Future of Movie Stars: Who Will Shine? Who Will Fade Away?

[Silver Raven]

Quote

The whole time I watched Sunshine Cleaners, in which Amy Adams and Emily Blunt play sisters that start a business where they clean up crime scenes, I kept thinking about how much I wanted Isla Fisher instead of Blunt. Although Blunt did make a plausible sister to Amy, too.

Sunshine Cleaners is a really underrated movie.

[HunterHunted]

5 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Yeah the joke about Amy Adams and Isla Fisher being the same person has been going on for several years.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/isla-fishers-holiday-cards-featured-amy-adams.html

[Cobalt Stargazer]

6 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Yeah the joke about Amy Adams and Isla Fisher being the same person has been going on for several years.

Before I clicked on the video, I thought Fisher was Kate Mara. Whoops.

[JBC344]

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 4:31 PM, HunterHunted said:

http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/isla-fishers-holiday-cards-featured-amy-adams.html

What is more surprising is that none of her family or friends recognized that it wasn't her.  It's one thing for the general public to confuse them but they don't look that similar that people who actually know Isla should be getting them confused.  Hilarious though on her part.

[AshleyN]

So I know there's been some talk in this thread about the lack of breakouts among young actors in Hollywood, so I though it would be interesting to note the kind of mini-rivalry that seems to be emerging between Lucas Hedges and Timothée Chalamet to become the go-to young twenty-something star. They've both been working for awhile, but have really started to break out in the last year or so and have similar career trajectories. Hedges has even talked about how they've gone up against each other for parts, and they're both going to be appearing in the upcoming Lady Bird, playing (I believe) separate love interests for Saoirse Ronan. Hedges had his moment last year playing a major supporting role in a Best Picture contender (Manchester by the Sea) and landed an Oscar nomination for it, which is impressive since the Academy is generally much less enthusiastic about young actors than young actresses. Chalamet though has a chance to one-up him this year with his own Best Picture contender (Call Me By Your Name), in which he plays the lead and has a decent chance to land his own Oscar nomination in the Lead Actor category, which would make him the youngest nominee in that category in nearly 80 years. They've both got promising parts coming up too, each in films based on bestselling memoirs -- Hedges in Boy Erased, in which he plays a teen going through conversion therapy opposite Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe, Chalamet in Beautiful Boy, where he's going to be playing Steve Carell's drug addict kid. I think Chalamet has the advantage of being a bit more conventionally good-looking, but Hedges has the benefit of having a father who's an Oscar-nominated screenwriter (in fact one of his upcoming projects is a film written and directed by his father, which he'll be starring in with Julia Roberts).

Interestingly, where it seems most twenty-something males seem to breakthrough in commercial/teenybopper type roles and struggle to find opportunities to "prove themselves" as real actors, these two have already got the prestige cred, so it will be interesting to see which one will have a commercial breakthrough first. I imagine they'd be at the top of the list for any upcoming franchise parts in their age group.

[Silver Raven]

Isn't Miles Teller notoriously difficult to work with?  How does he keep getting work?

[aradia22]

Quote

So I know there's been some talk in this thread about the lack of breakouts among young actors in Hollywood, so I though it would be interesting to note the kind of mini-rivalry that seems to be emerging between Lucas Hedges and Timothée Chalamet to become the go-to young twenty-something star. They've both been working for awhile, but have really started to break out in the last year or so and have similar career trajectories. Hedges has even talked about how they've gone up against each other for parts

I feel like those must be parts where the description of the character is not well-defined or specific because to me, they don't seem like the same type at all except for both being young-ish. I don't feel like there's much of a rivalry, or at least, like there should be. 

Side note: What's weird to me is that Eddie Redmayne and Andrew Garfield are kind of in the space space and they're almost the same age. But Garfield still looks really young. There should be something of a rivalry and maybe there is with Garfield doing Breathe after Redmayne did Theory of Everything. But it's almost like Redmayne's boyishness let's him play younger than he is. While Garfield's boyishness makes it seem like he's playing older than he is (kind of that DiCaprio problem... or Jennifer Lawrence though she's still young and is just getting cast in roles that are too mature). 

[Silver Raven]

Chalamet is going to be cast young for a lot more years, he's very young looking.

He's going to have a pretty meaty role coming up in Beautiful Boy.  I hope Steve Carell can do justice to the role.  The real father and son, David and Nic Sheff, both wrote books about Nic's meth addiction, which the movie is based on.

