Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Movie Talk

Movie Talk A Discussion area for everything movie related including films In The Theaters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-17, 12:45 PM   #26
Inane Thread Master
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 31,470
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post

Quigley Down Under, Runaway, An Innocent Man were pretty bad
the hell you say...
__________________
"be kind rewind" Movie collection
"Even though I am no better than a beast, don't I have the right to live?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 01:17 PM   #27
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Orbi-Wan Techno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Virginia Beach (until I retire!)
Posts: 2,172
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quigley Down Under is a staple in our house. Only western we watch more often is Tombstone, the perfect storm of westerns.
__________________
"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Orbi-Wan Goes To The Movies
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 01:22 PM   #28
DVD Talk Legend
 
GoldenJCJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,908
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic View Post
Why I oughta...
__________________
...
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 04:53 PM   #29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 6,239
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

This is the way I think it works.
A very popular tv star can do one thing extremely well. A niche. If they translate it to the big screen they can be a hit, become a big star, and then, as an established movie star, move onto other roles and be successful.

Timing is also important. The one thing they are really good at also has to be very popular in movies at the same time.

In the 1960s westerns were very popular. This enabled Eastwood and McQueen to transition to the big screen. Magnificent Seven made McQueen a big star, he then reinvented himself with Great Escape and became a superstar. Eastwood became a big western movie star which enabled him to try different things. He made Dirty Harry and became a megastar.

Both Charles Bronson and Burt Reynolds had been making movies for years without become stars. The popularity of tough guys and southern good old boys in the 70s made them both superstars. This is when Reynolds was able to use in niche in Smokey and the Bandit and transition.

Bruce Willis just happened to be really good in action movies at a time they were big at the box office.

Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore were very good at one thing. They were huge stars as long as they did that one thing.

One name that hasn't been mentioned is James Garner. While doing Maverick for Warner Bros., WB put him in some pictures that didn't make him star.
Garner's one good thing, his niche, was the comedic talent. The thing that made Bret Maverick so likable to people. When Garner started doing romantic comedies he became a movie star. Thereafter people loved him in anything he did.

I see the western as the thing Tom Selleck is best at. Unfortunately the western had come and gone by the time he came along.

Michael Douglas also began on tv. Something both he and Eastwood were able to was begin producing. Instead of taking offered roles, they made themselves bigger stars by initiating the films and casting themselves. Total control.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 06:00 PM   #30
DVD Talk Legend
 
Ash Ketchum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 10,415
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rw2516 View Post
This is the way I think it works.
A very popular tv star can do one thing extremely well. A niche. If they translate it to the big screen they can be a hit, become a big star, and then, as an established movie star, move onto other roles and be successful.

Timing is also important. The one thing they are really good at also has to be very popular in movies at the same time.

In the 1960s westerns were very popular. This enabled Eastwood and McQueen to transition to the big screen. Magnificent Seven made McQueen a big star, he then reinvented himself with Great Escape and became a superstar. Eastwood became a big western movie star which enabled him to try different things. He made Dirty Harry and became a megastar.

Both Charles Bronson and Burt Reynolds had been making movies for years without become stars. The popularity of tough guys and southern good old boys in the 70s made them both superstars. This is when Reynolds was able to use in niche in Smokey and the Bandit and transition.

Bruce Willis just happened to be really good in action movies at a time they were big at the box office.

Pierce Brosnan and Roger Moore were very good at one thing. They were huge stars as long as they did that one thing.

One name that hasn't been mentioned is James Garner. While doing Maverick for Warner Bros., WB put him in some pictures that didn't make him star.
Garner's one good thing, his niche, was the comedic talent. The thing that made Bret Maverick so likable to people. When Garner started doing romantic comedies he became a movie star. Thereafter people loved him in anything he did.

I see the western as the thing Tom Selleck is best at. Unfortunately the western had come and gone by the time he came along.

