Why are big name actors doing TV?

[williamjm]

12 hours ago, SansaJonRule said:

I wonder who the next big male actor to hit TV will be? Who would be most shocking to y'all? Mine would be Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery, I guess. Also, Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio.

Connnery would definitely be a shock given that he retired from all acting over a decade ago.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

3 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I also get the perception this is more of a US phenomenon. I think it exists to an extent in the UK but i don’t think actors get tied up so much in the TV/Film labels. Maybe that is just me though.

There also seems to be more dipping in and out of theatre tv and films over here, though i’ve noticed a lot of US actors seem to like trying theatre now too

I prefer UK tv shows over US, so i've watched a ton of UK shows over the years. from old classics to the contemporary one's.And guess what's common to the UK shows? Majority of UK actors/actresses most people are now familiar with did tv shows before they were in some big movie or something. Even after they became big movie stars, they continue to work in tv.

 

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

John Wick.. Pirates of the Caribbean.. Sexy Beast 

Ian McShane was well regarded but hardly a big star before Deadwood, though. If we're talking about movie stars who started doing TV, McShane doesn't really fit. His career took off after he did a prestige television show. Even the list you present shows the dichotomy: one independent British movie before Deadwood, two Hollywood blockbusters after.

[red snow]

6 hours ago, Heartofice said:

John Wick.. Pirates of the Caribbean.. Sexy Beast 

There's only pirates I'd say he has a role beyond support as he played the antagonist. But I'd say he's more in tge argument of "why are tv actors doing more films" than the one this thread is about. It's not like he's done a george Clooney and fully transitioned from tv to film. 

Timothy olyphant has about as much claim to being a film star as mcshane in that it's a dubious claim

[Heartofice]

18 minutes ago, red snow said:

There's only pirates I'd say he has a role beyond support as he played the antagonist. But I'd say he's more in tge argument of "why are tv actors doing more films" than the one this thread is about. It's not like he's done a george Clooney and fully transitioned from tv to film. 

Timothy olyphant has about as much claim to being a film star as mcshane in that it's a dubious claim

Yeah not claiming McShane is a movie star , just answering the question as to what movies he has been in. He’s been in quite a few since his Deadwood days.

Hes in a group of actors who don’t really have the pulling power to sell a blockbuster on their own but might get a role in one. For them TV is a good option. But if your face is the one that makes millions then TV seems like a bit of a downgrade. But that lucky group is pretty tiny.

[Erik of Hazelfield]

I think technology has played some part, in that TV sets are pretty damn good these days, with super HD and ambient lighting and magic remotes and whatnot. 20 years ago the quality was shit and the screen was small, so it made much more sense to go to the cinema. Watching TV has become much more enjoyable lately so it's popularity has risen.

The streaming services also help. Now you can binge watch an entire season in a day without being interrupted for commercials and you can pause and start and replay like you want. This makes it possible for script writers to create more advanced plotlines, allowing for higher quality scripts. 

[Mladen]

11 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

I also get the perception this is more of a US phenomenon. I think it exists to an extent in the UK but i don’t think actors get tied up so much in the TV/Film labels. Maybe that is just me though.

I would agree. I think it is because Americans have clearer image of what "movie star" is. In UK, Australia and Europe, the actors do the work regardless of the media. There are no clear lines between "movie", "TV" and "theater" actors. All of them do everything. Look at the likes of Maggie Smith or Patrick Stewart. Or even much younger - like the cast of "Game of Thrones" - Harington, Madden and Clarke all did work on all mediums. 

[Isis]

23 hours ago, Heartofice said:

John Wick.. Pirates of the Caribbean.. Sexy Beast 

I've just read the cast list for the first Pirates film and I don't see him on there (even if it was the second or third one you meant, I would hardly say he stands out in a massive ensemble cast anyway). Sexy Beast, I haven't seen it myself but I'm pretty sure nobody would call it a massive film. John Wick, the first film was out...in 2014, that's only five years ago. So, I remain confused as to why anyone would write Meryl Streep and Ian McShane in the same sentence.

21 hours ago, Bittersweet Distractor said:

Wow it really is , I was 11 when it came out so I didn’t see it but do have memories of seeing a few scenes here and there as it was a show my dad really liked.

I actually watched it when I was 18 or 19 for the first time and loved it, in fact I think it’s about time for a rewatch!.

Yes, there was some 20 year anniversary fuss for it at the start of this year. Absolutely worth a rewatch. I watched it all week to week on TV but have done maybe three or four complete rewatches since then.

[red snow]

Mcshane was the bad pirate in the 4th one. Easy to forget as the film is forgettable.

15 hours ago, Erik of Hazelfield said:

I think technology has played some part, in that TV sets are pretty damn good these days, with super HD and ambient lighting and magic remotes and whatnot. 20 years ago the quality was shit and the screen was small, so it made much more sense to go to the cinema. Watching TV has become much more enjoyable lately so it's popularity has risen.

The streaming services also help. Now you can binge watch an entire season in a day without being interrupted for commercials and you can pause and start and replay like you want. This makes it possible for script writers to create more advanced plotlines, allowing for higher quality scripts. 