[methodwriter85]

I thought Jessica Rothe did a great job in making Happy Death Day work. Someone without the amount of charisma she has couldn't have made it work. She managed to be pretty believable as both a very repulsive person and also a very charming, magnetic person. It's a shame romantic comedies aren't doing well right now- she could have totally made a good run at that kind of role.

I guess she's taking over the torch from Rachel McAdams as a thirty-something woman who can pull off ingenue roles way past when she normally should. LOL. The fact that she's getting her big break at an older age should be good for her- I feel like the people that break out older tend to avoid the pitfalls that happen to child stars or just-out-of-their-teens stars.

I'm not sure I see her as a big star, but I can see her at least getting a sitcom or perhaps becoming a Hallmark channel movie staple. It all depends on what she chooses to do.

Hodges and Chalamet definitely seem like the ones to watch at the moment.

A child actress I think might have "It"- Talitha Bateman. She was the daughter in the really bad Geostorm movie, and the girl who gets possessed in Annabelle: Creation. Something about her makes me stand up and take notice. She basically formed the heart of the Annabelle: Creation movie, and did it pretty damn well. We'll see where it goes, though.

You never do know with child stars- I was convinced that Abigail Breslin was going to grow up into a splendid actress, and so far her adult roles have been pretty awful. I don't know if it's just bad roles she's miscast in, or she just doesn't have it as an adult the way she did as a child.  I always kind of rooted for her over her peer Dakota Fanning, because she seemed more real. Now though, Abigail's acting comes off as a really affected.

Edited October 27, 2017 by methodwriter85

[ShadowHunter]

James Van Der Beek was cast in a new Ryan Murphy series "Pose".  He didn't become huge after Dawson's Creek but he is still getting work.

It seems his character is not a great guy.  He will be an 80's type Kingpin Bosses who will be a jerk to Evan Peters character. I feel James is better in the supporting role. Plus Dawson acted like a jerk at times and he was good at that. I don't think he worked as a lead.

Tatiana Maslany will be in the series. It has now holds a record for casting 5 transgender actors as series regulars.

At first his casting really surprised me but the type of role he has I think he will be good.

[hardy har]

So, I finally got around to watching Neon Demon and it managed to be both ridiculous and really boring. Anyway, I thought most of the acting in it was either way underplayed or over-the-top, but I really hope Abbey Lee is able to carve out a decent career. I thought she was the only good thing about Neon Demon and I know her part in Fury Road was small, but I thought she was great there as well. 

[methodwriter85]

On 10/26/2017 at 2:08 PM, Silver Raven said:

Isn't Miles Teller notoriously difficult to work with?  How does he keep getting work?

Because when he's on, he's capable of putting out Oscar-caliber work.

Stranger Things has such a great kid cast; it'll be interesting to see what they're going to do as they get out.

For the older set...I gotta admit, I had dismissed Dacre Montgomery as a vacant pretty boy after watching Power Rangers, the failed franchise starter from March of this year. But his Stranger 2 performance as the nightmare Stephen King bully really surprised me. He should be getting a lot of offers coming his way, at least to play a jerk kind of role. It does remind me that playing the "main good guy" is a hard role to pull off and it's not necessarily a great showcase for someone's acting skills.

[HunterHunted]

13 hours ago, methodwriter85 said:

Stranger Things has such a great kid cast; it'll be interesting to see what they're going to do as they get out.

For the older set...I gotta admit, I had dismissed Dacre Montgomery as a vacant pretty boy after watching Power Rangers, the failed franchise starter from March of this year. But his Stranger 2 performance as the nightmare Stephen King bully really surprised me. He should be getting a lot of offers coming his way, at least to play a jerk kind of role. It does remind me that playing the "main good guy" is a hard role to pull off and it's not necessarily a great showcase for someone's acting skills.

The kids are so good. And so good together.

Dacre Montgomery is fantastic in the role. In fact, too good because I left the season a bit unfulfilled with regard to Billy because it seems like he should have been more important than what we saw.

[pau]

On 26/10/2017 at 5:51 PM, AshleyN said:

 but Hedges has the benefit of having a father who's an Oscar-nominated screenwriter (in fact one of his upcoming projects is a film written and directed by his father, which he'll be starring in with Julia Roberts).

 

Total nepotism..what a great industry..i know..it is the case for almost all industries..yet showbiz is one of the worst..sigh.

