Is Sarah A Successful Actor?

Blaze said:
@white avenger

What exactly do you mean by commercially though? Because I'm sure that Sarah has more than enough money.
Click to expand...

How much money Sarah has, in a bank account or in investments is an indication of her wealth, and I'm reasonably sure that she's financially well off, considering the fact that she, Freddy, and the kids seem to be doing okay. I don't question her financial security, that's almost certainly an indication that she hired a good investment agent who handled her money well.

Think of commercial success this way. What effect does having Sarah's name on a marquee have on the initial "draw" of a movie or TV show that she appears in? To go back once more to the example of John Wayne, people were always ready to see a "John Wayne movie," regardless of what it was. He made "Rio Bravo" three times under different titles and all three were financial successes, even though the latter two, "Rio Lobo," and "Eldorado" were less than top grade movies with less than top grade costars. "Big Jake" was obviously inspired by "The Searchers," no one complained, and most fans never even noticed. They went to see Wayne. The subject matter was secondary. John Wayne had the kind of reputation and box office draw that got his name posted above the movie title, and usually in larger, often brighter colored letters. That's what I mean by a commercial success.

People don't go to see a "Sarah Michelle Gellar" movie, they go to see "Cruel Intentions " or "I Know What You Did Last Summer."

Studios pay actors based on what their names can bring to a production. Robert Downey jr was supposedly paid something over $40,000,000 to appear as Iron Man (Not sure if that was for the actual "Iron Movies," the "Avengers," or both) while the actors who played Captain America, Thor, Black Widow, and Nick Fury got far less for their roles.. That' a commercial success in an extreme example.
 
white avenger said:
People don't go to see a "Sarah Michelle Gellar" movie, they go to see "Cruel Intentions " or "I Know What You Did Last Summer."
Click to expand...

I do.

I hate horror movies, they are my worst nightmare, sometimes literally, but I still saw Scream 2, I Know What You Did Last Summer, My Bloody Valentine, and Friday the 13th purely because the words 'Sarah', 'Michelle', 'Gellar', 'Jensen', 'Ackles', 'Jared' and 'Padalecki' appeared somewhere in the main credits. I watched Baby Bootcamp, which was a woeful movie, because Danneel Ackles was in it.

Every actor is a draw for someone.
 
Blaze
Blaze
Good point
Ethan Reigns said:
Here is the financial picture. If this is unsuccessful, I want to be this unsuccessful!

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997) $75,000 per episode (Seasons 1-5), $100,000 - $150,000 per episode (Season 6), $350,000 per episode (Season 7)
Cruel Intentions (1999) $500,000
Scooby-Doo (2002) $1,500,000
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004) $4,500,000
The Grudge (2004) $600,000
Ringer (2011)
$90,000 per episode
Click to expand...

O_O how the hell did SMG decide not to continue with Buffy. How the hell did her salary jump from 150k to 350k. I think some people were possessed by the hellmouth! Please, I want to be unsuccessful too haha
 
Ethan Reigns said:
Here is the financial picture. If this is unsuccessful, I want to be this unsuccessful!

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997) $75,000 per episode (Seasons 1-5), $100,000 - $150,000 per episode (Season 6), $350,000 per episode (Season 7)
Cruel Intentions (1999) $500,000
Scooby-Doo (2002) $1,500,000
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed (2004) $4,500,000
The Grudge (2004) $600,000
Ringer (2011)
$90,000 per episode
Click to expand...

And, once again, wealth is being confused for commercial success. It's not a question of how much money Sarah makes, or has. it's a question of Sarah's commercial value to the movie or TV episode. Do the majority of viewers attend because they enjoy that particular genre, or because Sarah is starring in it? I believe that it is more the former than the latter.

Sarah may sincerely enjoy being with her children at this time, but I do still think that her ability to do that is largely because there's no one trying that hard to hire her.
 
white avenger said:
Sarah may sincerely enjoy being with her children at this time, but I do still think that her ability to do that is largely because there's no one trying that hard to hire her.
Click to expand...
Here's where I have to disagree. "no one trying that hard to hire her" but that doesnt mean she would have trouble working. I am sure there are tons of jobs out there she could get. Just none that she WANTS to sacrifice her schedule to do. I think it would be a similar thing to what Kitsch said of True Detective 2. How he wanted to act and needed to act but wasn't going to do it until something came along that he felt connected to.

