Is Sarah A Successful Actor?

[white avenger]

This isn't a question about Sarah's talent, I'm sure that we all agree that she is, indeed, talented, nor is it a question about the loyalty of the fans of "Buffy," but what can we point to in her career as being commercially successful since that show went off the air? She's had several less than spectacular movie roles and a couple of cancelled TV shows, plus, as a female actor in her 30's any roles that she would be actually considered for are very few and far between.

The late Charlton Heston once said that there are five stages in an actor's career:

1) Who's Charlton Heston?
2) Get me Charlton Heston.
3) Can we get Charlton Heston?
4) We need a young Charlton Heston.
5) Who's Charlton Heston?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that Sarah's career missed Stage 3 entirely, and has jumped to Stage 4.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

I agree.

I think it's two things, I think when she left BtVS she wanted to stay as far a way from it as possible and that hurt her as instead of running with the momentum of it, she pushed against it.
It's only recently enough she's seemed to embrace that.

The other side was I think she made a concious decision to not be a huge star, she would only work on a project when freddie wasn't working and he'd do the same, I dont think you make a decision like that if you want to be a huge star.

I definetly think her skills played a part as well though, She's made a couple of terrible career decisions for movies, and her roles are kind of hit and miss, she's fantastic in BtVS and Cruel Intentions, but both were fantastic material, in a role that wasn't as good she doesn't outshine the material.
Sometimes actors in a crap role and still give incredible performances, I've never seen that from Sarah.

 

[Ethan Reigns]

I read somewhere that the Screen Actor's Guild stated that only 3% of their members made more than $50,000 per year from acting. By this standard, Sarah has done very well. The problem Sarah had is that her role as Buffy was as good as any role offered to women and there hasn't been a better one other than Cruel Intentions. The biggest winner from the Buffy series was David Boreanaz - he has been working steadily since then on Angel and Bones. Alison Hannigan was the first to get recognition as something other than a Buffy alumnus with "One time, at band camp...". Other than that, employment for former Buffy and Angel stars has been as erratic as for most actors who are not A-listers. The only actors I can think of who worked steadily were Gene Hackman and John Wayne - they always seemed to be on one project or another, but they were A-list material.

 

[thetopher]

Maybe...moderatly successful?
She's not Hollywood A-list but she has name-recognition- that's pretty middling I guess.

She started off very well with Buffy and a few choice movie roles, but after Buffy ended there were some questionable movie choices- very iffy. She did a couple of romantic comedies which should've played to her strengths, but the material was weak. And a couple of preety decent horror/thrillers, but she didn't want to be typecast.
Basically the reviews tended go like this: 'ho hum this isn't very good but SMG is very personable actor and does well with the material.'

There was a couple of low-key indie films where she really shone in imo- 'Veronica Decides To Die' springs to mind, and then there's those Scooby Doo efforts...not my thing but I think they were moderately successful.

I think her biggest career mistake was Ringer...that stank. It was just boring.

And 'The Crazy Ones' was good, not spectacular but it was a shame that it was cancelled. It had a strong casting in all the main roles, not just her.

Having a successful acting career seems to have as much to do with luck as good judgement/talent, and Sarah has had her share of bad luck.

Sometimes actors in a crap role and still give incredible performances, I've never seen that from Sarah.

Completely disagree with this, I've seen a few films where Sarah was the best thing in it. That's one of her problems- she doesn't pick the right project sometimes.

 

[The Bronze]

Man are you guys harsh critics. 7 years as the lead in a fantastic television series. Numerous roles in films and other television series. A millionaire actress who is still offered roles and has the luxury of turning down work she's not interested in. Think of the number of actors there are on the planet and think of how many would give anything to be in that position. She is absolutely a successful actress.

 

[Blaze]

I think SMG chooses not to be insanely popular (like BEG said). Every interview with her has her talk about how she's talking breaks, or wants to spend time with her family, which I 100% admire her for doing.

Sure, she's made some questionable choices in movie, but I do think she's still at that point where if she really wanted to make a movie, she's famous enough that she would have no problem lending a role.

Again, as people mentioned, with such an iconic role like Buffy, it's almost bound to be the best performance of her career, and there's nothing wrong with that. Few actors can say that they were part of something this huge, that is still talked about to this day.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Sure, she's made some questionable choices in movie, but I do think she's still at that point where if she really wanted to make a movie, she's famous enough that she would have no problem lending a role.

I gotta say I dont think that's true at all.

I think it'd would be better to break it down to is she a successful television actress or is she a successful movie actress.

Cuz we can definitely say she is a successful television star. But she definitely couldn't have any film role she wanted.

BtVS was a long time ago, and her films right after than weren't major successes. Most recently she's known for 2 series that didn't go longer than 1 season, and she joined The Crazy Ones because a show she was attached to didn't move forward.