[JustaPerson]

I saw Lucas Hedges in Manchester by the Sea and he was very good. He's very talented.

[Irlandesa]

7 hours ago, pau said:

Total nepotism..what a great industry..i know..it is the case for almost all industries..yet showbiz is one of the worst..sigh.

Is it really, though?  On one hand, nepotism in Hollywood means you can get introduced to people you need to get introduced to.  You don't have to hope to be discovered by an agent or hope you land with one by sending in head shots or however agents are found these days.  So in that respect, actors with connections, whether they be familial or otherwise, certainly do have an easier path. 

But Hollywood is also the one place where you really need to have something to succeed.  A talented performer like Lucas Hedges probably managed to get an agent early thanks to his connections, but I imagine it's his talent that is getting him roles. After all, he gave a performance that earned him an Oscar nomination last year.  That's pretty hard to achieve.  There are actors who go there whole careers, successful careers, without a nomination.  And I wouldn't say Hollywood is falling over themselves to kiss his father's ass.  Being nominated for a script he wrote is impressive but we're not talking a major power holder. 

In other industries, an offspring's shortcomings are much easier to hide.  They can run the gamut from being worthy contributors to just being on the payroll if they work for their parents' company.  In Hollywood, you have to have either talent or charisma--something that makes people want to watch you.  That's one interesting part about reading the nepotism thread.  There's some success for those with family connections trying to make it in the industry but there is also a lot of toiling in obscurity there.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Irlandesa

[pau]

4 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Is it really, though?  On one hand, nepotism in Hollywood means you can get introduced to people you need to get introduced to.  You don't have to hope to be discovered by an agent or hope you land with one by sending in head shots or however agents are found these days.  So in that respect, actors with connections, whether they be familial or otherwise, certainly do have an easier path. 

But Hollywood is also the one place where you really need to have something to succeed.  A talented performer like Lucas Hedges probably managed to get an agent early thanks to his connections, but I imagine it's his talent that is getting him roles. After all, he gave a performance that earned him an Oscar nomination last year.  That's pretty hard to achieve.  There are actors who go there whole careers, successful careers, without a nomination.  And I wouldn't say Hollywood is falling over themselves to kiss his father's ass.  Being nominated for a script he wrote is impressive but we're not talking a major power holder. 

In other industries, an offspring's shortcomings are much easier to hide.  They can run the gamut from being worthy contributors to just being on the payroll if they work for their parents' company.  In Hollywood, you have to have either talent or charisma--something that makes people want to watch you.  That's one interesting part about reading the nepotism thread.  There's some success for those with family connections trying to make it in the industry but there is also a lot of toiling in obscurity there.

I disagree..in this biz connection is everything, then luck and only after that talent and charisma. In that order.

Many many folks don't make it even with all the talent and charisma they have..it is unfair and it is what it is..

And like i said..almost all industries work like that, i don't stigmatize the entertainment industry in particular..but if you want to be a great doctor or a great scientist or a great cabinetmaker ect..you have to work a lot..for doctors for exemple you have to do these 10 years of studies even if your dad was a doctor..in order to make it as a successful and famous actor you have to have the right connection above all..then be at the right place, at the right time and then be talented enough in order to continue and yet..for me, it is a bit different.

Hedges is talented, i don't deny it but there are dozens like him..the difference between them is : his dad is a famous screenwriter who has connections in the industry..

And awards are above all about connections/politics..Weinstein and his biz campaigns are the ultimate example of that..

Edited November 5, 2017 by pau

[Cobalt Stargazer]

21 hours ago, pau said:

I disagree..in this biz connection is everything, then luck and only after that talent and charisma. In that order.

Not entirely, IMO. I don't know anything about Lucas Hedges and haven't seen Manchester By The Sea yet, but Kate Hudson had some success and looks enough like her mom when she was younger that her career could have really taken off, but she's not that great of an actress and there are tons of attractive blonde actresses who aren't lucky enough to have her connections. Not saying she's a failure, but Almost Famous is oddly fitting, since its her best role and it came out almost twenty years ago.

[pau]

19 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Not entirely, IMO. I don't know anything about Lucas Hedges and haven't seen Manchester By The Sea yet, but Kate Hudson had some success and looks enough like her mom when she was younger that her career could have really taken off, but she's not that great of an actress and there are tons of attractive blonde actresses who aren't lucky enough to have her connections. Not saying she's a failure, but Almost Famous is oddly fitting, since its her best role and it came out almost twenty years ago.

