Not sure if this is just my impression or actually I think I’ve noticed that a lot of actors seem to work either in movies or TV series, while the ones doing both are very few. Why is that? The necessary skills seem to be pretty much the same and if it was just a matter of “prestige” I would just imagine most actors would move to the “better” one once they become popular enough.
Comments
Up until fairly recently, it was definitely about prestige. If you were already doing movies, especially as an A-lister, it was seen as beneath you to do TV as well. A lot of actors would start doing TV, then stop doing it once they got steady movie work. That’s a bit less prevalent now, since ‘TV’ has gotten lots of big budgets, and is seen to be higher quality. Now, a lot of it has to do with production schedules. If you’re a recurring character in a TV show, you’re going to be spending more time filming that, and just simply may not have time for movies. And if you’re a movie actor, each project might only be filming for short periods, but you want to be available and do other ones throughout the year, so you can’t commit to doing a long TV production
TV is steady and consistent work. Movies are a burst of work then downtime.
Some people prefer one over the other, others don’t really care and will do both, schedule permitting.
Prestige really depends on what class of movie or TV show an actor is working on. Working on the latest hit HBO show is probably more glamorous than working on the latest entry in the Sharknado franchise.
TV series take much longer to film. There simply isn’t enough time to successfully do a lot of both.
A busy film actor can make like 3-4 films a year without overextending themself. (A lot of features shoot for 4-12 weeks depending on a ton of variables, plus actors have to press tours and promotional stuff around the release.)
A TV season is like 5-8 films in terms of actual time spent shooting. It’s just more efficient because sets/locations are reused so much.
It’s very common for a TV actor to take on a film during their hiatus from the show, just because they can fit it into their schedule. Or, sometimes an actor can get time off of a show for a film role (Ed Helms going sailing on The Office was so he could shoot one of the Hangover films.)
Aside from the logistical challenges, some actors just don’t want to play the same character over and over. They thrive on taking on new challenges and always yearn for that next project, which makes them perfect for films.
Mixture of reasons:
Traditionally, movies were much more prestigious and higher budget. Movie stars were better paid as they put bums on seats and TV channels were limited so little competition. However, if you got famous on TV it was usually for being in a long running show, and that meant renegotiating the contract and getting way more money. So between staying where you are as an actor with a great TV gig and moving, not much reason to risk it.
They’re very different schedules, or at least used to be, with movie filming being intense and on location while TV shows were made on set in one location over the year. This has changed a lot, with shorter TV serieses often with more on location shooting. Also different locations, with shows you had to basically live where the show was made.
They are different skills. Movie stars had to get bums on seats first and foremost and deliver great two hour performances, acting range wasn’t that important. TV actors gotta get it adequately in one maybe two takes and then move the fuck on, because 22 episodes a year doesn’t mean allow lots of takes and reshoots, and they need to keep it fresh for a dozen hours a year.
Different circles. The less crossover in people the harder it is to get hired to the other side.
Probably a bunch of other reasons; it’s never just one reason.
You’ll notice these reasons don’t apply as much now, and we do see more crossover.
TV was considered lower class, because it really was. TV with the big three and even during cables rise was 99% time filling garbage and still is.
It’s not just about being a big shot. Landing a star role that will pay more in a day than the entire rest of your career is insanely competitive, and being known for TV work as opposed to movie roles will lessen the odds of you landing that role.
Everything in Hollywood is accounting, and if you are in a movie that turns a profit, that is attached to your name now and raises your rate for future deals. If all you land are TV and Netflix ‘movies’ you don’t bring asses in seats with you to the movie and will get offered less or ignored entirely.
That said, there have always been working actors who are not paid super well, and they are doing bit parts in anything they can land.
There a couple answers to this question and no answer fits all cases. Keep in mind:
The supply of actors to roles is extremely high. Every open audition gets hundreds of applicants. You could easily cast every role with a unique actor and still have thousands clamoring for work so there may not be a lot of repeat castings for an actor.
Production companies and casting directors like to cast actors they are familiar with and have done the work before. If an actors has proven to be reliable for the demands of TV shoots, that actor will be more desirable to cast again. Same for film shoots. If a director has worked with an actor in the past and liked them, they are more likely to use that actor again. A lot of the entertainment industry is about connections.
The people running the TV and movie industries (execs, creatives, casting directors, etc.) do not have much overlap much. Your connections in one industry may not get you strong inroads in the other. You might be finding constant work in TV but that doesn’t mean the film industry is paying attention to you. (You could even delve further and say those who work in one genre of television [say cop shows] won’t get you connections in sitcoms.)
There are restrictions on time and location. An actor can only be so many places at once. If you are constantly shooting TV in NYC and you have a family to tend to, it can be hard to get out to LA for auditions or month long commitment.
There is way more crossover than there used to be. The stigma about TV has almost entirely gone. Arguably it’s been better than film in some cases in the past 20 years. Go back to the 90s and virtually no movie star would do TV. It was seen as a lesser artform.
As others said television prestige wasn’t a thing for a long time.
A fun fact is that Tom Cruise has zero television credits, movie star only.
Some of my best friends were professional actors on stage and TV.
What one said that stuck with me is that the stage is an actor’s medium. It is up to the actor to deliver the same material every night and still have it be fresh.
TV is a writer’s medium. Episodes come fast. The actor has to make the character convincable, but the writer makes the scene feel real.
The screen is the director’s medium. It is about creating and capturing the shot.
I would say that was a thing 20 years ago and the classic A list stars like Tom Cruise and Leonardo DiCaprio stay away from tv. But that’s definitely changed with some younger big name actors like Jake Gyllenhaal, Oscar Isaac, and Andrew Garfield have all done TV. Some actors seem to alternate between the two like Pedro Pascal. A lot of the more washed up stars or supporting players are doing better in TV roles than movies these days.
Cause the film industry is on fire but there’s still some tv getting made. In the old days tv was reliable stable work that would support actors so they could go do movies.