Two pages and no one's mentioned Nicholas Cage.

David Morse. He’s always in an angry cop or angry military role.

^Yes, usually. But he was the sympathetic father in Contact.

Billy Bob Thornton

quote:

Originally posted by CQB60:
Billy Bob Thornton

I have to disagree.

Yep, I agree with TMats. The last clip is from The Alamo, IMO, a very underrated movie.

There is always an exception to the rule. I've always gotten the one character vibe from Shelly Long. Until her plum role of exwife in Modern Family. And, Jason Statham. Until Spy. He spoofed him self so well.

Statham has always played smart ass characters, but in Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch he wasn't a tough guy at all.

Bale's range is so good that I watched American Hustle on a long flight and didn't even realize it was him in the lead role.

Aren't we all actors that seem to play one character?

Disagree about Jason Statham. Mostly the same character. But he was great in The Bank Job, and Spy, and the earlier Guy Ritchie stuff.

Joe Pesci.
Even when he's in a different vocation, My Cousin Vinny for example, he's the same guy.

Steven Seagal immediately comes to mind.

But, I believe that most of these people are hired because the producers already have an idea of what a certain character should be and they may base their casting choices on someone's past performances.
They want 'that guy', the one that they played before in that other thing. The brainy guy, or the menacing guy, or the really dumb guy, or the mobster, and so on.
As far as getting steady work, this can work to actors advantage as long as they don't mind being 'typecast' or only given supporting roles.

Gene Hackman.

Other than “The Conversation“ he was always just Gene Hackman.

Yes, he was great as Popeye Doyle, but he played Doyle as Hackman.

As mentioned above, the opposite is Gary Oldman. You forget he’s Gary Oldman.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig Vicious:
But, I believe that most of these people are hired because the producers already have an idea of what a certain character should be and they may base their casting choices on someone's past performances.
They want 'that guy', the one that they played before in that other thing. The brainy guy, or the menacing guy, or the really dumb guy, or the mobster, and so on.
As far as getting steady work, this can work to actors advantage as long as they don't mind being 'typecast' or only given supporting roles.

This is very much the case. According to SAG-AFTRA, only 12% of members make more than $1K annually, and 90% are unemployed at any given time. If you're trying to make it in show business, then most actors would be grateful to be typecast as long as they're consistently booking roles that provide a 6-figure income.

Most actors that get cast in a variety of roles become known as character actors, which is a nice way of saying, "I've seen him in lot of things, but I don't know his name, and he's never been the lead."

When you consider big name actors who also have wide range, e.g., Gary Oldman, Tim Roth, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, even Daniel Day-Lewis & Meryl Streep, hardly any of them command the $20+ million salaries that Tom Cruise, Chris Hemsworth, Brad Pitt, Adam Sandler, Dwayne Johnson, Scarlett Johansson, & Sandra Bullock do.

Christian Bale and Charlize Theron might be a couple exceptions who command top A-list salaries while also having diverse range. From an earnings standpoint, acting range is highly overrated.

Movie stars are one thing. An actor can play any part and make it believable. A movie star takes a part and makes it larger than life. Two very different skill sets.

Cary Grant. Beloved but…

Pierce Brosnan?