Without her family's connections pretty sure she would not have been able to get Almost Famous to begin with (a role Kristen Dunst refused before by the way..)..She is lucky to have that.

Lucas Hedges is more talented, well talent, acting talent is always kind of subjective..but we will say Hedges is more talented for the sake of the narrative and he can do smarter choices therefore his family's connections (something Hudson also had/have) AND his great talent will give, will offer him many great, prestigious parts..he will take advantage of it and good for him..why not, it is his ticket..everybody around him do it..why not him. It works like that.

I don't really blame the gamers/players..but the game i am quite critical, i admit.

Edited November 6, 2017 by pau

[absnow54]

Does Peter Hedges really have that much clout to influence his son's career? Sure, he's got a handful of recognizable films and an Oscar nomination, but it's still just a handful. I wouldn't put Lucas Hedges in the same category as Kate Hudson, Wyatt Russell, Colin Hanks, Drew Barrymore, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Gwyneth Paltrow. Especially since he seems to be building his career on supporting roles in small independent features.

[JBC344]

3 hours ago, absnow54 said:

Does Peter Hedges really have that much clout to influence his son's career? Sure, he's got a handful of recognizable films and an Oscar nomination, but it's still just a handful. I wouldn't put Lucas Hedges in the same category as Kate Hudson, Wyatt Russell, Colin Hanks, Drew Barrymore, Bryce Dallas Howard, and Gwyneth Paltrow. Especially since he seems to be building his career on supporting roles in small independent features.

Exactly, I think if anything having a "successful" father in the business has probably aided him more in the actual structure of Hollywood and possible connections.  I seriously don't think Lucas keeps getting cast because he is Peter Hedges's son.  I also think the nepotism claim can be a misnomer a lot of the time.  For one, a lot of Hollywood is built on connections and getting to the right people.  Having an "in" can definitely help but this idea that careers are handed to people because they are related to someone is really just not true.  Hollywood is still a business at the end of the day. 

Now you may get your first "big break" because you know someone who can get you into the door for a casting or in front of a producer but this idea that Hollywood just hands out whole long lasting careers to family members of famous people is just not true.  You also have to counter balance that with the other "unfairs" of Hollywood, especially appearance.

Also if I was Peter Hedges and directing a movie and had an "Oscar nominated" son as an actor who was right for the role why wouldn't I cast him.  Trust me, the people who are financing Peter's movie are not giving the ok just because Peter says "My son wants to get into acting and I want to put him in this movie ok?"  Now when Peter says "My Oscar nominated son with X amount of credits to his name might want the part" that is an entirely different situation.  Honestly who is to say that Lucas isn't the one who helped get the project picked up in the first place.  I don't think Lucas Hedges is hurting for work right now.

Take Straight Outta Compton as an example, O'shea Jr had to audition over 15 times over a year and a half period to play his famous father despite looking exactly like him.  Why?  Because Universal doesn't just cast the offspring of famous actors for show, not when they are financing a multi million dollar movie.  The movie was critically acclaimed and O'shea and Jason Mitchell (Easy-E) were the standouts.

I mentioned this in the Nepotism thread when the Smith children were brought up.  Do the Smith kids get breaks because of their famous parents?  Sure.  Do those breaks counter balance the unfairness/discrimination that they would face if they were no name black young actors trying to make it in Hollywood?  Absolutely!!!!   Which is more wrong?

To be completely fair to Jaden Smith, he has done four movies, two of them wildly successful, critically acclaimed, and one of those Oscar nominated.  One movie that was just ok, and another that was all around just a bad movie.  His most successful film made the studio hundreds of millions of dollars.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JBC344 said:

I mentioned this in the Nepotism thread when the Smith children were brought up.  Do the Smith kids get breaks because of their famous parents?  Sure.  Do those breaks counter balance the unfairness/discrimination that they would face if they were no name black young actors trying to make it in Hollywood?  Absolutely!!!!   Which is more wrong?

To be completely fair to Jaden Smith, he has done four movies, two of them wildly successful, critically acclaimed, and one of those Oscar nominated.  One movie that was just ok, and another that was all around just a bad movie.  His most successful film made the studio hundreds of millions of dollars.

