Is the idea that tv is a step down from film still common?

[Agent Z]

I still occasionally see this sentiment being expressed and was wondering how often people here see this opinion, if they see it at all.

[Cyke]

I still occasionally see this sentiment being expressed and was wondering how often people here see this opinion, if they see it at all.

If you're a younger actor, it could be more attainable to get a TV show primarily because TV is still more common than movies and thus gives you more consistent exposure. The more shows I see on streaming, the more common young faces I see, but when I look them up I'm sometimes surprised to see just how long their CVs are. If they started out in movies, that's great, but going to television as a younger actor means job security.

If you're an older, more experienced actor, going from movies to TV is advantageous because not only do you work more often, but there's a chance that you can surpass your regular movie pay (if you're more of a supporting actor), or studios can pony up a comparable to or greater than movie salary if you're a big name actor.

But i'd been thinking of big name stars that either revitalized their careers through TV (James Brolin, Vince Vaughn, Drew Barrymore, Wynona Ryder), or became cash cows for a studio/network *because* of the star power and gravitas they brought (Angela Bassett, Edward James Olmos, Anthony Hopkins, and patron saint Martin Sheen).

[80sbaby]

Not anymore, no.

The only tv format looked down upon still is probably soap operas. Which is funny because I think soaps have some of the best actors out there and it's great training ground for young/new actors. You don't have long hiatuses like in other television shows and they air 5 days out the week. That means the actors have to be on point because they can't afford to do a lot of takes to get it right. So you need to learn your lines quickly and hit your marks.

[Username taken]

Definitely not.

In the past, TV actors were really looked down upon but nowadays it’s almost completely different. Ever since the “golden age of TV”, I would argue that there’s more “prestige content” on tv than on the big screen.

It seems nowadays that a lot of breakout stars are found on TV and a lot of bigger actors take on the prestige roles for the acclaim (and the paycheck where applicable).

The age of the “movie star” is pretty much dead and with streaming growing and “named” franchises (eg Disney, DC, Pixar, Marvel, Fast and Furious, Jurassic World etc) pretty much selling themselves, TV is looking more and more like the place to be for a lot of actors.

[Mister Mets]

There may still be a divide between network TV and prestige TV. Working on a show for a major cable network, or a streaming service is seen as prestigious, while a network show is seen as compromised, due to the potential arguments with censors and the need to produce 22 episodes of content a year.

But "prestige TV" and mini-series aren't seen as a step down from film.

[Username taken]

There may still be a divide between network TV and prestige TV. Working on a show for a major cable network, or a streaming service is seen as prestigious, while a network show is seen as compromised, due to the potential arguments with censors and the need to produce 22 episodes of content a year.

But "prestige TV" and mini-series aren't seen as a step down from film.

Good points.

[DrNewGod]

The question may not apply today as well as it did even 5 years ago. Covid accelerated it, but Netflix, HBO and AMC had begun tearing down the caste system well before that, when they realized they weren't going to be able to maintain access to other studios' content.

[j9ac9k]

Not unless you're headlining a CSI or Law & Order show - that's just kinda admitting you're not going to be cast in movies anymore and want to make some dough for retirement.

[AndrewCrossett]

There's more money in being a movie star (or was pre-Covid), but in recent years I've been much more interested in TV/streaming than in movies.

[newparisian]

This is an arbitrary standard. But would we ever see Tom Cruise or DiCaprio do a tv show?

Maybe in 10 years when Cruise is too old for action..?

[Kirby101]

I think movies are still much more prestigious than TV. What has changed, especially with cable and streaming, is that actors can more easily move between the two.

[DrNewGod]

I think movies are still much more prestigious than TV. What has changed, especially with cable and streaming, is that actors can more easily move between the two.

True. I'd say follow the money. US movie stars have done stuff for decades most of us would think beneath them, they just did it in other countries. They took the money to sell whiskey in Japan and the like (it's the entire backdrop of Lost In Translation).

Those barriers are breaking down. Talent will go where the money is. I can't say how it will work going forward, but the old distinctions are disolving.

[AnakinFlair]

This is an arbitrary standard. But would we ever see Tom Cruise or DiCaprio do a tv show?

Maybe in 10 years when Cruise is too old for action..?

Didn't DiCaprio start in TV?

[Starter Set]

Didn't DiCaprio start in TV?

Johnny Depp too if i remember correctly.

To be a tv actor will always be less prestigious than to be a movie actor i think but it's definitely more respected now.

[newparisian]

Didn't DiCaprio start in TV?

I mean in the present day, when they're full blown A-list stars.

The Equalizer TV series WOULD be improved if Denzel was on it haha