Heh. Yep, except Dennis Franz was typecast as Andy Sipowicz 15 years before NYPD Blue even aired. He played two versions of Andy Sipowicz as two different characters on Hill Street Blues, one “good Andy” and “evil Andy”. IIRC correctly Evil Andy was shot to death while holding people hostage after his bad-cop crimes were exposed.
Richard Belzer. He doesn’t just play the same type of character, he plays the same character (John Munch) in five different shows. He’s not bad at it, mind you, but a little variety would be nice.
(referring to Jeff Goldblum)
…except that would require actually watching Igby Goes Down. Bleargh.
The word you’re looking for is “typecasting.”
I’m sure you know the following, but I think it’s an important distinction to make. Directors don’t always decide which actors will play the part. Sometimes a project is attached to an actor first who’s willing to do it (either because the part was written for him, or because he picked up a pet script he wants to push) then a director is found. Sometimes the director is merely an employee of the producer, who really calls the shots (think Jerry Bruckheimer).
No matter what, I can’t entirely excuse actors for doing what they’re told; they decide which projects they’ll do out of the scripts they’ve been sent. (Of course, their agent will send them typecasted scripts — but it’s in the agent’s interest for the actor to work and make money, typecasting or not.) If an actor wanted to show more range he can — as many do — find a project he likes and try to get it backed. Or tell his agent to send him something different. Or talk to the director. The point is, he doesn’t have to play a limited range.
I admit, few people are likely to risk backing Rob Schneider in a dramatic or romantic role, because he’s just not big money. He takes what he can get, and he gets what people think he can do… which ain’t much.
Did I miss it, or did the thread get this far without a mention of Will Smith?
Not to mention that guy from the Rush Hour movie… both of them, actually.
I fail to see how Will Smith is really a one trick pony. Sure, he did the “I’m a loose guy you don’t want to screw with” role for a while, but his role on Fresh Prince wasn’t exactly the ass-kicking dude that he played in some of his action roles, and I have to say that he’s very different in Hitch, and while I haven’t seen it, he was convincing enough as Muhammed Ali to garner an Oscar nomination.
I want to take issue with three suggestions put forward:
-
Will Smith - He does really establish a different persona in both The Legend of Bagger Vance and Six Degrees of Separation(definitely in that one). To a lesser extent, I feel he also achieves it in Mohammad Ali.
-
Marlan Brando - I feel there are definitely different characters established in Streetcar Named Desire, Apocolyse Now, Julius Caesar, Scoundrels, Burn, The Ugly American and of course, The Godfather.
-
Charlton Heston - In my mind there have been at least three times in all his roles that he has stepped aside from his normal character with varying degrees of success. In *Will Penny *it is a completely different character than the heroic one he usually plays. That can also be said for his Hispanic character in Welles’ Touch of Evil although you don’t notice the difference in Heston as much because of the huge difference in Welles. Finally, I would put forth The War Lord. Here he plays against type. While on the surface it might seem a similar role, it is not the same character. It is a darker one, more conflicted. He does prove he is an “actor”. However, he was once again upstaged by the change in our preception of another actor. Richard Boone in this film goes from a lead in the heroic mold that he had been playing up to this time to a brutish oaf with some conflicted other levels. In my mind he really stole the show.
Was Jaleel White, Steve Urkel, mentioned?
Candace Bergen. Because Murphy Brown is ruining Boston Legal.
David Caruso
Denis Leary. Rescue Me is a great show, though.
Michael Rappaport
Agreed. The few episodes featuring the “evil” version were, for their time, incredibly jarring… especially when he cold-cocked Renko. That character was named Sal Benedetto, by the way.
De Niro is a two-trick pony who has been phoning it in for years. His comedy is weak (Analyze This, anybody?), leaving a shtick invariably consisting of the don’t-mess-with-me badass. Whether he’s playing a sociopath or gangster or merc/undercover opeartive, there’s damn little range, just different dialogue. “Meet the Parents” is De Niro playing the hard ass. Bullwinkle? Puhleeze.
That said, there are a couple hundred actors waaay up higher on the list than De Niro, but the RD cult following makes me wanna hurl.
You need to check him out in Silverado, then. He plays an amoral, self-serving bad guy. Not much like the geeky guys in the movies you mentioned. YMMV, though. 
Sneezy
And Jeff Goldblum as an “amoral, self serving bad guy” in Silverado was about as convinving as Pee Wee Herman playing Spartus. Jeff Goldblum wearing a six-shooter and cowboy boots–what a hoot!