Except that both Jaden and his sister Willow have just as much potential to become Hollywood casualties as they do to become huge successes, and I don't think that can or should be overlooked. From what I understand, Will and Jada are Scientologists*, and if what's become of Tom Cruise over the years is anything to go by, the best thing that could have happened to Suri is to get away from her father as much as possible.

Also, relatively few really huge movies get made every year. With the exception of the Marvel juggernaut, which is employing more and more actors as the movies continue to be announced, cast and put into production, its only the Oscar-bait films that get a whole ton of press and exposure, and so they make a whole lot of money. For instance, Kate Winslet has an Oscar and Michael Fassebender doesn't, but Titanic is over two decades old and Fassbender lucked into the X Men franchise as Young!Magneto in addition to being cast in 12 Years A Slave and Inglourious Basterds. When they co-starred in Steve Jobs, some people complained that Winslet should have gotten more credit for her role because she's got a little gold statue at home, and I don't think it's as simple as that.

*I could be wrong about the Scientology thing, but that was something I heard elsewhere on these forums, so.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Cobalt Stargazer

[JBC344]

15 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Except that both Jaden and his sister Willow have just as much potential to become Hollywood casualties as they do to become huge successes, and I don't think that can or should be overlooked. From what I understand, Will and Jada are Scientologists*, and if what's become of Tom Cruise over the years is anything to go by, the best thing that could have happened to Suri is to get away from her father as much as possible.

Also, relatively few really huge movies get made every year. With the exception of the Marvel juggernaut, which is employing more and more actors as the movies continue to be announced, cast and put into production, its only the Oscar-bait films that get a whole ton of press and exposure, and so they make a whole lot of money. For instance, Kate Winslet has an Oscar and Michael Fassebender doesn't, but Titanic is over two decades old and Fassbender lucked into the X Men franchise as Young!Magneto in addition to being cast in 12 Years A Slave and Inglourious Basterds. When they co-starred in Steve Jobs, some people complained that Winslet should have gotten more credit for her role because she's got a little gold statue at home, and I don't think it's as simple as that.

*I could be wrong about the Scientology thing, but that was something I heard elsewhere on these forums, so.

I agree, that was the point of my post about the Smith children, that they aren't just guaranteed careers.  If anything what they get is a break here and there. The Smith family are not Scientologists.

I'm not understanding the Kate Winslet/Michael Fassbender example.  Can you clarify?  Personally I was one of the people who complained about Winslet not getting enough notice that year for Jobs but that was because she was the best thing in the movie.  I liked Michael Fassbender in the role but her performance was the actual standout. 

[Pink ranger]

On 06/11/2017 at 6:12 PM, JBC344 said:

 

Now you may get your first "big break" because you know someone who can get you into the door for a casting or in front of a producer but this idea that Hollywood just hands out whole long lasting careers to family members of famous people is just not true.  You also have to counter balance that with the other "unfairs" of Hollywood, especially appearance.

 

The odds of any actor having a long lasting career are slim but I think that the children of  long established famous people have an in built longevity advantage from their parent( s) networking circle that an actor of equal success may not have and they can probably weather career lows better too.

Colin Hanks has had some rough crtical receptions like from his stint in Dexter but he was still able to keep getting work when I think that had he not been a Hanks he probably would have sunk in to obscurity.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Pink ranger

[Silver Raven]

Quote

Colin Hanks has had some rough crtical receptions like from his stint in Dexter but he was still able to keep getting work when I think that had he not been a Hanks he probably would have sunk in to obscurity.

It doesn't seem to have helped his brother much.  Though I've read that Chet may be slightly ... odd.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, JBC344 said:

I agree, that was the point of my post about the Smith children, that they aren't just guaranteed careers.  If anything what they get is a break here and there. The Smith family are not Scientologists.

I'm not understanding the Kate Winslet/Michael Fassbender example.  Can you clarify?  Personally I was one of the people who complained about Winslet not getting enough notice that year for Jobs but that was because she was the best thing in the movie.  I liked Michael Fassbender in the role but her performance was the actual standout. 

Sorry, I wasn't precise enough. Part of the point I was trying to make is that it's because the Smith kids are getting whatever breaks they get at such a young age (Jaden is 19 now and Willow is 17) could be the cause of them going a bit off the rails. There was a celeb news item a couple of years ago regarding Willow and the CD she recorded, and she gave several quotes about "LightEaters" and "excavating my inner worlds", which is at best pretentious and at worst indicates that she thinks she's bestowing great art upon the world.  I've heard Whip My Hair more often than I'd like, and....not so much. Maybe she's gotten more mature, I don't know, but that article has stuck with me.

