But whether he was considered a “serious dramatic actor” at the time has nothing to do with his popularity with the public. In fact, if you ask 100 random people who their favorite actor is, I’d guess that probably get a list weighted far more towards the stars of light comedies than those considered “serious dramatic actors.” We’re talking box office appeal here, not critical respect.
And at the time of the release of “Toy Story” in the fall of 1995, the point at which moviegoers were deciding whether or not to plunk down their $7 (which is the important point in this discussion, not the point at which a given actor was cast in a role), Tom Hanks was enormously popular. In fact, at that time, he was arguably the most popular movie star in Hollywood. At that time, he was coming off a run of:
“Apollo 13” - $173,000,000 domestic gross, at that point trailing only “Batman Forever” for the year’s highest (though both were ultimately beat by “Toy Story”)
“Forrest Gump” - $329,000,000 domestic gross and an Oscar, far and away the highest gross of '94
“Philadelphia” - $77,000,000 domestic gross and an Oscar, the 12th-highest gross of '93
“Sleepless in Seattle” - $126,000,000 domestic gross, the 5th-highest gross of '93
“A League of Their Own” - $107,000,000 domestic gross, the 10th-highest gross of '92
(all numbers from www.boxofficemojo.com)
Does this mean that Hanks was responsible for the success of “Toy Story”? No idea. But you can’t claim that he wasn’t a huge star at the time of the movie’s release.