent, I agree. But for example, Will Smith started off on TV and transitioned successfully to the big screen. Now of course he's one of the few megastars left but by not seeing him constantly on a television show, it makes his movie choices that much more anticipated.

Now things change as mentioned above. Alec Baldwin USED to be a big movie headliner. But as he aged and his box office waned he successfully moved into television and has had a great career on television. But people won't necessarily follow his movie choices because of it.

Of course being on TV doesn't make you less of a talent, it's just headlining a film makes you more "special" if that makes sense. Your role in a film is a complete performance. Beginning, middle and end. Usually more time for actors to prepare and pull out all the stops (ie. Robert De Niro gaining all that weight for Raging Bull). On television it is constantly ongoing so it is more prone to inconsistencies in the performance maybe because of the writing from episode to episode or a change of ideas between seasons. Same goes for directors; the difference between directing a made-for-TV movie or an HBO Showtime movie as opposed to a big screen movie.

 

[matrix_ghost]

I wouldn't call Clooney's transition from tv actor to movie actor exactly seamless. The guy has worked very hard to earn that position. I think he realised that that he needed to start from the ground up in order to get the movie actor cred.

The "problem" with succesful tv series is that unlike with movies you're basically seeing the actors for years playing the same role over and over again leading those actors to be typecast. When it comes to dramatic tv series it's not so much of a problem when you're talking about comedy series or the desperate wives stuff it becomes a major problem for the actor to basically take on a different roles. Look at Will & Grace. Honestly could you ever believe that the guy playing Will and the guy playing Jack ( forgot both their names ) as action hero or a dramatic actor.

There are many tv actors who just don't want to start from the ground up like Clooney did . It means that you're going to take paycuts. I definately get that vibe with Aniston. Hence why she's constantly appearing in rom com. They may not always make money but it's defianely a predictable market and gives you a steasy paycheck each time.

Aniston was fortunate to see her movies become hits ( thanks to her co stars) and ultimately that is what counts in hollywood. Some actors get big roles early on ( like Clooney) and if their movies bomb , it's harder for them to get the same roles again. That's certainly the case with Caruso. If that happens you've got 2 options
1 go back to doing tv series
2 do what clooney did. Go make indie movies and try a variety of different roles. Prove to the audienc that you ain't a one hit wonder and that there is more to you that playing the same character from your hit tv series.

 

[C. Lee]

Something that has puzzled me for a long time. How is it that some actors can make the jump from TV to film almost seamlessly, while others never seem to crack the code? What do you think it is? A great agent? Simply having good taste when picking roles? Pure luck?

Luck and timing.

What made George Clooney succeed where David Caruso failed? How is it that Jennifer Aniston comes out with two or three movies a year, while other (more talented) actresses that were on popular TV shows have faded into obscurity once their shows ended?

Clooney is charming...Caruso isn't. Aniston had more media hype behind her.

Just curious what some of you guys think. Because I'll sit there and watch a show like Lost or Mad Men and think, wow, there are so many good actors here who I'd love to see in movies... and yet they're lucky they can get a bit part while big roles are being handed to mediocre-to-horrid "actors" like Sam Worthington and Channing Tatum.

Movies today are made more for Teens and "the flavor of the month". They prefer young and handsome to talented...and they put the currently hot in the press young and handsome into the roles.

 

[That-Guy]

Good points, all... I would certainly agree that Clooney worked hard and has a charm that Caruso lacks, however, I do feel Caruso had an intensity in NYPD Blue and in films like Kiss of Death... unfortunately, that wasn't enough to make him a movie star and so he switched back to TV and apparently decided "more is more," creating one of the most over-the-top, unintentionally funny characters to ever hit the small screen.

Also, yeah... it is true that many TV actors could (and do) get typecast since people get so used to seeing them play a particular type of role. We almost begin to imagine the actor is the character in that sense. So many of these actors then either get typecast or are relegated to crappy movie parts that are barely memorable.

The sad irony is that these actors are being punished for simply playing their characters convincingly. However, I suppose it's tough to feel sorry for them, since they're doing a lot better than a lot of us are.

 

[Project862006]

they are really good talented actors on TV i bet no one knew Jefferey dean morgan till watchmen

 

[Mace Dolex]

I think there was a time when TV actors/actresses were looked down upon I read that for The Godfather Burt Reynold's was cast in Pacino's role but Marlon Brando only though of Burt as a "TV" actor.

And as a kid I thought David Hasselhoff was the most awesomest actor ever and always thought why he was never in movies until later as I got older and watched those Knight Rider episodes he's really terrible.

 

[knowsbleed]

I've seen Will Smith being mentioned in this thread but before him there was also someone who is probably an even bigger name than him that made the jump from TV to big screen successfully... Tom Hanks. I doubt that either of these actors will even go back to TV work, but the few that bounce between the two different medias and are successful that I can think of are Steve Carell (though that will end soon) and... uhh... I can't think of anybody else.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I've seen Will Smith being mentioned in this thread but before him there was also someone who is probably an even bigger name than him that made the jump from TV to big screen successfully... Tom Hanks.