As for Winslet and Fassbender, I don't disagree about her being the best thing in Steve Jobs, but Fassbender has made a shit-ton of money for the industry while she's mostly doing arty type movies these days. I think there's a difference in clout between box office draw and actors who are likely to get the attention of the Academy, and one isn't always the same as the other. Hope that's clearer.

[Pink ranger]

Am I wrong or is television no longer a significant "farm team" for future movie stars ?  The last actor I think who had a major role on a hit TV show and then quickly got big movie roles was Bryan Cranston. It wasn't  that long ago that  when a show blew up its stars like Steve Carell and Katherine Heigl found film work more frequently.

It feels like todays movie stars get famous from indies or where unknowns before hand. 

With an increase in streaming services and short 10- 13 episode seasons I would have though that TV actors have more opportunities to work outside of their contracts but less people seem to be breaking out that way these days. 

[Silver Raven]

We also have the case, with all of the streaming shows, that movie stars are doing TV.

[methodwriter85]

1 hour ago, Pink ranger said:

Am I wrong or is television no longer a significant "farm team" for future movie stars ?  The last actor I think who had a major role on a hit TV show and then quickly got big movie roles was Bryan Cranston. It wasn't  that long ago that  when a show blew up its stars like Steve Carell and Katherine Heigl found film work more frequently.

It feels like todays movie stars get famous from indies or where unknowns before hand. 

With an increase in streaming services and short 10- 13 episode seasons I would have though that TV actors have more opportunities to work outside of their contracts but less people seem to be breaking out that way these days. 

Television shows in general just don't have the large audiences that they used to have. There's a reason why someone like George Clooney could use E.R. to launch himself into movies- that show at its height had 20 million viewers. Nowadays a show can be a "hit" with just 8 million viewers. The viewership landscape is so fractured these days that it's hard for any one t.v. actor to make such a large impression that people want to see him or her in movies. The Walking Dead was a pretty big hit, but so far the only person who seems to have gotten movie stardom out of it is Jon Bernthal, and he wasn't even the lead. And Bernthal is more like a "hey, it's that guy" kind of famous anyway.

And the path is just different. Someone like Clooney did E.R., got himself cast in mid-budget movies that did well, and then started getting the offers for things like Batman and such. Mid-budget movies are becoming increasingly rare- what seems to remain are the indie movies and the large franchise hopeful films.

The new path reminds me of Callum Turner, the star of an indie called The Only Living Boy in New York. He's an English actor who's done a few British t.v. shows and movies, and picked up notice in a couple of American indies he did. Now he just got himself cast as Eddie Redmayne's brother in Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them. If he does well there, I can see him continuing his climb up.

Speaking of Eddie, he made his name in indies, then he got his chance at a leading man's role in Les Miserables, which then got him to clout to get roles like The Theory of Everything, which got him the big reward, and now he has his big franchise. That seems like the primary path now.

Edited November 12, 2017 by methodwriter85

[pau]

It seems above all that now tv part and movie part are almost interchangeable, one of the most recent and obvious exemple (among many many others) is : Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon with Big Little Lies..and of course there is platform like netflix who is the new 'it' medium where movie actors and tv actors  work together at the same level since the beginning of these programs. The hierarchy is almost gone..this is a new norm in the entertainment biz.

Edited November 13, 2017 by pau

[absnow54]

I never really thought of television as the farm team for film, and it's always seemed rare for a television star to make a successful leap to movie star, they always seemed to exist on two different planes of success. If anything, I think television has become more prestigious, and having a hit tv show can put an actor on the same level of fame as top A-list (and hell, there's a chance a huge movie star is even in the cast.)

[Irlandesa]

I don't know if it's really any worse than it used to be.  TV stars might have received opportunities but how many were actually successful at making the transition?  The Brits seem to go back and forth between mediums all the time and that looks to be moving to the US now.  

Donald Glover is doing more movies, although he still has a foot in TV.  Mindy Kaling looks to be doing most of her future acting in movies while she's producing for TV.  Two of the front runners for a Supporting Actress nomination are primarily known for TV-Allison Janney and Laurie Metcalf.  The Post trailer came out recently and the supporting case is a veritable who's who of mostly-known-for-TV-stars including Bob Odenkirk, Bradley Whitford (also in Get Out), Alison Brie (also in The Disaster Artist), Matthew Rhys (British so maybe this is cheating), Carrie Coon, David Cross, Jesse Plemmons (who I think has now moved to TV after many high profile TV shows), and Zach Woods. 

