This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"I think my bad guys are better than her bad guys."
11945 members | you are not logged in | 18 December 2014




Tweet







March 24 2006

Slayers no more - the curse of Buffy? Have the cast of the show been affected by what is known in the entertainment industry as the Seinfeld curse?

Nah. Aly is on my favourite show right now, DB has Bones (second season on FOX, no less), Seth Green is in everything, Michelle is in everything... I think the gang is doing all right for themselves.

And let's face it - Buffy was pretty well known, but it wasn't Friends. And I think the Buffyverse cast are doing better than a lot most of the Friends cast. Could I BE any more sarcastic?

[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-24 12:21 ]
I think the article is ludriciously over the top. Sarah's career is doing amazingly well, Aly and David got their shows renewed. It is only natural that some cast members will do better than others. And hey I liked David in that Dido video.
Less Friends swipes Gossi :) Matthew Perry is going to land on his feet with that new Sorkin show. That guy has an unrivalled comic delivery.
Repeating what you lads have already said, let's run down the list. Bones just got renewed, HIMYM just got renewed, ASH has a new pilot, SMG and Alyson do a lot of movies (as gossi said on the other thread, Aly's the queen of parodies now), Seth writes and produces as well as acts (even if Four Kings was cancelled, Family Guy remains on the air), Harry Groener just got the lead in a Broadway show & Eliza Dushku just finished an off-Broadway role, Amy Adams (who was only a guest star) was just nominated for an Oscar, ffs, etc., etc. Not what I'd call a "curse!" ;-)

Not meaning to copy gossi, but, like Andy Dufresne, could I BE any more looking forward to the new Aaron Sorkin show, with Whedonverse hat trick Carlos Jacott co-starring?
I have to agree with Simon. The 'facts' have been interpreted to suit a specific contention, but they don't actually do that.

Is How I Met Your Mother a "struggling TV show"? I might be wrong, but I thought it was doing okay. And why no mention of her play When Harry Met Sally in London's West End?

Tony Head seems to have been busy and constantly working since Buffy ended. I'm not convinced his career is in trouble, exactly. Oh, hang on, that was in British theatre and on British television, so presumably it doesn't count.

David Boreanaz seems to be doing okay from where I sit. Nicholas Brendon isn't having the best of luck, but he's hanging on in there.

As for Gellar, her post-Buffy films to date might not be popular with everybody but they all performed well at the box-office. Somewhat conveniently, there is no mention of Southland Tales and The Air I Breathe. Presumably, they don't fit in with the argument. Also, The Return and The Girls' Guide to Hunting and Fishing are not horror films.

Okay, none of these people is about to challange Reese Witherspoon or George Clooney, but this is just a lazy article, presumably simply intended to wind people up. Well, it wound me up.
Andy Dufresne, totally agree. I loves me some Matt Perry - I think he's one of the few people who can not only act comedy well, but is also funny.

[ edited by gossi on 2006-03-24 13:10 ]
I prefer his more serious side. That episode of West Wing where the Vice President resigns? Matthew Perry's finest acting moment to date.
Yep, I'm with the 'love Matthew Perry (both comedy and serious - he certainly ws great in that West Wing ep)', 'looking forward to new Sorkin show', 'think this article is way over the top, selective and at the very least ill-researched' crowd. Continue.
Yet another of those articles that struggles to find it's own reason to exist. Short of Nick Brendon, who admittedly is having a hard time finding his next new thing, none of the examples offered is accurate and the "facts" have been adjusted to suit the author. David and Aly, both in new series that have been renewed for a second year. ASH is pretty much never off our screens here in the UK. Sarah's movie career is doing amazingly well (has there been a point in the last few years when she hasn't been making a movie?).

Maybe the author of the article needs to do a little more research because right now i'm thinking that more effort, thought and accuracy went into the recent "Is Buffy like the WWF" article posted here a few weeks back. And that is saying something!
Gotta go with Simon on this one. Is there *any* ensemble show, where some people don't do as well after as others?
@PMMJ, very true. I'd still say this ensemble is doing VERY well overall compared to other shows, because even the ones that appear to be struggling to find work have been working. I don't think anybody can be listed as "Moved to Montana to find themselves."

Here I was thinking that all of them - plus JM, CC, the Trio, etc - all being involved with things like a successful spinoff, various movies, TV guest shots, starring in TV shows, etc. was a good thing!

