Reduced to TV? How quaint. The distinction between TV and movie actors went away a long time ago.
Remember when I was the Next Big Thing?
Now I own this thread.
we all know who r2 is.....
When was Malin Ackerman a movie star?
A few years ago Ebert and Roeper (or their replacements) had a special Ackerman section of the worst films of the year. she was in like 3 of them.
Malin Akerman, despite Hollywood's best efforts, was never a movie star. And it's not demeaning for a middle-aged character actress like Harden, even though she did win an Oscar, to do television. She'll make more money and probably have a meatier role there.
Robin Williams does fit the mold of an actor reduced to doing television. And on CBS, the home of television's worst sitcoms, no less.
It's been said a million times on this board and everywhere else but the best storytelling coming out of the entertainment industry is being done on TV now. That is inarguable.
Every actor still wants to be a movie star but that is an outdated mindset that doesn't reflect where the best jobs are now.
The days where TV meant being on a generic sitcom or procedural where you did the same acting over and over are gone, that still exists of course, but that isn't what being on TV means.
r8 cracks me up!!
I couldn't pick Malin Ackerman out of a line-up, and I go to the movies at least three times a month.
Malin will always be Baby Girl to me.
Whatever success Malin Akerman (and Kellan Lutz, for that matter) had in Hollywood essentially proved just how right "The Comeback" was.
[quote]The distinction between TV and movie actors went away a long time ago.
I know lots of people say this, but is it really true? To a certain degree, it still feels as if film actors are put up on a much higher plane than TV stars -- and not just by the general public but by the industry itself. I remember a TV critic once said that "TV people will always have an inferiority complex where it comes to movie people" and cited the Emmys as his prime example -- i.e., anytime a bona fide film star is nominated for some random TV project and shows up to bask in their (usually) all-but-assured victory (because Emmy voters he said "will always vote for the movie star"), the word often used to describe their mere appearance on the Emmys is "slumming," because movie stars are still thought to be on a level beyond TV stars.
Granted, TV stars have come a long, long way these last few years and often are regarded as better at their craft than most film stars, but I feel the distinction between the two is still very much a real one.
Akerman has done movies, but I wouldn't say she was ever a movie star. I do think she has what it takes to be a big TV star, though.
I've always found Harden's career choices a little odd. The year after she won her Oscar and was presumably heavily in demand, she signed onto a CBS series, The Education of Max Bickford on CBS. When that was canceled she went and did Mystic River, which was one of the most acclaimed movies of the year. But despite working steadily in movies since then she's done a pilot nearly every single year. This is just the first one that's been picked up.
Akerman was in Watchmen and while she is superheroine beautiful, she just sort of stood around. The character she played, as depicted in the comics, was skittish, nervous, kinky and abused. Julianne Moore (in a parallel dimension of my own making) would have been incredible (if they stayed true to the original story, which they did not. The film was terrible).
[quote]The days where TV meant being on a generic sitcom or procedural where you did the same acting over and over are gone, that still exists of course, but that isn't what being on TV means.
But most of the actors being mentioned here ARE doing crappy generic sitcoms. Robin Williams' show looks like utter crap and he's basically admitted he's only doing it for the paycheck. Why Anna Faris and Alison Janney have lowered themselves to a shit sitcom like "Mom" is beyond me. They must be hoping Chuck Lorre will strike gold again and they'll be on a gravy train for several seasons. It's horrible but so is "Two and a Half Men" and that's a huge hit for some reason.
I just watched the trailer for the Woody Harrelson-Matthew McConaughey HBO series and it actually looks decent. But again, that's not TV - it's HBO.
Robert Wagner explained the difference between the career of his wife, movie star Natalie Wood, and his own as an television actor as "She sells tickets, I sell soap."
I'd guess Marcia Gay Harden needs the money. She has 3 kids and her ex-husband never seemed to have a job.
Robin Williams needs the money, too.
That may be true, R19, it's just too bad she didn't pick a better show than "Trophy Wife." She's way too good an actress for C-grade material like this.
r15 There is more money in TV if you are lucky to get on a show that last a couple of seasons. And TV is more favorable to women, older women and other groups. If you are not a white male the odds of getting a leading role is nil.
I think TV is better than film. Movies have all those ratings and you can't make a good R rated film and sell tickets. The studios are scared to death of the distributers.
I say Showtime and HBO, they are where the good scripts go.
Actually, I thought "Trophy Wife" was quite good, and Marcia Gay Harden was the best thing about it. And I hate most sitcoms.
Akerman was fun and just a tiny bit terrible in "Rock of Ages", raping Tammy Cruise as she sang "I Want to Know what Love is." BUT she was wonderful as Juna Milken on "Comeback", sweet without being cloying. Lutz was great on that show too.
And, sorry, no matter what anyone says, it is a total comedown to go from a Best Actress Oscar nod to an awful gig on "CSI". And that material makes Elizabeth Shue look like a really bad actress too. And when you flop on TV, you're really dead in water -- see Faye Dunaway, Geena Davis, and hopefully Robin Williams after this season.
Faye did a series r25?
Tv or movies...makes no difference.
With the exception a few...today's actors are just nameless,faceless,interchangeable,fungible "products" with no distinctive identity or persona.
The all have the same voices...the same attitude and the same contrived,corporate acting style.
I can't even watch most new shows and films anymore for the soulless homogeneity of it all.
Maybe Taylor Lautner will be doing the same thing in a few years after he has a couple more of his movies become flops.
R28, he will never learn how to act. Can't do comedy. Can't do drama.
didn't Malin Ackerman begin on television? I think she was on Lisa Kudrow's The Comeback (that was on HBO, some might think thats better) and she also guest starred/ recurring last season on Suburgatory.