These are all good points. Although i do have to wonder whether another very important factor is cash. As soon as actors are being paid as much for tv as they'd get for in film they are probably tempted. The artistic merits of tv vs film may be just a nice reason to give in interviews.

Sometimes actors do tv if it's a passion project. Tom Hardy did Taboo because the show was his baby.

And some actors do it because their career needs a boost and they look at what true detective did for the mccog. 

[Heartofice]

54 minutes ago, red snow said:

These are all good points. Although i do have to wonder whether another very important factor is cash. As soon as actors are being paid as much for tv as they'd get for in film they are probably tempted. The artistic merits of tv vs film may be just a nice reason to give in interviews.

Sometimes actors do tv if it's a passion project. Tom Hardy did Taboo because the show was his baby.

And some actors do it because their career needs a boost and they look at what true detective did for the mccog. 

I think a lot of actors are trying to climb that fame and money ladder and TV is a very useful way to do it. Sure there is now an element of creative pride in doing some tv shows that you might not have found before, but essentially I think a lot of them are looking for a way to progress their careers. 

Previously TV would be seen as a step backwards, and I think Hollywood was and is very much about 'who is hot!', so doing some TV show could condemn you being seen as a has been. These days you can safely move back to TV without the drop in reputation , in fact it may enhance it. 

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

I think a lot of actors are trying to climb that fame and money ladder and TV is a very useful way to do it. Sure there is now an element of creative pride in doing some tv shows that you might not have found before, but essentially I think a lot of them are looking for a way to progress their careers. 

Previously TV would be seen as a step backwards, and I think Hollywood was and is very much about 'who is hot!', so doing some TV show could condemn you being seen as a has been. These days you can safely move back to TV without the drop in reputation , in fact it may enhance it. 

Yeah, true detective season 2 was as much a reason not to do tv to boost your film career as season 1 was an incentive.

Tv is also much kinder to ageing actors in terms of actually having roles for them as well. Shorter seasons eg 13 or less is probably a big draw for actors of all ages now as it means the schedule is no longer as gruelling. I think it was hugh Laurie who commented once on how utterly exhausting 22 epidodes a year schedules are. 7-13 runs probably allow actors to squeeze some film, theatre or time-off in too which was virtually impossible 15 years ago on American tv

[David Selig]

One significant factor is that there are simply fewer than ever feature movies being made these days in Hollywood. So there are less options even for the big names, especially if they are interested in doing something which is not a popcorn blockbuster.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

6 minutes ago, David Selig said:

One significant factor is that there are simply fewer than ever feature movies being made these days in Hollywood. So there are less options even for the big names, especially if they are interested in doing something which is not a popcorn blockbuster.

The MCU now presents... Meryl Streep as Galactus!

[red snow]

1 hour ago, Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

The MCU now presents... Meryl Streep as Galactus!

That's not something I'd be upset about if it were happen.

[Tears of Lys]

1 hour ago, red snow said:

That's not something I'd be upset about if it were happen.

I bet she'd NAIL that role too.  

[Bronn Stone]

9 hours ago, Isis said:

Sexy Beast, I haven't seen it myself but I'm pretty sure nobody would call it a massive film.

Agreed with your point but it is a delight of a film.  Well worth tracking down and watching.

[Fez]

3 hours ago, red snow said:

That's not something I'd be upset about if it were happen.

Judi Dench showed up in Chronicles of Riddick 15 years ago, so why not Meryl in the MCU. Also, I bet all these amazing, older actors are jealous of how much fun Helen Mirren looked to be having in the latest Fast&Furious movie (she's in Hobbes and Shaw too).

 

As to the topic of the thread, I think other folks have nailed it. There's just fewer good roles in movies anymore and the quality of writing and production in TV has been skyrocketing the past several years (more like the past 20 years really, but a lot of people weren't paying attention early on).

[DanteGabriel]

3 hours ago, Tears of Lys said:

I bet she'd NAIL that role too.  

Side benefit: it would drive incels into sputtering rage.

[The Mother of The Others]

Why is it whenever a new actor opens their mouth British comes out?    It's alarming the rate at which this happens.  As if they're sneaking back in with their american accents to get a foothold in L.A., which is what Scientology did.

[red snow]

4 hours ago, Fez said:

Judi Dench showed up in Chronicles of Riddick 15 years ago, so why not Meryl in the MCU. Also, I bet all these amazing, older actors are jealous of how much fun Helen Mirren looked to be having in the latest Fast&Furious movie (she's in Hobbes and Shaw too).

 

As to the topic of the thread, I think other folks have nailed it. There's just fewer good roles in movies anymore and the quality of writing and production in TV has been skyrocketing the past several years (more like the past 20 years really, but a lot of people weren't paying attention early on).

If Ian Mckellan can play a marvel villain there's no reason streep. Dench and co can't.

 

3 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Side benefit: it would drive incels into sputtering rage.

I can only imagine. Suddenly cloud galactus and hacktivist Doom would be acceptable.

 

3 hours ago, The Mother of The Others said:

Why is it whenever a new actor opens their mouth British comes out?    It's alarming the rate at which this happens.  As if they're sneaking back in with their american accents to get a foothold in L.A., which is what Scientology did.

A lot of the time it's actually an australian pretending to be english. It's extra sneaky