MovieChat Forums > Tom Selleck Discussion > Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful i...

Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?


http://forum.dvdtalk.com/13132804-post1.html

I mean I know he has endured in tv series' and those made for tv westerns or whatever that book series is.

But, I thought he would have been a big movie star after Magnum.
I mean I loved An Innocent Man and Quigley Down Under, hell Runaway is like one of my all-time favs and I think they were ok received, but I think he should have been bigger and maybe still doing films. His looks, pretty good acting should have gotten him bigger roles, no?

Guess not...

reply

Magnum P.I. was a bit of the problem he had to turn down Indiana Jones, because he wanted to be loyal to Magnum P.I. and the saddest thing was he could of done both, but Harrison Ford was good but I also wish I could see the Tom Selleck version.

reply

Because he wasn't a lunatic leftist.

reply

Have you ever seen the reception he gets on The View? They wouldn’t care how handsome he is/was is he wasn’t something of a RINO.

reply

Why do network TV actors have such a hard time transitioning to feature films?

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-network-TV-actors-have-such-a-hard-time-transitioning-to-feature-films/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

Some actors remain in television too long - This may have been what killed Tom Selleck’s career in feature films. In the early 1980s, Tom Selleck made several high profile films which should have been successes given his fame on television in the role of Magnum P.I. However, Lassiter, High Road to China and Runaway were all critical and commercial failures. While he did better later with the horrible Three & Men and a Baby franchise, he was never able to break out his television “trap” and even today he is starring in Blue Bloods, a police drama on CBS. Had Selleck received the Indiana Jones role for which he was set to undertake until his Magnum commitment blocked it, it’s possible that he would now be a senior statesman among Hollywood actors. He didn’t and he isn’t.

reply

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-so-hard-for-some-actors-to-get-a-big-movie-role-after-being-on-a-long-running-TV-series/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

Television series are normally aimed at domestic markets and that the source of longterm television actor’s fame - Tom Selleck (for example) has been famous in the North American television market for nearly five decades. However he’s never been a film star of any consequence primarily because his primary exposure has been in vehicles aimed at the US television market. If an actor begins a film career early enough, they can overcome this “handicap”; many however do not.

reply

That is a good question.

Bruce Will made the move from Moonlighting successfully why not Selleck?

Maybe because one of Willis first ventures into the BIG screen was a smash hit...I am talking of course about Die Hard.

One of Mr. Selleck's first ventures was a sub-par Sci Fi movie about robotic spiders that shoots lasers. This might have effected his access to good scripts.

reply

yeah its interesting the whole script picking, and picking the wrong one can send your career down or pigeonhole yourself
I check IMDB pages of people to see where they went wrong

Think sometimes people just need the money, doesn't matter how much they make. also headlines make it sound like more than it is.
Like if you live in California (most of them do) its something like a 45-55% tax rate if you are on a high income. all taxes combined.
So an actor gets a 30m deal for 2 seasons? Well thats 15M after tax, then thats 7M a season.

If they never have had money before, they will just spend it all
Then they will get into a pinch, and pick any script that has money in it, but it bombs, then costs them their career

Not saying Selleck did this, or who knows

Edit - But then there is boss's like James Woods, made 5-10 decent movies, but he obviously saved it / invested it, cause he picks and chooses good scripts and never is really seen desperate or needing work

reply

There's something lightweight about Selleck's persona, and I mean that as a compliment. There's something sweet and cheerful about him in just about every role, it's his most endearing quality, he's the guy who lightens the mood even when things are grim. He's funny and sexy in a fun way and and effortlessly charming, an actor who's perfect for light comedy, farce, romances with happy endings, and of course, witty TV shows.

It was just his bad luck that his big break came at a time when the movie industry wanted unsmiling Action Heroes, and they weren't making movies that fit his talents.

reply

He's basically Tom Hanks but more masculine.

reply

I normally reply to statements like this with "I respectfully disagree..." but in this case I'm going to yell NO NO NO WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!!!!

Okay, the young Hanks was charming and funny and great at light stuff, but he grew up to be an unbearable heavy-handed ham in most of his roles. Selleck had a bit in common with the young Hanks, both were funny and charming, but unlike Hanks... Selleck actually *stayed* funny and charming! Plus he kept his good looks and sex appeal and his solid position on my list of Pretend Boyfriends, while Hanks has been begging for a spot for years and was never even considered as an alternate! No, Selleck is loaded with everything Hanks ever wished he had, but doesn't.

reply

I meant during their heyday. When Selleck was a more bankable commodity, he could easily have been described as a slightly more macho Hanks. Mr. Baseball is to Selleck what A League of their Own is to Hanks.

Besides, Selleck hasn't been busting out the funny roles in quite a while.

reply

His looks had simply gone out of style. That manly man look just wasn't in fashion any longer. It's a trip watching old shows and movies from that era cause it's filled with them, and nobody on tv looks that way anymore unless they're playing the grizzled police captain or something. Which is the exact role he's currently holding down.

Same goes for the ladies. That old classic glamorous woman is never seen any longer and i'm sure it costed quite a number of them their careers as well.

reply

Why wasn't Tom Selleck more successful in the movies?

https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-Tom-Selleck-more-successful-in-the-movies/answer/Jon-Mixon-1

Multiple reasons, including:

1. Bad film choices - Lassiter, High Road To China, and Runaway (his biggest three films during his time on Magnum PI) are unique in that all suck pretty bad. Selleck chose terrible roles in terrible films and that damaged his career as a film actor.

2. He’s not a Shakespearean - While Selleck can convey drama when he needs to, he’s never been a stage actor and that seems to have hurt his progression as a film actor.

3. He was “too old” at the height of the action hero craze - Selleck was entering his fifties during the 1990s when action films in Hollywood were at their peak. Had he done a Die Hard or Terminator-style of film it’s possible that he could have rivaled the major stars of that era. However, he was aging out of those roles and so he missed a major opportunity to become a bigger star.

4. He never sharpened his comedic skills - Selleck can do comedy; however, he never seems to have honed those skills to their fullest potential. A funny Selleck might have become an even bigger star, especially if he had teamed with an Eddie Murphy, a Robin Williams, or even an early Adam Sandler.

5. 1990–1997 - With the sole exception of Quigley Down Under (which was stolen by the appearance of a then-hot Alan Rickman as the antagonist) every film that he made during this time period is awful. Whether this was because they were cash grabs or because he just didn’t read the scripts carefully is unknown, What is known is that they are both terrible and forgettable.

Tom Selleck is an exceptional television performer who never became a movie star for a host of reasons, including the ones above.

reply