She doesn't have enough clout to pull together a movie in the same way a film with Jennifer Lawrence or Anne Hathaway attached would. Like that film with Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper recently had issues getting distribution, Sarah isn't in that same league she definitely wouldn't have mass appeal.

 

[Buffy Summers]

What's your definition of success?

Being #1 on the callsheet of a show for 7 years - pretty successful and she would have made a lot of $. Plus all the years she was on AMC. If she was smart with her money, that would have allowed her to only take the projects she wanted to do, and that's her choice - the same way it's other people's choices to stay home with children or work part time while their partner works. It's a trade off.

Sarah has pretty consistently been working, which I would call a success in this business. Success isn't always making millions of dollars per project. Making a living as an actor is nothing to sneeze at.

🙂

 

[Taake]

I agree with B.

I personally feel like SMG has made some questionable character choices when it comes to her movie career (like that one with the twin brothers... can't remember it's name even, that's how poorly I thought of it...) and think that maybe she shouldn't have (allegedly) turned down roles in say "Romeo and Juliet" or "Stardust" but she seems pretty content with her choices and hey, she's still working and as above mentioned consistently. That's not a bad feat. Who wouldn't like to do just whatever you fancy?

I consider her name recognition to come mainly from BTVS and I would also consider, from this list, that for now at least her career seems to have skipped number 3. But she's got a lot of years in her yet and I think she's a consistent and good performer, who knows what role might be next. She'll never be the young hot starlet again but with the climate and quality of tv-shows nowadays I'm not ruling out that she couldn't land something amazing (though I believe it would be more part as a cast than as the star, but never say never...)

 

[Skanky Vamp]

If she can live and support herself (and family) and not have to take every acting job that comes around then she is or has been successful. **** knows that if I could not work except when I choose and still maintain my lavish lifestyle I would call me a success!

 

[Lyri]

She's been working and acting consistently for most of her life - that, by definition, means she's a successful actress.

Okay, so she's not topping the billing on the latest summer block buster, but that doesn't mean she's not working at all. She's been smart enough to be able to choose when she wants to work and when she doesn't. She knows which roles she wants to go out for and she knows which ones she doesn't.

ALL actors that are working in the industry right now are successful - whether that means they're an extra in a dumb play in Backwater, Nowhere, or the latest Oscar winner, they are successful by the fact that they are working in their chosen field.

 

[white avenger]

The only actors I can think of who worked steadily were Gene Hackman and John Wayne - they always seemed to be on one project or another, but they were A-list material.

Excellent example with John Wayne, and, quite possibly, the secret of his success could have quite easily been used by Sarah. Like Sarah, Wayne was a grade D actor in B grade movies, primarily westerns (is anyone here aware of the fact that John Wayne was the first singing cowboy? As "Singing Sandy" he preceded Tex Ritter, Eddie Dean, Gene Autry, and all the others) until he was given the role of his life, the Ringo Kid, in "Stagecoach." He was an overnight star, and the rest is history. Like Wayne, Sarah was given what I believe was the role of a lifetime as Buffy. "What did the Duke do that the Slayer didn't?" you might ask. Quite simple. He went out and made another western, and another, and another. Even in his few non-western roles, he played the same type of character.Some were good, some were bad, but more than a few were great. Unlike Sarah, John Wayne realized that he had been type cast as the cowboy hero. He didn't particularly like it, but it kept him in the list of top 10 money makers in Hollywood for decades.

Maybe Sarah should have taken a page from John Wayne's book.

 

[Blaze]

Maybe Sarah should have taken a page from John Wayne's book.

I think the difference is that Sarah seems rather content with not necessarily being at the top. Instead, she seems to be more than comfortable only picking roles that she wants, and is most likely still very well off financially and still gets to spent time with her family. I don't know, but if that were my life, I'd saw John Wayne is the one that should have taken a page from Sarah's book. Why overwork yourself doing something you don't really enjoy when you can live a comfortable life choosing roles you really want to do.

 

[white avenger]

I think the difference is that Sarah seems rather content with not necessarily being at the top. Instead, she seems to be more than comfortable only picking roles that she wants, and is most likely still very well off financially and still gets to spent time with her family. I don't know, but if that were my life, I'd say John Wayne is the one that should have taken a page from Sarah's book. Why overwork yourself doing something you don't really enjoy when you can live a comfortable life choosing roles you really want to do.

And yet, John Wayne is a legend and an icon even years after his death. His movies continue to make money, and his endorsement of the Center For Cancer Research in Long Beach, California is still credited as bringing in a large portion of the contributions that they receive to this day.

In order to be a success, an actor has to act, and just about the best way to do that is to work. "Yeah, but what have you done lately?" is the kiss of death for an actor.

 

[Lyri]

I don't think an actor should be defined by how many movies/tv shows/plays they have under their belt. It's not always about quantity.