Mila Kunis has moved to movies. Kristen Bell does both.

I'll stop.  But I do think Netflix and shorter seasons have helped actors who'd like to be versatile. 

[paulvdb]

Some medium level movie stars may have crossed over from tv. But the biggest movie stars were never big tv stars as far as I can remember. Big movie stars from my childhood that I remember like Schwarzenegger, Stallone or Harrison Ford at least never did much on tv as far as I know. Tom Hanks was in Bosom Buddies, but how many people remember that? He was also on a few episodes of Family Ties which is his only tv work that I am familiar with. Will Smith is one of the few big movie stars that I can think of who became famous as a tv actor before moving over to movies.

[Pink ranger]

I would call all of the following actors as being established A-listers and they where big TV stars before ( Emmy nominees and/or on financial hit tv shows)

Denzel Washington-  St Elsewhere

Bruce Willis- Moonlighting

Michelle Williams- Dawsons Creek

James Franco - Freaks and Geeks

Chris Pratt- Parks and Recreation

John Lithgow &  Joseph Gordon Levitt  -3rd rock from the sun

Angelina Jolie- TV movies George Wallace,  Gia

Ryan Reynolds- Two guys , a girl and a pizza place

Johnny Depp- 21 jump street

[NumberCruncher]

Also,

George Clooney - The Facts of Life (yeah, I remember him way back then pre-ER days)

Melissa McCarthy - Gilmore Girls

Leonardo DiCaprio - Growing Pains

 

There are also a surprising number of actors who got their start in soap operas and went on to have successful film careers:

Meg Ryan - As the World Turns

Julianne Moore - As the World Turns

Ryan Phillippe - One Life to Live

Demi Moore - General Hospital

[pau]

And many famous/successful movie actresses are saying tv/and now digital platforms are the place, nowadays, where they find more interesting roles  compare to the movie landscape which is reductive for them..particularly actresses who are over 30's.

Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon, Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon ect.. are saying it again and again in interviews..and it is also easier for them to control the material because they have an easier access to producing, directing, behind the scene power here.

[Irlandesa]

6 hours ago, paulvdb said:

Tom Hanks was in Bosom Buddies, but how many people remember that?

It's such a cult classic that I'd say quite a few people remember even if they haven't actually seen it.  In fact, for a show that only ran for two seasons, it is disproportionately remembered as part of his career.

[amaranta]

Steve Carrell and Ray Romano seem to be doing well for themselves. Especially Carrell - man is talented.  And I think The Big Sick is going to get Romano more roles.

Also from a soap: Tommy Lee Jones - One Life to Live.

[DisneyBoy]

Anne Heche - Another World

[Silver Raven]

Speaking of Julianne Moore, in her new movie, Suburbicon, she plays twins, a role she says she had experience with because she played twins on ATWT.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Silver Raven

[Kel Varnsen]

5 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

It's such a cult classic that I'd say quite a few people remember even if they haven't actually seen it.  In fact, for a show that only ran for two seasons, it is disproportionately remembered as part of his career.

It was also a show that had Billy Joel do the theme song, which seems like it should be a big deal for an 80's sitcom. That probably also contributed to how memorable it is.

[methodwriter85]

This is a puff piece on Mandy Moore's career, where they do touch on her career downturn, and her subsequent career revival in T.V.'s This Is Us.

Mandy Moore is officially hawking Garnier Nutrisse, so she definitely seems to be back in the "bankable" category again.  I always thought she did better with "frosty" kind of roles, and those bad romantic comedies she did just didn't really work for her. It looks like she's going to play one of the evil adults in a teen dystopian film, so that might be good for her. She's at a pretty great age right now to get a wide variety of roles, at least for about 5 or so more years. I hope she has better luck with roles and movies this time around. I don't think she'll ever really be an A-list actress, but if Mandy plays her cards right she might have a pretty solid career beyond This Is Us.

[vb68]

On 11/12/2017 at 6:56 PM, pau said:

.and of course there is platform like netflix who is the new 'it' medium where movie actors and tv actors  work together at the same level since the beginning of these programs. The hierarchy is almost gone..this is a new norm in the entertainment biz.

