Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?
08-12-17, 01:17 PM
#27
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
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.
08-12-17, 01:22 PM
#28
DVD Talk Hero
08-12-17, 04:53 PM
#29
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
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.
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.
08-12-17, 06:00 PM
#30
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.
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.
08-12-17, 06:05 PM
#31
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.
Also, I didn't know that Sean Young was up for the role of Marion. That would have been interesting.
08-13-17, 08:09 AM
#36
Senior Member
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.
08-13-17, 08:22 AM
#37
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?
That hasn't stopped Keanu Reeves.
08-13-17, 09:26 PM
#39
DVD Talk Legend
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.
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.
08-13-17, 09:46 PM
#40
DVD Talk Godfather
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.
08-13-17, 10:04 PM
#41
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?
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.
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.
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.
08-13-17, 10:45 PM
#42
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
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.
And I think he would have been pretty good at it.
08-14-17, 01:04 AM
#43
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?
It's hard to become a movie star, period. But TV has launched plenty of careers.
08-14-17, 08:44 AM
#44
08-14-17, 10:02 AM
#45
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?
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.
08-14-17, 10:30 AM
#46
Re: Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?
08-14-17, 11:05 AM
#47
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.
08-14-17, 11:57 AM
#48
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...
