Actors/Actresses who never Really Made it Big!

Tools    





William H Macy is big. Look at Fargo, Boogie Nights, Magnolia and a slew of other films.
__________________
God Bless Mindless Self Indulgence



No, William H macy is a character actor so while he does good steady work, no one ever expected him to be a BIG BIG STAR! So he doesnt qualify for this list either. Someone mentioned Keefer sutherland, thats a good choice.
__________________
God save Freddie Mercury!



The only one i can think of off hand is Jason Schwartzman. When Rushmore came out I remember hearing all about how he was going to break out. Well, I'm waiting.

I agree that many of the aformentioned actors should be bigger than they are. Baldwin shines in many roles, but especially those that are more theatrical in nature. Unfortunately, there's just not a lot of those roles in Hollywood anymore. Holly Hunter is amazing. She should own movies.



Baldwin shines? When? When he puts pomade in his hair?

Schwartzman is an excellent choice, although, he still has plenty of time to make it off this list. I heard he's doing some film that I cannot remember the name of or plot off hand.

And, I never said Alicia Silverstone was huge already, but she surely made a dent in pop-cultural Namedom. I only said that I thought she would become a star after CLUELESS. Obviously, with such poor choices as BATMAN...and EXCESS BAGGAGE (THE STORY OF HER STOMACH), she hasn't quite made it and I think her time is probably up.

What about people (not necessarily "good" actors, mind you) like Jenny McCarthy or Judd Nelson or Emilio Estevez? All of those Rat Packers, except for maybe Demi Moore and Rob Lowe (but that's a real maybe - his fame comes more from infamy I believe...).

I thought Ving Rhames might be a bigger star, but even though he's not, he's still great.
__________________
'The penalty for bulls**t is bulls**t.' - Denis Johnson



heh heh. I like Baldwin in Glengarry Glen Ross, Prelude to a kiss, these movies are both derived from plays and he knows how to handle them.



N.B. - Not that this necessarily has anything to do with this particular thread, Commish, but since when can you accuse people of taking (aka "wasting") signature space on "stupid" quotes? Um, Don't Mess With the Fu Tang Clan.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
There's a lot of actors/actresses that have a starting role in a movie and all of a sudden people that think person will go far.

Matthew Broderick has kinda fallen outta sight. He'll star in a movie every now and then, but nothing memorable enough to remember.

Most of the 80's movie stars(mostly teens) were stars just because they were teens. Ever seen a movie with that teen star older and not looking the same, sometimes it's good...sometimes bad. Judd Nelson, still looks the same. He made a comeback with Cabin By The Lake, and Return to Cabin By The Lake. Ringwald starred in a cheesy movie lately, I saw it at the video store I work at. It's not a sense of being big and falling short, it's more like making a couple of movies and getting out while there's time. I mean most actors/actresses these days get so burnt out on movies that they drive themselves to do other things(drugs, drinking) and thus end up in re-hab. So if they're getting out after one hit, it's a good thing. Don't tell me you guys don't get sick of seeing the same actors/actresses in like 3 of the 4 movies you watch every week.
__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



I think I agree with that but I'm not really sure that you said anything. Look at todays "teen" stars. Freddie Prinze, Jr. Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Katie Holmes, etc. Are not going to be making successful movies when they're thirty-eight years old. Their movies are designed to diretly exploit the market and there is no lasting power in a lack of actual talent.



Definitely agree with post about Anthony Michael Hall. I keep expecting him to show up in a Coen Bros. film. But hey, there's still time.

Maybe he'll make a come back with The Dead Zone on TV...



Originally posted by spdrcr
Judd Nelson, still looks the same.
By the way, I almost didn't recognize Judd Nelson in "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back".



Now With Moveable Parts
You know who really dissapeared?Morgan Freeman.He was in like every movie for a season then it was like,POOF!Gone.William H. Macy is a great actor and he's still very much around.Sad his talents are being wasted in Jurassic 3,but he was just in a movie called State and Main...don't rent it;he was funny,movie sucked.I say Morgan Freeman,Anjelica Houston,Tim Robbins,Geena Davis and Micheal Keaton.



Under what criteria do some of you people decide that Tim Robbins, Daniel Day-Lewis haven't made it? I suggest that alot of you seem to equate success wholly and entirely on money. Tim Robbins is a superb actor with versatilty in supporting roles and more importantly he can lead a movie with great verve and depth. Look at Bob Roberts, Short Cuts and the Player. Any actor, a director like Robert Altman considers to be at the top of his field, is, as far as i can see.

Daniel Day-Lewis, A man famous for the dedication he puts into his roles is one of the finest actors around. He went to prison for God knows how long to prepare for his role in "In the Name of The Father". Training with Ex- British Featherweight boxing champion Barry Mcguigan for The Boxer, again reveals his dedication. Barrry even remarked that after several months of traing him that, "He would have beaten several of the top ten featherweights of my era". Day-Lewis doesn't seek money and a way into Hollywood to rub shoulders with the big-wigs he works on the projects that intrest him with the directors he admires (Michael Mann, Martin Scorses for example), and he always delivers a performance of great emotional depth (My Left Foot, Last of the Mohicans).

Alec Baldwin seems to be a name thats reuccuring on these fine pages. Despite his pentchant for slicked back hair as already documented, he is an actor of prescence... a MOVIE STAR whereas I would argue that the aforementioned actors are not quite movie stars in terms of their appeal to the mainstream which meassures success by the latest Julia Roberts performance. Well that was the idea, Hollywood pumped millions into Baldwin after seeing potentially the new Rock Hudson, throwing him some big roles that he never quite pulled off. Hunt for Red October is a good example of the way he went: a big role in a box-office cert, one film in a series. It was obvious that the big-wigs had finally lost faith in the creation and decided that Harrison Ford would play Jack Ryan in Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger. Baldwin is always excellent in supporting roles, perhaps this is where his talent lies, as a team player, rather than the star Quarterback (check out Glengarry Glen Ross).