But I agree with what you say that she is no longer a commercial draw, or not to the extent she was.. but shelf life for lead actors are short anyway.. and female leads even shorter.
 
white avenger said:
Sarah may sincerely enjoy being with her children at this time, but I do still think that her ability to do that is largely because there's no one trying that hard to hire her.
Click to expand...

Except that Sarah did turn down some roles to be with a family, notably the main role in Stardust. It might have been a one time thing, but I just don't think Sarah was trying all that hard to become really famous.

Nowadays, I agree that she's not the most commercially viable actress. But I think she had to possibility to be after her success in Buffy.
 
thetopher said:
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.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen it, but still the ratio of crap performances to good performances are definitely on JLaws side vs SMG.

Just looking at SMGs IMDB shows the stinkers drastically outnumber the winners.


It definitely can't be argued she's not financially successful, she has a net worth of 15 million according to Celebrity Net Worth, but I agree with WA she doesn't have the box-office draw to be considered in that lane of successful.

Just by comparison Holly Marie Combs from charmed has a listed net worth of 14 mil, and she wasn't the lead on her show, so even financially SMG is in line with her peers from Television, but I doubt people would be defending Holly Marie Combs as much as they are SMG just becasue SMG was Buffy.

I definitely question that 350,000 per episode, I remember that figure going around years ago but the same source also listen Nick Brendan above Aly - which there is no way given Aly was having the most successful film career outside the show.


For me I think of successful actor as someone who's out there and relevant, not in the same criteria I'd judge is a normal person is successful, or success relevant to others.
You look at SMGs IMDB page and you can see around the time of BtVS she's hosting SNL, hosting MTV movie awards, making guest appearances on shows. None of that would apply now. Just by comparison Aly hosting SNL would be more relevant given she's been on HIMYM for years and went from finishing that to joining another show immediately.

I'm sure she wants to spend the time with her family, but not being a commercial draw would also be a factor of the work she can do.
She has specifically said she wanted to do a 20 min show cuz of the schedule, yet she's not known for comedy/sitcoms.
I think she can play the straight man to the comedy but she can't do sitcom comedy as well as Aly can.
Plus she did take a 40 min show to go back to TV with, if she really wanted a 20 min show it seems she couldn't get one the ringer pilot year (she's been saying the 20 min show thing since at least season 6 of Buffy).

She mentioned her next project, no details, over the last few days, so it will be interesting to see what it is, what genre it fits into.
 
Taake
Taake
Hey, I'd defend Holly Marie Combs any day. She was the only Charmed one I liked!
I'd still like to know why it matters.

So she's not headlining block busters, so what? She's working, she has the time to spend with her family, she has enough money to live comfortably and to give her children a good life. Isn't that basically what everyone wants out of life? SMG is clearly happy, I don't see what matters beyond that.
 
Lyri said:
I'd still like to know why it matters.

So she's not headlining block busters, so what? She's working, she has the time to spend with her family, she has enough money to live comfortably and to give her children a good life. Isn't that basically what everyone wants out of life? SMG is clearly happy, I don't see what matters beyond that.
Click to expand...

It doesn't, but thats no different to any of the other topics we've discussed. We're just discussion how successful she is, past the black and white successful vs not successful.
 
It all seems to come down to what your definition of what a succesful actor is... (the thread title says "Is Sarah A Successful Actor?" it doesn't actually say "Is Sarah a COMMERCIALLY Successful Actor?" even if that was the intent.)

To some success is what SMG clearly has and enjoys and to others it isn't.

Sadly, I kind of think that a lot of promising/skilled actresses and actors out there have careers where they skipped step 3 on the Charlton Heston scale.
 
white avenger said:
Sarah may sincerely enjoy being with her children at this time, but I do still think that her ability to do that is largely because there's no one trying that hard to hire her.
Click to expand...
I think that if Sarah were to put it out there that she wanted to do another horror movie, or Buffy, that studios would jump on it because that's what she's known for. I agree that her name alone is not a box office draw but having her attached to certain projects is. There are few actors out there that people will go see them in anything even if it's bad. A good example is The Rock. Most people agree that Hercules movie wasn't good but it made lot of money because people want to see The Rock no matter what he's in. But then look at The Crazy Ones, not even the great Robin Williams name saved that show. So I think actors like The Rock are the exception not the rule when it comes to the name being a box office draw. Most of the time it's people that want to see their favorite actors in certain roles. People love Robert Downy Jr as Iron Man but not everyone went to go see his new movie 'The Judge' just because he was in it.