Michael Douglas also began on tv. Something both he and Eastwood were able to was begin producing. Instead of taking offered roles, they made themselves bigger stars by initiating the films and casting themselves. Total control.
Excellent post. When I started reading it I immediately thought of James Garner and, sure enough, you cited him. I saw him on "Maverick" when I was a kid and when I started going to the movies on my own, I saw him in THE GREAT ESCAPE and THE WHEELER DEALERS. Later, he did "The Rockford Files" and I caught up with most of his movies on TV, including his dramatic turn as Wyatt Earp in HOUR OF THE GUN. One of the few who could succeed on both the big screen and the small, although he was probably a bigger star on the small screen.
__________________
“Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice.” - Will Durant
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 06:05 PM   #31
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,767
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

I don't think Tom Selleck would have made Indy as iconic as Harrison Ford.
Also, I didn't know that Sean Young was up for the role of Marion. That would have been interesting.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 06:23 PM   #32
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Whiskey Warfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Formerly known as Screwadu
Posts: 1,585
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quigley Down Under is unfuckwitable. Alan Rickman as an evil cowboy? C'mon.
__________________
Hi, everybody! My name is Whiskey Warfield and this is my girlfriend Tequila Mockingbird!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 08:32 PM   #33
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
E Unit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell, but currently heading North
Posts: 9,921
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Yeah, I didn't care for Quigley either.
__________________
"Whoa, did Walter Goggins fuck your mother?" - Osiris3657
Perhaps he did.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-17, 09:41 PM   #34
Inane Thread Master
 
OldBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Are any of us really anywhere?
Posts: 31,470
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskey Warfield View Post
Quigley Down Under is unfuckwitable. Alan Rickman as an evil cowboy? C'mon.
Oh c'mon. I just watched it. It's a good watch...
__________________
"be kind rewind" Movie collection
"Even though I am no better than a beast, don't I have the right to live?"
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 07:18 AM   #35
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,480
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Valeyard View Post
I'll never forgive him for stealing water during the recent drought.
Yeah we almost ran out. If I'd woke up one morning and my tap was dry I'd know it was Magnum that pilfered the last drop.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 08:09 AM   #36
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: NW Missouri
Posts: 75
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

I really like Selleck's work in TV and films also, but I think he never really broke out in films because he doesn't really have much acting range. He seemingly can't do other voices and accents and such, and just seems like the same guy regardless of the role. That doesn't stop me from enjoying the work he has done, though. I have quite a bit of his stuff on DVD and have on order the Blu-ray of "Terminal Island", a sleazy '70s exploiter featuring both him and Magnum cohort Roger Moseley.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 08:22 AM   #37
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Perkinsun Dzees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: CA
Posts: 2,513
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by slybone View Post
I really like Selleck's work in TV and films also, but I think he never really broke out in films because he doesn't really have much acting range. He seemingly can't do other voices and accents and such, and just seems like the same guy regardless of the role.
That hasn't stopped Keanu Reeves.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 09:13 PM   #38
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: NW Missouri
Posts: 75
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perkinsun Dzees View Post
That hasn't stopped Keanu Reeves.
True dat!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 09:26 PM   #39
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Shannon Nutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 15,398
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Sadly, Tom Selleck came from that era (early to mid-80s) where it was VERY hard to make the leap from being a TV actor to being a movie star. I disagree with the person who said he wouldn't have been as good as Ford as Indiana Jones, as I actually think Selleck is a better actor than Ford.

I just think Selleck decided at a point that TV was a better medium for him. He spent a lot of post-Magnum years chasing that leading man role at the movies and it just wasn't clicking - then he decided to do Friends, then did the Jesse Stone movies, now Blue Bloods. He's been great in all of them.
__________________
http://www.highdefdigest.com/author/shannon-t-nutt.html
XBox Live Gamertag: PittsburghNutt
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 09:46 PM   #40
DVD Talk Godfather
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 54,131
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Friends is a good example of his tv charisma. IIRC, Richard was supposed to be a one-off guest part, but he came in and owned it and essentially 'forced' the writers to make him a recurring character.
__________________

Now Playing: Horizon Zero Dawn | Puzzle Craft 2
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 10:04 PM   #41
DVD Talk Legend
 
GoldenJCJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 10,908
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rw2516 View Post
Timing is also important. The one thing they are really good at also has to be very popular in movies at the same time.

