View Full Version : Has any movie star ever come back from stepping down to TV?
Black JuJu
30 Nov 2008, 11:54
Here's a question for you guys.
Has any movie star ever come back from returning to TV?
For example, take someone like Kiefer Sutherland, lead actor and movie star who turned to TV and became the star of 24. He does still occasionally pop up in movies but ultimately he is no longer considered a 'movie star', more a 'tv star'.
Can anyone think of anyone in a similar circumstance that has been a pretty big movie star, moved back to tv and then reclaimed that status as a lead actor in movies? - and I mean real movies, not some direct to DVD thing they might have filmed in the summer.
There are plenty that started in TV and became movie stars - such as Clooney, Travolta etc but is their anyone who has 'bounced back'?
What about someone like John Lithgow ?
I suppose the only thing is he's not usually the main star of a movie.
ManWithNoName
30 Nov 2008, 12:21
Forest Whittaker was in a lot of movies, went to TV and was outstanding, came back to movies and won an Oscar.
Forzaport
30 Nov 2008, 13:04
Robert Downey Jr had a stint on TV and is still making good movies
rupert pupkin 87
30 Nov 2008, 13:26
Lately with HBO going to TV isnt stepping down. It's where the more challenging work is
TheVBomber
30 Nov 2008, 15:32
Glenn Close
James Woods
ManWithNoName
30 Nov 2008, 15:37
I also disagree that TV is a "step down". On TV you have to put in a stellar performance with a gripping story every week. In film you only need to do it for 2 hours.
Glenn Close
James Woods
Has James Wood starred in movies since Shark finished earlier this year ?
I'm also not sure about Glenn Close.After The Shield she went to another TV show called Damages.Not sure if she's starred in movies since.
ManWithNoName
30 Nov 2008, 15:54
Has James Wood starred in movies since Shark finished earlier this year ?
I'm also not sure about Glenn Close.After The Shield she went to another TV show called Damages.Not sure if she's starred in movies since.
She's had two starring roles on TV and has won two Emmys. Can't imagine she'd be in a rush to get back to film.
rupert pupkin 87
30 Nov 2008, 16:14
I also disagree that TV is a "step down". On TV you have to put in a stellar performance with a gripping story every week. In film you only need to do it for 2 hours.
That dosnt mean anything. If that was true then work on soapies would be the most challenging sought after work. Traditionally movies are considered the better work but lately the quality of well made tv series has increased. As I said any HBO show is as good as the majority of films. During the 90s there was only really the Simpsons that movie actors had any interest in appearing in but now there's shows the quality of the Sopranos, Deadwood the Shield, Dexter, John Adams ect. These are produced by talented people well written and give actors a challenge, while on the other hand the quality of movies in Hollywood seems to have fallen a little bit. Actors will go where the challengers are and at the moment the freshest stuff seems to be on TV.
Black JuJu
30 Nov 2008, 19:48
Martin Sheen is an interesting one, while he is a notable name when he is in a movie, he is no longer a lead actor.
Big Blow Hard
30 Nov 2008, 20:06
Depends on what you consider a movie star? Alot of once marquee names will take up a good TV role if it is offered, but a consistent star of the likes of Harrison Ford and Tom Hanks will not make this step as long as they are still headlining and getting great roles.
When someones star begins to fade, it is a very viable option for them to step into a starring TV role, rather than fade into obscurity or worse to them, slug away in B and C grade shlock for the rest of their careers.
And plenty have stepped up from TV to be bigger stars as BJJ pointed out., eg Will Smith, Jennifer Aniston.
Martin Sheen and Kiefer are good examples of some who can step up into A grade movies still, but I can't think of anyone who has come back from TV to be a superstar again.
Black JuJu raised a very interesting topic. It has me thinking.
Rod Stroker
30 Nov 2008, 20:48
It all depends on your definition of "star", but:
William H Macy is one who comes to mind. Did movies for a while, then ER for about 5 years, then back to movies.
Jason Bateman; Not sure of the chronology but did Valerie & Silver Spoons, made a few movies, then back to TV to star in Arrested Development, and has since had major roles in Juno and Hancock.
Robert Patrick; Leading role in Terminator 2 plus some other movies in the 90s, then the X-Files for a few years, then back to movies.
Tigger Please!
30 Nov 2008, 21:22
I also disagree that TV is a "step down". On TV you have to put in a stellar performance with a gripping story every week. In film you only need to do it for 2 hours.
screen actors are much more versatile than an actor who plays the same character in a tv series for an extended period.
