Why are more movie actors and actresses going to TV?

Money?
Being able to spend more time at home?
Not enough good movie roles?
Need work?
The writing is so good on TV stuff it's just better work?

 

Probably a bit of all of it!

 

"Yes" to the third and fifth questions.

Cable TV shows are where the "serious" adult entertainment (not that kind of adult entertainment) is these days. So any serious actor worth their chops is going to want to be in that stuff rather than Transformers 7 or whatever latest remake Hollywood decides to regurgitate.

 

Exposure, opportunity & $$$

 

TV series on the cable networks is where all the cutting edge programming is these days. Better stories, writing, acting - everything.

Hollywood movies, for the most part, kind of suck, except for the fall and early winter releases.

Most of the movies seem to be aimed at teens, and young ones at that.

 

A lot of producers and writers are going to TV because basically the "mid-level" movies can't get made anymore. You can do a low-budget movie under $9M -- particularly genre films like gross-out comedies, horror, or "found footage" movies -- but mid-priced character-driven films between $10M-$60M are really hard to get made. They've said many times that romantic comedies and small dramas are basically gone in terms of studio development. The talents that were behind a lot of those are moving to TV -- especially cable, like AMC, TNT, HBO, and Showtime -- to tell edgy, character-driven stories.

Even Spielberg and Lucas have lamented that you can get a $100M summer blockbuster with giant robots and explosions green-lit by any studio, but you can't get a $40M intimate human drama made. When Spielberg goes 2 years without making a movie, you know things are tough. It's interesting when you see a movie like The Butler made, and I think there were like 8 different financing companies involved with that; no one studio wanted to pay $30M for a film about a black family living and working in the White House over a period of 40 years.

I think it's sad, because as much as I like to see movies that blow up stuff real good, it's nice to see little films, different films, mysteries, small comedies, kids' films, psychological films, all kinds of different movies. It's gotten to the point where it's all huge blockbusters and then little teeny-tiny films. Not a great situation.

 

there should be ticket pricing for different genre of movies...it cost an arm and a leg for a family to go to the movies these days! and they want to be entertained big time...a BLOCKBUSTER does that...

 

Indeed. What we need are some good old-fashioned moguls in charge who want to make movies on the courage of their own convictions, rather than accountants, who run things now.

 

I do lament the days in Hollywood where the moguls would just make decisions based on their gut. For at least 10-15 years, you couldn't green-light a movie until the marketing department figured out how to sell the idea. I'm told there's been quite a few big movies stalled just on that problem. "Who are we making this movie for? How does it relate to other movies they might have seen before? Can we tie in some toys or fast food with this?"

 

After watching True Detective it's great storytelling...

 

Some of it is age-related. There are some older actresses especially that pretty much can't get roles in movies but find work in TV
If an actor/actress has children, the mostly predictable TV schedule fits better.

 

It's gotta be where the work is. And there's no career stigma doing "television," as there used to be

In fact, shows like THE SOPRANOS, THE WIRE, and BREAKING BAD receive far better reviews than almost anything put out by Hollywood, which is increasingly devoted to "kidult" films assembled on hard drives by teams of animators.

 

I think it's mostly a combination of:

and

TV has made it possible for successful actors to achieve closer to "normal" lives, with some regularity in their schedules and less traveling, during the period in their lives when they are focusing on families and stability.

 

TV typically "does" smaller drama better. I certainly to prefer a developed, nuanced approach to film over what the typical cinema release is now. It doesn't hurt that many developed-for-tv series have stepped up their game in terms of writing and production quality in the last 10-15 years. The overall quality of celebrated shows like "True Detective" and "Boardwalk Empire" and "Game of Thrones" - production design, camera work, acting, and so on - is very good indeed, and is comparable to the look and feel of good quality cinematic work.

 

A friend of mine was talking recently about the high quality of television work these days compared to cinema, and said, "It's kind of a shame Peter Jackson got to make The LOTRO movies for film. Wouldn't it have been cool for a long-term serial show to have been done more faithfully to the books?" I don't know that it would have worked, but it's a tantalizing idea.

 

Shameless plug.

I'm pleased to say some of them are coming to theatre. I'm involved with a small (199 seat house) theatre company in NYC called The New Group. Last year our plays featured Ed Harris and Bill Pullman, among others. This year, Bill Pullman is back, co-starring in our first play with Holly Hunter and Richard Chamberlain. Later on we have two time Oscar winner, Dianne Wiest and Jesse Eisenberg.

Also performing in NYC this fall (off the top of my head) - Hugh Jackman, Ewan McGregor, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Bradley Cooper, Matthew Broderick, Michael Cera and Glenn Close.

 

a steady job...

 

that's very cool...must be a blast being there.

 

Katee Sackhoff was asked this very question and she said that the money is way better on tv than film.

 

I usually stay in a hotel room once a month or so. I always check the in room entertainment and sometimes see numerous movies I did not know even existed. And some of these are movies with big stars. It does seem as though marketing only focuses on the movies that probably need marketing the least.

 

There are some weird movies that come out each year with B- and C- level stars that for some reason get zero promotion and barely get released. There's also made-for-TV movies that come out where you see the cast list and go, "wow, whatever happened to that guy?" Sharknado is a good example.

 

One other aspect to consider is that episodic television (of the HBO variety, say) simply provides greater scope for developing story and character. Even if the show is 10-12 episodes per season, that's roughly 12 hours vs. the 90/105 minutes typical of a feature film. For the 'serious actor' who wants to dig in, there's no comparison.

Besides, 3-4 months of having your face plastered on someone's TV screen (and the familiarity and recognition that results from that) is publicity that even a blockbuster can't touch. Given that 'fast burn' box office popcorners concentrate advertising into a 2 or 3 week window at the very most, and live or die over the course of a single weekend, the slow burn of episodic TV is probably a better roll of the dice career-wise.

 

I was just watching a "making of" documentary on Rosemary's Baby and Robert Evans said the studio was balking on releasing it because they couldn't figure out how to market it!

 

It's not all LOTR magic on tv. My daughter was watching some show called "Once Upon a Time" the other day and I caught an episode. Probably the worst special effects I've ever seen in my life. I could do the same stuff on my iMac and probably better!

 

Oh no, you're right about that! In fact, most TV programming is pure crap.