While a couple were cancelled (prematurely in my opinion), which happens, others were renewed and one even revived (Family Guy), they ALL been working! If the article was trying to be humorous, it missed the mark. And like someone else mentioned, it never talked about the stage work several of them have been or will be involved with. I'd say that overall they've been a pretty busy crowd, even the recurring guests. That's not even mentioning the writers we've seen popping up here and there.

Definitely not cursed.

[ edited by Grace on 2006-03-24 14:19 ]
Much like everyone here, I'm wondering what the point of that article was. It's woefully inaccurate and misrepresents the few facts it spouts. No one from Buffy and Angel is doing stellar, but SMG, David Boreanaz, Alyson Hannigan, and Seth Green are working steadily and are still in the spotlight. Nick Brendon had some bad luck, but working in Hollywood isn't an exact science. Everyone has their ups and downs.

I think the author of that article missed the days of Buffy-bashing since the shows went off the air, so he found an excuse to revisit his favorite pasttime.
I sort of wish everyone wouldn't just immediately react to these kinds of articles and jump all over the author. If you don't agree, fine, but stop for a moment and consider what he is really saying. First, he chose to discuss only 5 of the characters from the show. And second, everyone who was on the show have all done work since the show. But here is a better question: how many have done really meaningful work that will make them secure? And the answer is, not as many as you might think. Sure, SMG, DB, AH and MT all have had regular work. Both Boreanaz and Hannigan have at least one more year of TV work to look forward to. SMG is doing films, some of which have done well and some not; Michelle is the one whom I see really beginning to develop a long-term film acting career. But once you get past them, how many good Buffyites have found regular gigs? Charisma does bit parts on VM, Nick gets roles in bad movies. Amber Benson, whom I love, keeps working in meaningless little films that get her nowhere and who knows how well the GOA book is doing in terms of her making money, and people like Clare Kramer and Mercedes McNab do the con circuit as they take whatever small role comes their way. Ms. Caulfield did one bad film and is on a second small release film. Danny Strong got a regular role, but Tom Lenk does small one-man shows. James Marsters, a truly gifted actor, cannot find more work than a part-time gig on Smallville. So, they all have work, but it is not big work and I suspect that they are still trying to find something that will be regular and secure. And that is, I think, the point of the article, really.
Amber Benson, whom I love, keeps working in meaningless little films that get her nowhere...


Dana5140, I think I do get the basic point you make in your message, although to be honest I don't agree, and I'm not convinced Amber Benson would consider her films to be "meaningless". I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I still think the article was lazy and seriously flawed in its purpose.
But once you get past them, how many good Buffyites have found regular gigs? Charisma does bit parts on VM, Nick gets roles in bad movies. Amber Benson, whom I love, keeps working in meaningless little films that get her nowhere and who knows how well the GOA book is doing in terms of her making money, and people like Clare Kramer and Mercedes McNab do the con circuit as they take whatever small role comes their way. Ms. Caulfield did one bad film and is on a second small release film. Danny Strong got a regular role, but Tom Lenk does small one-man shows. James Marsters, a truly gifted actor, cannot find more work than a part-time gig on Smallville. So, they all have work, but it is not big work and I suspect that they are still trying to find something that will be regular and secure. And that is, I think, the point of the article, really.


Yeah, except that the article didn't talk about any of the people you just mentioned, save for Nick Brendon. It spoke specifically about Sarah Michelle Gellar, David Boreanaz, Alyson Hannigan, and Anthony Stewart Head. ASH is in England, so I don't see how he is even relevant to a discussion about American acting careers anymore, and the other three are working steadily in mainstream projects.

The author is simply trying to get a dig in at the show. It's not like with the Seinfeld curse where the main actors tried to launch their own series and failed miserably. The Buffy alumn have found new movies and television series to work in and, with the exception of Kitchen Confidential (a show I kinda liked, BTW), they haven't been cancelled!

So really, the author's stated comparison holds no water and he's trying to twist the facts to suit his purpose, not simply reporting the facts as they are. The article is biased and inaccurate. End of story.

Just calling things as I see them. :)
Dana5140, you are mostly correct. However, that is nothing new. Actors in LA do random shit. They occasionally get on a show like Buffy, and get a few years work. Then they go back to doing random shit. That's kinda how it works. I mean, Nicky Brendon went from being a waiter to working on Buffy, to working on a Fox show. You might call that failure: I call that great.