Yes, John Wayne made a lot of movies. He won an Oscar, he was a great actor. I grew up with my father, I could probably recite McLintock and The Searchers verbatim at this point.

But I still think there are better actors who did a lot less movies. There are actors out there who I will pretty much watch in anything and none of them have even a fifth of the success John Wayne had.

Yes, he was successful, but what worked for him doesn't work for everyone. SMG has stated that she likes spending time with her family and the jobs that she's had over the course of her life has given her the opportunity to do that.

You make it sound like she hasn't done anything at all since BtVS, which you know isn't true. I don't really fault her for trying to break away from the typecasting of Buffy. That might have been good for Wayne, but clearly SMG wanted something more out of her career, she didn't want to be playing the same character time after time. She wanted to be challenged, which is why her roles are all so different and varied.

I said it in my last post, but I'm going to repeat it - ALL actors that are working in the industry right now are successful due to the fact that they are actually working. Or at least have the opportunity to work. Especially considering @Scobro 's comment on my post, that there are so many actors struggling to even get noticed.

One thing I don't understand about this thread is why it's directed at SMG specifically. There are a lot of actors that have been on these shows that have had less acting gigs since the show ended than SMG has had. Why are we not discussing if they should be considered 'successful' or not?

 

[white avenger]

" but what can we point to in her career as being commercially successful since that show went off the air?

The question was in no way an attempt to attack Sarah's talent as an actor, her decision to devote her time to her family, or her dedication to her craft. My question was concerning Sarah's COMMERCIAL success since "Buffy" ended.

And the question is directed toward Sarah because she was the star of the show and the one who just had her latest series cancelled.

 

[Blaze]

@white avenger

But my question was, "Is Sarah a COMERCIALLY" successful actor?" In order to be a commercial success, she has to make money, and to make money, she has to act

What exactly do you mean by commercially though? Because I'm sure that Sarah has more than enough money. She might not have had the most filled career compared to others, but she still has had fairly constant work.

But if you mean, is she as successful with the fans as let's say Jennifer Lawrence. Than I don't think she is, but that has more to do with her genre of films/TV than it does her actual success.

Again, as an example, JLawrence became known because she made a few excellent indy movies and landed a huge role in a YA movie. Of course, JL is extremely talented, and I'll be the first to say it, but not any more talented than SMG in BtVS. But Sarah chose to stick to TV and the horror genre, which are not as acclaimed as the genre JL is doing.

Another example, I think the best actress currently on TV is Tatiana Maslany, yet barely anyone even glance at her because most of her work is horror and sci-fi. Yet, in the Canadian scene she's a very successful actress, just in a different way than JL.

 

[Black Eye Guy]

Sorry but JLawrence is definitely more talented. Her work is way better than sarahs movie work. I can point to a small handful of sarahs fantastic roles, whereas Lawrence is fantastic in everything.

In terms of talent she definitely places above Sarah and has been recognised as such with awards and success.

I also think that the job of Actor has varying degrees of success, but an element of that if the amount of movies you do and how successful thy are.
She is successful compared to most working actors. But in comparison to people considered super successful she wouldn't be up there.

I also don't fully think it was just her choosing to stay home, there was a time she was trying to be a super successful movie actress, she did a kids franchise when they were big, scoob, and it was bad. She did Southland Tales, which was expected to be huge after Donnie Darko, she did a Japanese horror remake at their height, and she did animated movie when they were the in thing - but none of them took off.

 

[thetopher]

Try watching 'House At The End Of The Street'. Terrible movie, and JLawrence is terrible in it.

Very few actors have perfect resumes, LJ is no exception.

 

[Taake]

I would say that she's a successful actress in the definition that she can make a living at what she does and regularly has jobs.

But no, I would not say that she's "blockbuster" successful, like say Angelina Jolie or someone of that ilk... but those kind of actors don't only land roles in successful movies (Angelina for example has a whole slew of lesser quality movies under her belt that could mainly go forgotten with benefit) they're also very much in the public's eye. That's part of how they become attractive household names - because people are interested in the person and not always the quality of their work. SMG has never seemed all that interested in that kind of fame (obviously she too is stalked by paparazzi but not to the same extent) which means few headlines, not all that much attention for her personal life, and thus very little written about her. Being that private goes poorly together with commercial success nowadays...

As for John Wayne and taking a leaf from his book - he made what - 170 movies? And like 10-15 are worthy of note or acclaim AND it wasn't exactly as if he started out with those movies. He had a career before became critically acclaimed and an icon... Sarah's still young, she could still achieve a higher level of fame through the quality of her work, should she pick the right role in the future, then again she might never do that. Not everyone can become a legend, that doesn't mean they're not successful though.

But in short, as of yet, I wouldn't consider SMG all that commercially successful because I don't think that her name could carry a movie. But I also think it's ridiculous to narrowly confine "success" in comparison to people like Charlton Heston and John Wayne.