I was genuinely shocked when I heard Emma Stone was doing a show for Netflix. I guess it's with Jonah Hill, who also doesn't really seem like he needs to go that route right now. But still Emma Stone is at the very top of in demand actresses.

[UYI]

On 11/13/2017 at 10:17 AM, NumberCruncher said:

There are also a surprising number of actors who got their start in soap operas and went on to have successful film careers:

Meg Ryan - As the World Turns

Julianne Moore - As the World Turns

 

Meg Ryan and Marisa Tomei were both on ATWT at about the exact same time, and Julianne joined the show very shortly after they both left (Meg at least, Marisa might have still been there a bit longer). 

19 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

It was also a show that had Billy Joel do the theme song, which seems like it should be a big deal for an 80's sitcom. That probably also contributed to how memorable it is.

Actually, I think that was a cover of his hit, "My Life". I don't think the performer of the BB version has ever been revealed, but a lot of people seem to think it was Tom Hanks himself.

 

Kathleen Turner was on the soap The Doctors before she was famous, and Christopher Walken was on Guiding Light as a child! Kevin Bacon was also on GL prior to becoming famous. 

Edited November 14, 2017 by UYI

[Silver Raven]

Susan Sarandon got her start on a short-lived soap, A World Apart.  She also had a brief role in Search For Tomorrow.

[aradia22]

Quote

Am I wrong or is television no longer a significant "farm team" for future movie stars ?  The last actor I think who had a major role on a hit TV show and then quickly got big movie roles was Bryan Cranston. It wasn't  that long ago that  when a show blew up its stars like Steve Carell and Katherine Heigl found film work more frequently.

It feels like todays movie stars get famous from indies or where unknowns before hand. 

With an increase in streaming services and short 10- 13 episode seasons I would have though that TV actors have more opportunities to work outside of their contracts but less people seem to be breaking out that way these days. 

What @methodwriter85 said. But also I feel like people just sort of float around gaining a big enough "audience" until they're a bankable name. Margot Robbie did stuff in Australia, then had the failed Pan Am, then slowly built up her movie resume and now it looks like she's gunning for awards credibility. Jonathan Groff had Spring Awakening, then Glee, then Hamilton, then that HBO show, and now the Netflix show. 

It's less... book a show... movie star! And more... do a bunch of jobs, get more well-known, maybe eventually luck into a franchise or a star-making role. Carrell has carved out a niche for himself but I wouldn't call him a movie star. 

Quote

Mandy Moore is officially hawking Garnier Nutrisse, so she definitely seems to be back in the "bankable" category again.  I always thought she did better with "frosty" kind of roles, and those bad romantic comedies she did just didn't really work for her. It looks like she's going to play one of the evil adults in a teen dystopian film, so that might be good for her. She's at a pretty great age right now to get a wide variety of roles, at least for about 5 or so more years. I hope she has better luck with roles and movies this time around. I don't think she'll ever really be an A-list actress, but if Mandy plays her cards right she might have a pretty solid career beyond This Is Us.

Amanda Leigh is a decent album but of all those manufactured pop stars at the time, I thought she was one of the weakest singers/performers and I found her acting in all those bad romantic comedies awful. And she was real bad in Tangled. I never had any reason to resent her as a person just as one of those "why is this seemingly untalented person repeatedly getting work" annoyances.

[JustaPerson]

I think there's a difference between getting your start on a tv show/being on a show and becoming a star because of said show and being able to make the transition to movies. 

[methodwriter85]

James Franco on The Disaster Artist and His Oddball Career

I am super-excited for the Disaster Artist. It's in the right hands with James.

And yeah, I will never forget how much he and Anne Hathaway spectacularly tanked at the Oscars, even with him getting into Marilyn Monroe drag.

[paulvdb]

4 hours ago, JustaPerson said:

I think there's a difference between getting your start on a tv show/being on a show and becoming a star because of said show and being able to make the transition to movies.

I had mentioned Will Smith as someone who became famous because of his tv show (and his music) but many movie actors start on tv and then go to movies without being famous for their tv roles. For example, how many people know who played Bill Engvall's daughter on The Bill Engvall Show? Or have even heard of the Bill Engvall Show? It ran for three seasons on TBS around ten years ago and the daughter was played by Jennifer Lawrence before she became famous as Katniss in the Hunger Games movies.

[ChelseaNH]

Soap operas were once regarded as a good training ground for actors, because they worked so much and so fast.