Johnny Depp and Bruce Willis are a couple of others that made the jump and became huge stars.

 

[Schlosser85]

they are really good talented actors on TV i bet no one knew Jefferey dean morgan till watchmen

Morgan was very good as the dad on Supernatural.

I think TV as a medium suits some people better than film. Dominic Monaghan will never be a blockbuster leading man, but he gets good gigs on shows like Lost and FlashForward.

Even better examples: Hugh Laurie and Anna Paquin are carving out popular, successful, Emmy-nominated careers on TV shows (House and True Blood). They get more acclaim and popularity where they are than they have in most of the films they've done, and frankly they get better roles on TV. Any movie I've seen Laurie in he's the stereotypical British comic relief sidekick. On House he gets to be the leading man, struggle with drug addictions, etc. and just generally get a more substantial character.

There is a tendency to look down on TV actors, but the more TV shows I've watched, I've realized three things:

1. There are plenty of TV actors who are just as good as anyone else.

2. Plenty of big film actors who have no trouble getting film roles (Gary Sinise, Glenn Close, Laura Linney, Mary-Louise Parker, Alfred Molina, Laurence Fishburne, etc.) headline their own TV show.

So I don't really see what the reason for the condescension toward television actors is. Just because you're a television actor instead of a film actor doesn't mean you're unsuccessful or a lower standard of actor.

 

[bullets]

I think now with more drama and longer episodes on television there will be more respect for the medium. There is still more fame from being seen on the big screen though and that will never change.

 

[DarkKnight88]

Movies today are made more for Teens and "the flavor of the month". They prefer young and handsome to talented...and they put the currently hot in the press young and handsome into the roles.

I'd say TV is just as bad in that regard if not worse in some cases.

There is still more fame from being seen on the big screen though and that will never change.

Very true. You don't see an AFI Lifetime Achievement Tribute to Ted Danson... yet

 

[Mace Dolex]

Johnny Depp and Bruce Willis are a couple of others that made the jump and became huge stars.

Michael J. Fox also had success with BTTF but some of his other movies didn't perform well.

 

[Project862006]

Morgan was very good as the dad on Supernatural.

I think TV as a medium suits some people better than film. Dominic Monaghan will never be a blockbuster leading man, but he gets good gigs on shows like Lost and FlashForward.

Even better examples: Hugh Laurie and Anna Paquin are carving out popular, successful, Emmy-nominated careers on TV shows (House and True Blood). They get more acclaim and popularity where they are than they have in most of the films they've done, and frankly they get better roles on TV. Any movie I've seen Laurie in he's the stereotypical British comic relief sidekick. On House he gets to be the leading man, struggle with drug addictions, etc. and just generally get a more substantial character.

There is a tendency to look down on TV actors, but the more TV shows I've watched, I've realized three things:

1. There are plenty of TV actors who are just as good as anyone else.

2. Plenty of big film actors who have no trouble getting film roles (Gary Sinise, Glenn Close, Laura Linney, Mary-Louise Parker, Alfred Molina, Laurence Fishburne, etc.) headline their own TV show.

So I don't really see what the reason for the condescension toward television actors is. Just because you're a television actor instead of a film actor doesn't mean you're unsuccessful or a lower standard of actor.

Laurie did good in street kings as the a**hole captain jams Briggs

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Jefferey Dean Morgan was also on Weeds.

To be honest, a good reason why some people can't transfer from TV to film is because of the stress.

 

[Panthro]

Clint Eastwood's initial claim to fame was being on TV's Rawhide, then Sergio Leone's "Dollars" trilogy made him a leading man on film.

Who knows why some actors who initially become famous for TV then fail to find success in film. Tom Selleck had more luck on TV than he ever did in film. Perhaps certain personas just work better on TV.

 

[Mace Dolex]

^ yeah I guess it's just by chance that actors can transition from TV to movies case in point Alan Alda, Larry Hagman and Carroll O'Connor might've been TV's highest paid stars in the early 80's but I don't think each could hold a movie on their own.

 

[That-Guy]

I think there was a time when TV actors/actresses were looked down upon I read that for The Godfather Burt Reynold's was cast in Pacino's role but Marlon Brando only though of Burt as a "TV" actor.

And as a kid I thought David Hasselhoff was the most awesomest actor ever and always thought why he was never in movies until later as I got older and watched those Knight Rider episodes he's really terrible.

What are you talking about? David Hasselhoff IS the most awesomest actor ever.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Clint Eastwood's initial claim to fame was being on TV's Rawhide, then Sergio Leone's "Dollars" trilogy made him a leading man on film.

That was before my time, but I watched Growing Pains all the time as a kid starring Leonardo DiCaprio.

 

[The Executioner]

David Hasselhoff better e lucky he had Kiht Rider and Baywatch.