I think television probably will provide a more stable and higher income for actresses. Also more opportunities and better characters to pick from.
I think if you compare top tier movie opportunities to top tier television opportunities, movies come out on top. But there are so few top tier film opportunities. Most of it is mid- to low-quality. There is a lot of television that is significantly better than MOST of what makes it into theaters.
Anna Faris is considered the big movie star "get" this season on TV.
Most movie stars won't commit to a network series (they'll do a cable show) because a) the writing isn't very good and b) the time commitment is very long - not a long enough hiatus to go back to movies, should that option exist. A cable series on HBO or Showtime or even AMC or FX usually means better scripts and a shorter time commitment.
R30, where on earth would one find such information?
Others like Laura San Giacomo, back when she was at her movie peak, do TV because it lets them stay close at home. And she had a very Special Needs child that required that (WEHT... she was great).
R26, she may have done several since then (hosted a reality show for sure) but she did a really bad sitcom with the late Robert Urich -- way too close to days as Oscar winning star. Early 80s. Bombed. But so did Bette Midler and if a network can make Bette Midler unfunny, well, says it all...
P.S. Whether DL is post peak or not, there is still today more wit on a slow night than on network TV the whole season. Imagine what the posters on here would do with a Bette Midler show.
Also, R1 being facetious no doubt -- but Matthew M could end up with an Oscar this year. He is doing amazing work these days. I am as shocked as anyone but credit is due.
Marcia looks stunning on The Trophy Wife. She looks barely 40.
Nice post R13. It's all true. Every tv actor/star would love to jump to movies. That's where the prestige is. An Emmy can't compete with an Oscar.
The legendary Angela Bassett "American Horror Story". Gabby Sidibe is on there also
Matthew M and Woody are only doing one season of that new show on HBO. If it's picked up for another season it will feature a new storyline with new characters and cast.
Reduced to tv?
Anyone who goes to the movies regularly and watches tv regularly in 2013 would know that it's not a reduction. Artistically, it's a huge promotion.
Seeing Joan Fontaine coming to "Revenge" sort of broke my heart.
I think the entire process of starring in a movie, doing premieres and promotion, etc. is probably still much more prestigious than being on a hit TV show. I can't think of anyone who's considered an A-lister just through their TV work. Maybe Bryan Cranston and Jon Hamm come close, but even they do a lot of movies. That said, I agree that the best stories are being told on TV right now and have been for years. I don't think it's considered a demotion anymore either.
Cable tv and Netflix are where it's at right now. Their original series have excellent casts, scripts and production values. There are so many good shows on cable right now.
The networks are looking really dated and behind the times.
What's with all the 'quirky' white family shows this season? Two are set in the 80s/90s (The Goldbergs, Surviving Jack) with a nearly identical premise.
I don't understand the appeal.
See "The Middle", "Modern Family", "Raising Hope", etc. Offbeat families are the new black apparently (or, really, post-peak but the networks are slow to catch up).
You would have to pay me daily to watch the Margo Martindale one. She looks as embarrassed doing it as I feel watching the commercials.
I think it is inarguable that there is a lot of good stuff on tv. That said, and you can ask any actor this, movie stardom is still the brass ring.
Now, lets face it, when we say "tv is better than movies right now" we're really talking about only a handful of shows:
Mad Men, Breaking Bad, arguably Homeland, some HBO movies like Behind The Candelabra.
But really, that's it. Modern Family and Downton Abbey are maybe good for TV, but they're not competing with the best movies the way the heavy hitting series are. I watched that Kevin Spacey series and thought "if this was in a theater, I would have walked out or never have bought a ticket in the first place".
Malin Ackerman was brilliant, yes brilliant, on "The Comeback". Rode a razor thin line between cunning and genuinely sweet.
I'm convinced Tina Fey copied that character for Cerie on "30 Rock".
"Oh my God. I'm back. I'm home. All the time, it was... We finally really did it ... You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!"
We are switching to the new platform for The DataLounge this weekend. All of our mobile users have been using it for over a week and all first time users have been using it for about a month - which adds up to well over one million users. So we're ready to end this phase of the testing and move everybody to the new site. (more)
And yes, we've changed the look and some of how it operates.
Yes, we know you just *hate* it in well in advance.
Yes, we know we suck.
Yes, we are the biggest suckers that ever sucked.
But it was time for a change and with the huge shift to mobile it was long overdue. We've taken this opportunity not only to update the look but also make major changes under the hood (or "bonnet" if you're either British or pretentious or both). And we have to prepare for 2016 - a presidential election year where we can normally expect to see a 60% jump in traffic (yes, we've seen 5 presidential elections so far…Christ we're old).
The site has a bunch - nay, plethora - of new features which will make the site more usable: better search, the ability to ignore posters and threads, see link previews, to pick up a thread where you left off, spam and malware filtering and more.
If you want you can go explore and see for yourself, Click here.
And while running the tests we've noticed two interesting reactions to the new system - people are spending more time on the site and more people that come stay around longer and look at more stuff. Both good things. Yay!
Possibly we've not slain all the dragons and there will be issues that come up during the switchover. There's a help button in the lower right hand corner of the page which you can use to send us bug reports.
Please include as much information about the hardware (PC, Mac, Tablet, Phone etc), operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Android, iOS etc) and browser (Chrome, Safari, Opera, Internet Explorer etc) that you are using as possible to help us replicate and fix the problem.
Please note that complaints about colors, fonts, icons and the like are not "bugs" - they are design choices that we've made and we expect one or two cases of world-class bitching. But they won't actually cause headaches, scurvy, heart attacks, Restless Leg Syndrome, Morgellon's Disease or the vapors (but have your smelling salts at hand just in case).
Talking to DataLounge servers. Please wait a moment...