Regarding Ms Benson - she's doing what she loves - making little movies that she likes. Call her work meaningless is verging on disrepectful. It's not like she's sitting at home thinking 'I can't be arsed to work today' - she's financing her own movies that take years to write/produce/direct/act in/distribute/promote.
I'm with Simon, here. This article is WAY over the top. I think Tony Head (for example) is doing great. Little Britain, theater, Dr. Who, etc. Now, he's got a pilot playing a semi-autobiographical Elton John. (the way I understand it) Doesn't sound like he's struggling to me.

If anything, almost all of them are working pretty steadily which is not easy in Hollyweird. I think that it's going to be hard to live up to Buffy/ATS and those characters though. To be honest, there's never been a show that's captured my imagination more (I'm here, aren't I?) so I don't think it's unusual that they aren't finding projects that equal the Whedonverse.
Dana5140:

Both Boreanaz and Hannigan have at least one more year of TV work to look forward to. ... So, they all have work, but it is not big work and I suspect that they are still trying to find something that will be regular and secure.


Truthfully, how many actors in television are ever assured of a regular, secure job for longer than the current season? Whether it be the cast of Bones, HIMYM, Lost, 24, Stargate or whatever show you might like to mention. Every single one of those actors could be out of work next year. That is the nature of the job.

The point being that none of the former cast members of Buffy are in any way worse off then any other television actor. They are working day by day to try and keep the job they have. What matters is that they still keep getting those jobs. Doesn't matter if it happens to be in movies, regular television roles, recurring characters or theatre, they still keep getting cast.

Doesn't sound like any of them are cursed to me. They just happen to be actors dealing with the realities of that career. Nothing more.
After reading the article I agree with the majority of the posts here that state the author is twisting the facts to support his argument.

I also agree with gossi, most of the time actors do "random shit". If it were easy to get great work then there would be alot of great movies and TV shows made during the year...which I feel is not the case. I believe in acting as long as you are working you are doing well, and all the actors in the article are working. Nicky is having the toughest time but not all the cast members are going to have the same level of success after Buffy. I think Sarah and David are doing great. ASH is always working and, it appears, on his own terms near his home.

I personally am disappointed JM isn't doing better; however he isn't mentioned in the article. I hope he gets something great soon.
Yeah, I don't mind saying that article is complete trash. As I read it, I kept thinking "that's a good thing!". DB's "These Girls" sounds like an interesting small movie. Aly being on HIMYM, even I who don't like sitcoms wouldn't call that a low, it's in the win column for her. I could go on...

And ditto what others have said about any show not guaranteeing big success for all its stars. When you look at the larger ensemble of any show, I don't think the cast of Buffy has done markedly worse or better than the average. This is a complete non-story.

In the words of Joss Whedon, "my peeps is all actifying".
Why is it that so often actors are judged successful or not depending on how much notice they get by the public at large? Shouldn't success be measured in the eyes of its beholder?

Amber Benson, for example, may not be in the 'public eye', but likely feels just as successful and happy with her career post-Buffy, working on independent films and writing projects, as she felt while actually working on Buffy.

Not everything in the acting world is high profile. Because a person goes from a hit TV show or movie to doing plays, and is therefore not seen by those larger audiences, they are suddenly deemed irrelevant flops?
I'm with all of you here who are saying that article was way off the mark, and not sure why it was written. My biggest disappointment is not seeing any Alexis anywhere, but again, he wasn't even mentioned (although he wasn't that big in Buffy, and only really came into his own in Angel, I suppose, so maybe that's fair enough). Tony head has been very busy over this side of the pond, and well received. Aly doing great guns with both TV and movies (even if the movies aren't all to my taste). SMG carving herself out a bit of a niche with the horror stuff at the mo'. And Bones just beng renewed - and being one of my favourite shows at the moment.

Seems a bit of a pointless and inaccurate article to me.
You have to understand that this is the Globe & Mail -

I couldn't find a credit for the article - probably a wise decision.
Oh, my, I totally forgot Alexis Denisof, whom I think is very talented and I just don't know why he is not working. In any event, I think people are reading too much into my Amber comment- I'm well aware that she is taking a lot of these smaller roles so that she both keeps busy and builds a career that will lead to bigger things. I know she is doing what she loves, and the recent interview she did with my good friend Shiai at slayerlit laid this out very nicely. And in no way do I disrespect; these are not big roles and they do not make her lots of money. Believe me, I'd like nothing more than to see her on TV every week or in some major role in a blockbuster movie. And since I have an aunt working in TV, I am well aware of the vicissitudes of finding work in Hollywood- my aunt was the associate coordinating producer for NYPD Blue for many years. People go between hot and cold, sure. But the article was not as snide as people make it out to be, and I honestly don't think it dissed Buffy or its actors; I sort of read it more as, why aren't they getting more work (or perhaps, making better choices)? These are all good actors, you know?
The article was a self-serving piece of meaningless trash with no basis and no real point that could be reasonably defended...but I don't want to appear critical of someone's work! Hopefully Charisma will land Wonder Woman and James will have his very own Spike movie soon!
Dana5140, money is not the be all and end all for many people, especially artists. Amber Benson may not want to be on TV every week or have a major role in some blockbuster. Not everyone is looking for that brand of success.