ManWithNoName
30 Nov 2008, 21:37
screen actors are much more versatile than an actor who plays the same character in a tv series for an extended period.
Is it more difficult to create a new character or to find new aspects and depths in an established character?
Tigger Please!
30 Nov 2008, 21:43
it would be much harder to find new aspects and depths in a character and subtly introduce them in 2 hours of film than over an entire season/seasons of a tv series.
that's besides the point anyway because playing/creating a new character would be more difficult in my opinion.
Not so much a movie Star to start with, but Johnny Depp appeared in biggish films like Platoon, Nightmare on Elm Street, and ...ahem...Private Resort :D before going to regular cast member of 21 Jump Street...then, well...he pretty much can be called a successful actor since...
Michael Caine used to do a lot of TV work in Britain in the 60's and 70's between films, but was never a regular over the course of a season.
Maybe Patrick Stewart
Not really a movie star to begin with & made his name in TNG. IIRC he was more a theatre actor ?
Admiral Afterworld
1 Dec 2008, 12:53
I think it depends what kind of TV it is. HBO and Showtime shows have a tendency to be stellar shows that are created seriously, if that makes any sense.
But as for FTA sitcoms if a film actor does that then yes it's a step down. Clearly Charlie Sheen isn't doing Two and a Half Men because he wants to be challenged, he's doing it because he gets paid a shitload.
Noddy Holder
1 Dec 2008, 17:16
Bruce Willis did alright after being in Moonlighting.
Bruce Willis did alright after being in Moonlighting.
Lots of actors have done well going from TV to movie [i.e George Clooney].The OP is asking about people who've been big movie stars,then gone on to do TV,then returned to be a big movie star.Willis wasn't a movie star before Moonlighting.
Black JuJu
1 Dec 2008, 19:30
But as for FTA sitcoms if a film actor does that then yes it's a step down. Clearly Charlie Sheen isn't doing Two and a Half Men because he wants to be challenged, he's doing it because he gets paid a shitload.
Well yeah, I mean Charlie is clearly slumming it, essentially playing himself (He's even called Charlie!). He didn't end up doing Two and a Half Men because he was getting tired of attending awards shows for his critically acclaimed movies. ;)
Hell Sheen even ended up standing in for Michael J. Fox on Spin City didn't he? (again I think he might have been called Charlie! haha)
Fox actually might have had the potentially to 'bounce back' had he not taken ill. He went from TV to Movies to TV and was still a decent name when he retired. In this day and age, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have cracked out Back to the Future 4 by now if Fox was willing and able..
ManWithNoName
1 Dec 2008, 19:32
Well yeah, I mean Charlie is clearly slumming it, essentially playing himself (He's even called Charlie!). He didn't end up doing Two and a Half Men because he was getting tired of attending awards shows for his critically acclaimed movies. ;)
Hell Sheen even ended up standing in for Michael J. Fox on Spin City didn't he? (again I think he might have been called Charlie! haha)
Fox actually might have had the potentially to 'bounce back' had he not taken ill. He went from TV to Movies to TV and was still a decent name when he retired. In this day and age, it's hard to believe they wouldn't have cracked out Back to the Future 4 by now if Fox was willing and able..
I'd wager he went to TV because of his illness.
Black JuJu
1 Dec 2008, 19:37
Charlie Sheen or Michael J. Fox? ;)
Nah I suppose it is possible, I have no idea how early he knew he was ill. It could have also been that his film career stalled in the mid 90s...
ManWithNoName
1 Dec 2008, 19:39
Charlie Sheen or Michael J. Fox? ;)
Nah I suppose it is possible, I have no idea how early he knew he was ill. It could have also been that his film career stalled in the mid 90s...
He was diagnosed around 1991.
Black JuJu
1 Dec 2008, 19:43
Well fair enough then, the poor bugger. I always liked his work.
rupert pupkin 87
1 Dec 2008, 20:23
Charlie Sheen was completly washed up by the time he did 2 and a half. He was up to the stage of just wanting work
Hell Sheen even ended up standing in for Michael J. Fox on Spin City didn't he? (again I think he might have been called Charlie! haha)
Yeah Charlie Crawford:)
Sheen is actually quite a decent actor and was very good in Wall St.
But it's comedy where he shines so doing 2.5 Men was clearly a good career move.
Black JuJu
2 Dec 2008, 19:07
Has anyone ever paid to see her in a movie since SATC ended that wasn't a movie about SATC? ;)
Freo Big Fella
2 Dec 2008, 21:14
Ray Winstone is one that springs to mind. Not what you'd call a "star" though.