I’ll mention Woody “Nebbish” Allen, and then point out that Tommy Lee Jones played a tough, vulnerable, confused cowboy - Woodrow Call - in Lonesome Dove. He was strong and in charge (as usual), he was emotionally distant, he was ready to fly off the handle, he lived by a code… but it was somehow different than his later roles.
I’m another admirer of Eternal Sunshine - especially Jim Carrey’s and Kate Winslet’s performances. Both characters were beautifully played.
He did a fine job playing a downtrodden homeless guy in With Honors
Except, of course, when he’s a self-help guru, or a Vietnam Vet. I’ll grant you that he has an intensity that he brings to every character, but if you’re trying to convince me that he was playing the same character in, say, Minority Report, Vanilla Sky and The Last Samurai, then you’re going to have to bring the hard sell.
Sure, if we’re pretending that Batman Forever and Natural Born Killers never happened. In fairness, those two roles were really the same character, but at least it’s a different character than the cop persona he has admittedly perfected. I never saw Cobb, btw, so there may yet be a third character that he can do.
I’m on the fence as to whether I really like or really dislike it, but you should check out The Caveman’s Valentine for a respite from his normal caricature.
Damn, I see that Sammy has already been defended, but I composed this as I read through the thread, so I’m keeping it. And crap, I didn’t realize this thread was a two-pager, so Caveman’s Valentine was even mentioned by name, as was With Honors. ::sigh::
I’d cast my vote between three that have been mentioned:
Sean William Scott
Michelle Rodriguez
Owen Wilson
It’s tough to top those three. But in fairness, I don’t think every actor needs to be a Gary Oldman. I like that actors bring elements of themselves into their performance. There’s a reason that stars are stars; they have some quality that will put the asses into the seats.
Come to think of it, where would Steve Buscemi fit into this discussion?
I’ve met Goldblum. He ain’t actin’ in those roles - that’s the real him.
I think Buscemi is a charismatic and multifaceted actor. He was great as the wired, intense robber in Reservoir Dogs, the strangely charming serial killer in Con Air, the lovable loser in Ghost World, the wiseguy in Armageddon, the sidekick in Desperado, the creepy ex-victim of a bully in Billy Madison… and those are just some of his more mainstream roles. He might be a unique (weird)-looking guy, but he’s one of those actors who is just fun to watch in anything, and always a little bit different.
Tom Sizemore, if you want to cal him an actor. Papparazi , Witness Protection. He always plays the part of a prick, even when he’s a good guy, It’s probably because he must be prick off -camera. Yes, I think he’s a one-trick -prick pony.
Did I dream it, or did they try to spin off the other character he played on Hill Street Blues into a series? His name was Norman Buntz, and the show was named “Beverly Hills Buntz.”
Also, Franz had a bit part in “Dressed to Kill” as (what else) a hard-boiled cop.
I might well have agreed, had I not seen “The Notebook”. A real character, a real thoughtful angry loving sweet heartbroken older man who is doing the right thing, even when it rips out his heart and guts every single day.
No rogue there. Just a great character, beautifully portrayed. He had it in him all along, but who would want to hire him to NOT play Jim Rockford? It’s a great role and as you said, he’s done it ad infinitum.
Bill Murray seemed to have put his entire persona aside when he did " Lost In Translation", but having seen him in both " Life Aquatic" AND " Broken Flowers", I am thinking that he’s making money on the new Bill Murray: Release 2.0. The non-acting, non-expressive face. It’s fascinating, because I didn’t really think hard about what he is doing until I saw “Broken Flowers”. He’s a pretty intelligent fellow and I suspect that he’s making use of his former public persona in the building of his new one. If nobody knew who Bill Murray was, and he had never acted before and we saw him in “Lost In Translation”, we might or might not have been very impressed by his work.I liked what he did, but I was very very aware that I liked his work BECAUSE I knew who I was watching and knew I was watching the seasoning and maturing of an actor with chops. Also, the shedding of the crazy pothead coked-out SNL persona of his salad days.
It seems at this point, that we could say Bill Murray fits the OP’s criteria. It’s just that now Bill Version 2.0 is what we get to see now. I enjoy it a lot, but if he is incapable of doing much other than non-acting or suppressing the goffy side-grin in order to get a belly-laugh from his audience ( which is programmed to laugh because of Bill Murray Release 1.0 ), then he’s a two-trick pony.
Cartooniverse