So while having SMG's name on just any movie isn't going to get people into the theatre seats, but if it was attached to a movie that people want to see her in, like a horror movie, I think her name would definitely help. Also if SMG and DB did a romantic comedy together I think their names would be a draw. People that love DB on Bones would be interested not just Buffy/Angel fans. Plus people who don't know Buffy and Angel would hear a lot of buzz about it being a big deal them working together again, would probably go see it. So I think that it depends on the material the actor does rather than just their name alone. I would say that SMG is successful, because I think the actors that you are talking about or more the exception than the rule of acting success.
 
I think she's successful. No doubt she's not a mega star, but she's still a recognizable face (and name) in Hollywood and that says something. There are plenty of actors who make enough money I live off of but who never become a recognizable face in the business.
 
If the order of the various projects SMG had been involved in had changed with Buffy as her latest, there would be no question that she would be considered successful. She has 47 acting credits in which Buffy is the one she is most remembered for. I can compare that to William Shatner who has 217 acting credits but is mainly remembered for Star Trek in which he was in 79 of the 80 episodes. thus, his most famous work was done in the 1966 to 1969 time frame even though he has worked from 1951 to this year. I have had an interesting career as an engineer, but the peak of my career was working on spacecraft several decades ago. Very few people progress monotonically from less important to more important roles in their careers and for many people, the early and mid years may be more memorable even though the later years are more lucrative. This is even true of A-listers. Robert Redford was best known as the Sundance Kid in William Goldman's masterpiece, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid that came out in 1969. But he is still on the A-list and he created the Sundance Film Festival that keeps the name of his most popular character alive. A-listers generally work when they want to, on projects they like and with producers and directors they want. The important thing to a studio is even if an A-list actor is getting $20 million to play a role, THAT IS A BARGAIN. If three million people go just to see that particular actor, the salary is recovered and more importantly, the movie is on the map and jittery studio execs know that the movie stands a good chance of making a profit.

The bottom line - if Sarah is satisfied with her career, then she is successful by definition.
 
Everyone is just assuming shes happy with her career,, But nobody knows if shes actually satisfied with her career. The fact she left BtVS for movies and that didn't pan out, or that she she's gone back to TV and both series haven't lasted past a year could mean she isn't...

William Shatner might be best known for ST, but he also returned to TV and had a series last for 5 years.
 
@BlackEyeGuy Everyone is just assuming shes happy with her career,, But nobody knows if shes actually satisfied with her career. The fact she left BtVS for movies and that didn't pan out, or that she she's gone back to TV and both series haven't lasted past a year could mean she isn't...
Click to expand...

But would her own disappointment in her career really negate it's success?

We wouldn't question Charles Barkley's career because he failed to win a national championship or question Leo DiCaprio's career because of his lack of oscars, so why should we discount SMG's career because she failed to transition from tv to movies?

Perhaps she wasn't successful in every way she wanted to be; but as a whole I don't see how she can be considered anything but successful.
 
Do we know for sure that movies were the reason for her leaving BtVS? She did plenty of movies during her run as Buffy. I just thought she wanted to try something different - not necessarily become some huge movie star, just have the chance to not play the same character every day for the next however many years.

There are people out there that can play the same character forever (hello, William Roache anyone? Sixty years and counting in the same role and he's still going strong) and there are people who liked to challenge themselves, who move on when they realize they're getting too comfortable in a role, or people who bore easy.

Personally, I think SMG is still a draw for some people, even if it's just in a 'oh, she was Buffy' capacity. There are still people out there who want to work with her for that fact alone.
 
I think Sarah stopped doing Buffy for a couple of reasons and neither of them had anything to do with breaking into movies, at least not intially.

After S6 Sarah was tired of the characters of Buffy, through the depression/Spuffy storyline she felt that the character had lost something, that she wasn't a true role-model anymore. I guess she didn't like/see Buffy acting the way she did.

But the bigger reason is that tv schedules are a lot more grueling than movies ones- it's a lot of work- and Sarah wanted to concentrate more on her personal life/start a family, and she felt that she didn't have the time to do that while working on Buffy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom