I’m willing to almost bet he has been in more big budget, small budget, big roles (usually), small roles, etc. Everything and anything. Not that he is making bad decisions. No, not at all, most of these are large blockbusters (MCU, Kong:SI, etc.). You name it, he’s in it. It’s not like he’s a great character actor. He plays the same grumbling, bald, bad ass mofo in virtually every movie. Sometimes totally over the top, but he seems to always make it work. When a role calls for a one note bad ass character with little to no substance, usually higher up now, he’s there.

I’ve always marveled and like him, very much, don’t get me wrong, but he does, virtually, play exact same character in many many movies over the last 15 years or so and I would bet in the most of any actor in that span.

Has this really happened before? A, basically A-list actor in so many movies in short-ish span?

^ yeah but many weren’t blockbusters or as high grossing as Jackson. Wolf wasn’t a success. And Jack is rarely seen anymore. He certainly is much more selective. Always was. And his characters, for the most part aren’t one note or same character in every movie like Jackson. Succeeded is couple comedies. But there is no way he’s been in more in that span than Sam L.

But would you invite him to have a threesome with you and your wife?

I couldn't quite follow what you were asking. I thought you were talking about someone playing basically the same character over and over again in hit movies.

Funny thing about SLJ is that he didn't really get his start until late. First major thing he's credited in is Do The Right Thing (and he's credited there as "Sam Jackson") and he's already 41 at that point. Just five years later he's Jules Winfield in Pulp Fiction, had TONS of movie credits by that point and is a huge star.

I am a fan but I don't think he has the same cache as he did in the 90's and early 2000's where he was in a ton of movies and a lot of the as the lead.

Now he appears in a lot less movies.

I heard he is a fan of watching his own movies which is rare.

He was working pretty steadily in the decade leading up to Do The Right Thing, lots of theatre as well.

Of course, they were all small roles. Before playing Nick Fury or Ordell Robbie, he was credited playing such memorable characters as "Gang Member 2", "Bum", and (who can forget?) "Black Guy".

I think Capital One is where he’s really started to shine.

He was also in Coming to America.

Laugh if you want. Those things pay crazy money. Probably made more off that than Star Wars.

I voted no. Phenomena is a plural word. At most he's a phenomenon. Maybe is co-star in Glass might qualify though.

True story : My dad came to town a few years ago and for some reason we found ourself watching Django Unchained. Shortly after they arrive on the plantation, my dad says "Wait. That's the 'What's in your wallet' Guy.! He's great!". In our household, SLJ has been referred to as the 'what's in your wallet guy' ever since.

Yes, anyone who takes on mother @($%& snakes on a mother #*@&E^T plane is it.

He's awesome. "I eat the pussy, I eat the butt, I eat every muthafucking thing!" That will be on my tombstone thanks to Samuel L..

Yeah, but maybe he's one of the people who goes by "they", in which case he'd be a phenomena.

Speaking to the OP's complaint that Jackson plays the same character over and over: That has nothing to do with Jackson's level of acting ability; it is all about what he is being asked to do.

Jackson had a number of showcase supporting roles in the early to mid-90s, but Jules Winfield was a bomb drop in terms of bringing attention to Jackson. After that, directors and producers wanted him to play that bad-ass mofo, as the OP describes him, and Jackson was ready and willing to give them what they wanted and take those paydays.

The OP asks about other actors like this. What about Humphrey Bogart? In the 1930s, Bogie became somewhat typecast playing gangsters in WB movies. It wasn't until the emergence of film noir in the 40s that he was presented with the opportunity to play leads, but all the while maintaining that "bad guy" personality as part of his overall persona when he was now "the good guy."

Jackson and Bogart share the experience of acting into their 40s before they got famous. I don't blame Jackson at all for working as much as possible when the opportunities finally presented themselves.

Samuel L. Jackson does still have other roles from time to time, but his "persona" is the money maker for him. Black Snake Moan or The Sunset Limited may give him credits with the critics, but no foot on the table, but through out his career he showed that he can do more than the cool mofo.

Props to Sam for not getting rotated out of the "popular black guy" rotation that Hollywood has. They keep him on as an "Evergreen Negro" and I love it.

As far as being prolific goes, I feel like Jude Law had a run there where he seemed to be in every other movie coming out.

As far as playing the same character, maybe Tom Cruise has range but you couldn't necessarily tell with what the roles ask of him. He is much more careful than Sam Jackson though as to how he's portrayed (Oprah couch being the exception).

"I am not amused."

When did I complain? I said he’s basically fantastic in every role, just mostly the same character each time. I never thought it was negative nor does my post really mention it as negative.

If you describe an actor's career as playing the same one note character over and over, that's negative. Yeesh, again.