I think the people on the board have been absolutely correct about the inaccuracy, and I would add shallowness, of the article.

Actors from the Whedonverse are plugging along doing things in the way they feel is best for them within the limits of what is available to them. Fans and people who need things to write about often seem rather judgemental about what actors etc are doing even though they have almost no real information about the actors or what is actually going on in their lives or careers...and shouldn't have unless the actor feels like sharing. Even then, it is not going to be a complete picture.
Based on the comments in this thread, I won't be reading the article. I already know where the alumni from BtVSU are, and it's not always Television City. Likewise the cast of Firefly/Serenity are having mixed success. Each individual going on their own. It's to be expected.

Look at the cast of MASH. Each of them have done 'things' since that series ended. Some with more 'Hollywood Success' than others. However, the entertainment industry is believe it or not a lot bigger than Hollywood. Or Broadway. or Television City. Just because we don't see our favorite names in People magazine or Variety, that doesn't mean they're not busy. Ooh! Triple negative! How's the boy do it?

Any of our favorite Whedon alumni could be doing garage sales or making appearances at day care centers and I'd still be happy for them, if they're doing what they want to do. Which brings me to this:

Dana5140 said, "Amber Benson, whom I love, keeps working in meaningless little films that get her nowhere..."

You may love Ms. Benson, but by that statement you obviously don't understand her. Independent film may not be financially lucrative by your standards, but it's far from meaningless. In fact, she probably got more self-worth out of her self production of Chance than she ever did her entire stint on Buffy, although it was probably her stint on Buffy that helped her pay for Chance. Benson herself has admitted that she prefers to write, produce, and direct, because when one is acting, you're essentially being a puppet and allowing someone else to pull the strings. She likes independent film, because she has more control. You still wanna call that meaningless?

Just because "the right people" disregard Independent Film, it's still meaningful. Money does not measure its value, and neither do you.
Guys, don't pick on Dana5140 so much. She's a big 'verse fan, and loves the actors like we all do. I don't think her post was so bad... we'd all love to see them be hugely successful, but honestly, it hasn't happened yet. To any of them.
I think that what people are trying to say is that success is a relative thing. Just because an actor or actress doesn't make it to a-list movie star status that isn't the same as saying that they are cursed to never achieve success. As long as Sarah, David, James, Alyson, Amber and the rest are happy playing the parts that come their way then who really has the right to suggest that their careers have been cursed?

The article, by it's very title, is making a massive assumption that the Buffy stars are failing in their chosen careers because of the fact they starred in BtVS. I personally think that this claim is both inaccurate and, more to the point, ridiculous and the proof of that is the fact that we see new stories about these guys posted here all the time describing new projects they are working on. Hardly what i would call failing as actors.

99.999% of every actor that makes it big in a television role will never achieve a-list status in the movies. If they are talented then they will continue to stay in regular work, which is the best most can ever expect.
I agree, Zachsmind. I've got lots of respect for Amber's chosen career path. Getting her independent movie of the ground and chosing to work on her own stuff (while she probably could get tv acting jobs like the rest of the former cast) takes courage and determination.

I also agree with the general gist that these actors simply can't all 'make it big'. What's making it big, anyway? I mean, two actors with major parts on major netwerk tv shows are still considered unsuccesfull in this story (which is baffling to me). So, I ask again: when does one make it big? When you're the next Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts? There's only a handfull of truly big motion picture stars, so that can't be it. Is it when you make millions of dollars? Again, that's only a couple of people.

The entertainment industry is huge, and when these actors and actresses are able to make a living in this industry, I'd say they're already a succes. When you have people arguing over your career in a forum like this one, I'd say you're an even bigger succes, since people obviously care about your work. And when you get to do projects you believe in and simply enjoy your work, I'd think that's the most succesfull one could get.

I'm not saying every whedonverse actor is there yet (I'm sure some of them would love to work more often or do more suitable or diverging roles), but in the big scheme of things, this is a cast that's doing fine, in my opinion.