In the 1960s westerns were very popular. This enabled Eastwood and McQueen to transition to the big screen. Magnificent Seven made McQueen a big star, he then reinvented himself with Great Escape and became a superstar. Eastwood became a big western movie star which enabled him to try different things. He made Dirty Harry and became a megastar.

I see the western as the thing Tom Selleck is best at. Unfortunately the western had come and gone by the time he came along.
I think this is a very valid point. Selleck is a natural in Westerns and, unfortunately for him, NOBODY was making westerns when he was hot. Silverado brought back the popularity a little in the mid-80s but even so the 80s was a rough time for Westerns.

IMO, if the timing had been right, Selleck could have been just as big of a star as Eastwood. I can see him doing Westerns and gritty cop movies.
__________________
...

Last edited by GoldenJCJ; 08-13-17 at 11:24 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-13-17, 10:45 PM   #42
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Perkinsun Dzees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: CA
Posts: 2,513
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

If Selleck had been born 30 years later and "Magnum" had come out in the 2010's, he probably would have been the odds-on favorite to play Dr. Strange.

And I think he would have been pretty good at it.


  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 01:04 AM   #43
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Raleighwood
Posts: 6,556
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt View Post
Sadly, Tom Selleck came from that era (early to mid-80s) where it was VERY hard to make the leap from being a TV actor to being a movie star.
I think Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis and Michael J. Fox might disagree.

It's hard to become a movie star, period. But TV has launched plenty of careers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 08:44 AM   #44
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 36,306
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Perkinsun Dzees View Post
That hasn't stopped Keanu Reeves.
Come on, that British accent in Bram Stoker's Dracula was Daniel Day-Lewis quality.
__________________
The reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power.

- Machiavelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 10:02 AM   #45
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,830
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by inri222 View Post
Come on, that British accent in Bram Stoker's Dracula was Daniel Day-Lewis quality.

Keanu gets a lot of shit, but at least he tried different roles; he was in the Shakespear adaptation Much Ado About Nothing, played against type several times, his asshole role in The Gift for example.

Compared to Selleck, he has range or at least chose roles with range. That point was brought up earlier and is a major reason why he didn't make it big.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 10:30 AM   #46
DVD Talk Hero
 
inri222's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 36,306
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gmanca View Post
Keanu gets a lot of shit, but at least he tried different roles.
Did he try them or were they offered to him and he didn't refuse? Looks trump acting ability, just look at all those character actors that can wipe the floor with what are considered leading actors.
__________________
The reason there will be no change is because the people who stand to lose from change have all the power. And the people who stand to gain from change have none of the power.

- Machiavelli
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 11:05 AM   #47
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Defiant1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,923
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Tom Selleck just didn't have that "It" quality to make it into movies, although he had a decent run of them in the late 80s-early 90s. Same goes for a lot of actors in TV today. Although it's a lot easier to transition from TV to movies and vice versa now, there is still a stigma. Look at the Golden Globe Awards and see where they seat the movie stars versus the TV stars.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 11:57 AM   #48
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
d2cheer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 8,005
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

I think he had a pretty good run at the movies. I enjoyed a good number of them. But I will agree at the time he was making the transition there was still a pretty big stigma attached. Bruce Willis and Michael J. Fox hit home runs right out of the gate. That most certainly helped. Had High Road to China lit the box office up it would have probably help him a great deal IMHO. That said-no Lassiter on blu irks me to no end...
__________________
They banned Snake man. They banned Snake! They had no business doing that. None.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 01:24 PM   #49
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
Posts: 28,490
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fist of Doom View Post
He never became a big film star, but I'd say he recovered quite well: co-starred in a number one movie*, made a series of popular TV movies (Jesse Stone), and he's on his eighth season of Blue Bloods. Not bad![/b].
__________________
Oh, don't be the victim. Don't make up excuses because you're a dumbass. - Lynda Thompson
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-17, 09:15 PM   #50
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,724
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

Picking enough bombs to star in will usually prevent you from becoming a movie star.
__________________
xboxlive: brackster
PSN: brackster81
Nintendo id: brackster
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:22 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0