Jennifer Aniston has been in a whole bunch of movies, most not very memorable. She got good reviews for her two Nicole Holofcener movies, Friends with Money and Enough Said, but they were indie films — not many people saw the first, and most saw the second because it was Gandolfini’s last movie. The only thing she was in that was really successful was Horrible Bosses, in which, IIRC, she had two scenes.
The only acting work Aniston had in 2018 was Dumplin’, a Netflix movie my wife and daughter hated (I was out the night they watched it), and no one they’ve mentioned it to has ever heard of.
The only thing she did in 2017 was something called Yellow Birds, which I’ve never heard of and in which she appears to have had a supporting role.
I don’t doubt she’s making all that money, but it’s coming from advertising, endorsements, and maybe residuals still … not acting.
I was talking about artistic success … or, maybe more accurately, “showbiz” success. But if you’re only concerned with money earned, I’d be interested in seeing how the other nine people under discussion fared.
I don’t get this level of (what feels to me like) hostility towards Parsons. It seems like resentment that he’s had all this success because you think he didn’t earn it.
As for Helberg, he is a typical second-banana or character actor type. Talented, but too unconventional looking to carry a show, unless it’s something written just for him and his talents (like Funny Girl for Streisand). Regrettable, and it says more about our society than it does about him, but I don’t think you can blame casting directors.
This isn’t any more compelling than the first time you posted it. Just because you don’t like or remember her movies doesn’t mean she wasn’t massively successful after Friends. She was.
Also:
So here you’re saying that successful is defined as a money-making movie that people saw because she was in it, thus discounting her independent movies (the best of which was Good Girl) and movies where her costar was the big draw. This is a perfectly fine metric; money talks. But then you say:
This is also a perfectly fine metric to use, but you can’t then discount her independent movies as not counting as success. You can’t have it both ways.
It’s my opinion that she was massively successful in terms of money, and also very successful in terms of artistic merit.
Yes, I agree, Aniston was successful. So was Matt’s. Not so much Kudrow, Schwimmer, Perry and Cox.
And sure they made enough money with Friends. But Hollywood personalities tend to blow all that cash very quickly. Maybe one of them was smart enough to invest carefully, but I dont think most of them did.
Do you have any evidence for this whatsoever?
FWIW, here are the estimated net worths of the Friends cast as of Sept 2018. The lowest figure is $70 million. Cox is actually the second highest estimated net worth next to Aniston. Yes, these are “estimated” figures, but I haven’t seen anything indicating that these stars have blown their money in spectacular ways.
Also, LeBlanc’s manager embezzled HALF his money! HALF! (One of my favorite scenes from Episodes; this didn’t really happen.)
Cox headlined a sitcom for six seasons. It’s hard to say that’s not successful.
For what?
I am amazed, especially for Perry.
We’re asking for evidence that Hollywood personalities tend to blow all their money. There certainly are some who did. Here are some examples:
But that’s not what happens to most Hollywood personalities. Most of them have agents, managers, accountants, etc. who tell them just how much money they can spend. The ones who lose a lot of money strike me as having mental problems that would mess up their finances no matter what they do. A lot of people (but not the majority of people) in a lot of jobs spend too much relative to what they earn. It’s a potential problem for everyone, not just those in Hollywood, but most people can handle it:
No mention of Sara Gilbert yet?She was obviously the most famous cast member in the beginning of the show in the beginning, her portrayal of Dr. Leslie Winkle was hilarious, especially her scenes with Sheldon. I wish they had kept the character.
You are really, I mean really, reading too much into this. I’m just stating a basic observation. Jim Parsons’ voice and mannerisms are basically the same as Sheldon’s.
And this clearly works very well! What is negative in any way shape or form about this???
Jerry Seinfeld used to joke about how, unlike the others, he wasn’t acting on Seinfeld. He was just reading the lines as himself. Is Jerry expressing hostility and resentment at himself by saying this??? He was nominated a bunch times for Emmys as best lead actor. Actually won a Golden Globe.
What is the issue here???
Of the 6 TBBT cast members, I think the weakest one is Kaley Cuoco. But that’s just by comparison. She is does the job well enough for the purposes of the sitcom most of the time. And she was just perfect here and there, esp. in the early seasons. We’re not talking about a Kirstie Alley on Cheers type actor here.
(Note that I said “on Cheers”. She actually did a few good things here and there like Drop Dead Gorgeous and Nevada.)
I would guess Alyson Hannigan made much much more money from How I Met Your Mother than she ever did for Buffy. And the same for David Boreanaz for Bones.
Alyson made more from the American Pie movies than she ever did on television, I’d wager.
Boreanaz is the mutant. How many middling actors have been the lead actor or romantic interest on a TV show or three for 22 years? Excluding soap operas. First Buffy, then Angel, then Bones and now Seal Team. While also producing and directing shows as well.
I think Kaley Cuoco is great on TBBT. I’ve never seen her earlier shows, so I don’t know if she just plays herself or not, but she fulfills the highest accolade of filmmaking: when she’s in the picture you can’t take your eyes off her. Her face expresses her attitude at all times, often very subtly. You always have to watch for her reaction shot because it can be funnier than the supposed punchline.
She’s only 33. She’s got the most promising future of any of the cast. She could be the next Betty White.
Throughout the run of BBT, I found Cuoco/Parsons interactions to be the most interesting. In character terms, Penny is the big sister that Sheldon needs (supportive but willing and able to stand up against Sheldon’s crap, unlike the rest of the cast), and Sheldon is the non-sexual friend that Penny needs - and that makes their interactions interesting.
So he didn’t hardly act at all, and he doesn’t, or won’t, have much acting range. I didn’t say that you said anything negative, I said that you seem to have hostility to the extent of his success, as if it were unearned. I think this quote supports that conclusion. If “hostility to” is too strong, substitute “dissatisfaction with.”
It may be that you just think that the writers don’t get enough credit for the success of that character, which may be true (isn’t it always true for writers?) but you’re wrong if you think Parsons only contributed his presence and personality, and little or no acting talent.
Kaley Cuoco was a prolific child actor starting around age 6 or 7. The fact that she transitioned so seemlessly to grownup shows (as opposed to Nickelodean or whatever) bodes quite well for her future if she even wants one. She’s now been a professional actor for 25 straight years, which is a full career for many people.
One of her early teen roles that always stands out to me is from the movie Lucky 13, which has a stellar cast but is unfortunately unwatchable garbage thanks to the lead having literally zero charisma. The reason it stands out so much is because it was released in 2005, when she was 20 years old, but had clearly been held up in development hell for the better part of a decade.
Here’s a scene from that:
When I first saw it I thought “Does Kaley Cuoco have a little sister?”
A side question occurred to me some while back: is Howard, with his goofy haircut, an allusion to Moe Howard?