My nomination for the actor who didn't quite make it in terms of my interpretation of the debate, is Michael Biehn. "Always the Bridesmaid, never the Bride" is the story of his life. Fine performance in Aliens and in particular The Terminator, should of elevated him to leading status man, rather than being a tough but vunerable male lead to the strong empowered woman (Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton). His big chance came in the form of Navy Seals. Unfortunatley he played second fiddle to Charles Sheen in a film that was even worse than Charlie's performance (maybe I should have written about him (Platoon, Wall Street, Major League... Post Mortem!). His fall from grace was sudden and harsh, I recentely went round a friends house to see Biehn turn up in a computer games FMV sequences (just like Mark Hammill!) and the other day I saw him in an awful Magnificent Seven Spin-off TV series. Cherry Falls tops it off.

To see an idol of mine when i was growing up, resorting to crap like this is a sad reflection of the way the movies work, so fickle. Yesterdays news.

The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and if the poor get rich, Hollywood'll make a film out of it.
__________________
Personality goes a long way...



The rich get richer because they're smart enough to have become rich in the first place. Anyway, I agree with you on Robbins: I dunno if I'd call him any kind of disapointment. I guess it depends on what you mean by "make it big." To me, it sounds like fame. Robbins isn't a big movie star...but he is a hell of an actor.



We are not sayin these guys are bad actors, most of them are great. We are just sayin that in spite of their talent, they never became big box office & are never offered the great roles they should be offerd. Now, I sound like Pigsnie, I must be SICK!!! I mean, a lot of these guys have practically dropped off the face of the earth, like DD Lewis & Rafe Fiennes & thats sad.



Pigsnielite, I'm suprised that you suggest that I believe that you and the other participants in this discussion think that these almost stars are bad actors. What I was attempting to do was use two examples of actors, writers on these pages had suggested were failed stars and show that perhaps there was no faliure, just different goals to reach rather than fame or box-office kudos. A Movie star by in large will carefully choose her/his roles to exploit what it is the audience finds desirable in her/him ("the rich get richer because they are smart"). Of course their are exceptions eg Tom Cuise in Magnolia, but for every Magnolia there is a few swordfishes and a few Mission impossibles.

Actors like William H Macy are constantly featuring in films that are not geared towards the mainstream (Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Fargo etc), where the development of character is the driving force of the film rather than the plot which takes center stage in so much of the generic Hollywood rubbish. Of course appearances in films like Jurrassic Park 3 are financially lucrative for a character actor like Macy (the man's got to eat!), so why not do it? These two types of actors are just flipsides to the same coin are they not?



Now With Moveable Parts
When I first read through this thread I thought the same thing,the actors/actresses mentioned are very talented.I think where you are misunderstanding us is by assuming that we think the forementioned stars are'nt any good.that's not true.The reason that we've been disscussing these stars,is because they've dropped out of sight and we miss their work.Ask your self when the last time you saw Daniel Day-Lewis in a movie.Answer:not recently.Did you enjoy Tim Robbin's work in Antitrust?Not Me.Was Alec Baldwin great in Glenn Gary Glenn Ross,absolutely.How about State and Main,I don't think so.Got the idea now?If you can defend their work recently,do so.



I guess I'd better defend myself again. Granted perhaps I missed the point of this topic, why aren't these actors in good stuff now? Maybe look at the changing face of Hollywood where a lot of young actors are coming through thick and fast from a modelling market attracting the adulation of a new set of fans. Teen movies are on the increase because they make money saturating the market, where as character driven narratives are still mainly consigned to the monicker of `indie` films.

When was the last time I saw Daniel Day Lewis? 1997 in The Boxer. An excellent performance from one of the most enigmatic actors around. I don't know Day-Lewis, nor am I privy to information that you are not. Day Lewis is a famous recluse who on more than one occasion has remarked on the undesirable elements existing within Hollywood. You will soon be seeing him in one of the pivotal roles in Gangs of New York reuniting him with Scorses, so hopefully we'll be seeing more of him again, but don't count on it as they say. He doesn't stick around for long and this is his choice.

Tim Robbins is someone who has diversified somewhat since his golden period in the late 80's to mid 90's. He is now developing a reputation as a competent director (Dead Man Walking and The Cradle Will Rock), to which he hopes to expand his directoral CV. Roles in films like Antitrust and Arlington Road (which is good in my opinion) provide Robbins with money to fund such projects as the aforementioned films while I don't condone him starring in such a film I understand that it is important not to lose sight of the big picture, an actor is not merely an actor, he is a person, perhaps he is a recluse, perhaps he wants to be a director instead.

Unfortunatley while I sympathise with many of you that it would be great to see some of these actors back on the screen more often, there are outside forces that can affect a positive outcome with regards to our old favourites. If Michael Biehn was starring in film which recieved some positive recognition I'd be the happiest man alive today...



Oh yeah... My first post on this discussion discussed Alec Baldwin... I don't believe him to be a star anymore, just that Hollywood had tailor-made him for stardom, but he failed...why? I don't know, perhaps someone has some insight into this? He has got some acting talent for definate (Miami Blues is superb).



Now With Moveable Parts
I think in the case of Baldwin,he sells himself short.I saw him on Saturday Night Live and he was really funny.He does't seem to take those kind of roles though.Part of the reason he was so good in Glenn Gary...was because he brought that edgy humor to it.Most of the roles he's known for are serious ones like Malice.I understand where you are coming from more clearly though,but I still think good actors should steer away from stupid movies;if they need to fund something ,they have other options then selling out.