And on a final note, going back to the actual article: it completely lost me when it put HIMYM in Aly's 'low' column. Sheesh.

:edit: heh, I see Demonic made a similar point. Guess I should type faster next time ;-).

[ edited by GVH on 2006-03-24 18:27 ]
That's fine, GVH. I never have a problem in being agreed with, hehe.
Yeah, you can look at this article any way you want. I think these actors are in the best position they can be now. They get to do all the projects they like to do, without getting their names dragged through dirt. This often happens with super stars, and impacts their work negatively in my opinion.

Also, has anyone seen "The Unholy?" I was kind of looking forward to see that, seems to have stretched Nick's range a bit.
Its a bit soon for this article isnt it?

The shows have only been gone for three years! I think the actors have a while to find another niche yet.
This article is so ridiculous! I don't really need to present any evidence to counter-act anything that this "writer" has to say because everyone else has already done that job for me. =)
Honestly, guys, while I agree with the assertions that this article is rubbish, it also reads like the kind of thing that gets slapped together when a paper's on deadline and suddenly finds itself in need of filling in a chunk of white space. (Not that I've, ah, ever, ahem, ever been anyhow involved with slapping together a, uh, pointless quickie article. Ever. Certainly not.)

I wouldn't worry too much on it. ;-)
I agree with all the sentiments expressed. I have always felt that the actors from Joss' shows have mostly gone on and had successful careers so far. I think SMG obviously is doing quite well with so many new movies on the horizon and both DB and AH's shows have been picked up for a second season. Seth Green's Family Guy and Robot Chicken have been successful and a lot of other actors have has recurring, supporting roles in other series such as Charmed, Veronica Mars and Alias. I would like to see Alexis Denisof in something though! He's the only one I haven't seen or heard of being in anything since the series ended.
Ol' Dana is still a GUY! :-) We do not want to get back to talking about my bits, like we did last thread a week or so ago, lol.

Zachsmind, you don't know me so please don't personalize your comments. And to be clear, you are, at least insofar as Shiai's recent interview is concerned, wrong about Amber. She made it very clear that what she hopes to be doing ten years from now is acting; that is where she finds her greatest joy. Yes, she has done the direction thing, both with Chance and with LLL, and I am certain that she took great happiness in those tasks. I own Chance and I have a signed pic from her sitting on my desk at work, even though I am way too old to be doing that (she is young enough to be my daughter); I've supported her work by my writing and by my donations and purchases. She has stated that she takes these roles because they interest her and I am grateful for her continued support for gay film work. And my comments never even menioned indie film, so how you came to the conclusion I have anything against indie films is beyond me. To clarify, she can do what she wants, of course. I think the films are such small release films that they really do not help her develop her career, and that is simply my opinion. Just as I think that Aly doing Date Movie did not help hers. I might be right, I might be wrong, but it is just my opinion.
I was curious so I checked some numbers at Box Office Mojo...now I know box office doesn't equate to quality but it does equate to "success" I think, folks who star in movies that do well at the box office usually have little problem getting work so...here are some interesting box office numbers:
Date Movie (still #14 on chart, 34th day)...$20 million production cost...$63,866,342 worldwide.
American Pie I...$11m production cost...$235,483,004.
American Pie II...$30m production cost...$287,553,595.
American Wedding...$55m production cost...$231,002,553.
The Grudge...$10m production cost...$186,859,362.
Cruel Intentions...$10.5m production cost...$75,902,208.
Scooby Do...$84m production cost...$275,650,703.
Scooby Do II...production cost unknown...$181,466,833.
Now, we can clearly debate the quality of some of those but one thing is clear...no dogs there! I suspect the studios would say they were quite happy with those results and I doubt they feel Sarah or Aly is "cursed"!
All this sound and fury (and ranting and research) for a casual op-ed piece that is both snotty and sloppy. It's interesting how sometimes these pieces generate snickers and other times intenseness.
I think this person has mentioned SMG without having any clue about her career at all. I didn't even bother to read what was said about the others after her. Firstly, the Scooby movies aren't even really post-Buffy in the sense of her long-term career. The first was very much made and released while the show was still in production and the second followed from that original contract. People may not like the films and they are completely entitled to that opinion, but they certainly made lots of money.

To really discuss her post-Buffy career, the starting point is The Grudge, undoubtedly a good career move. That's the only film that's been released as of yet, but she seems to be in demand. There's The Return, which most definitely isn't a horror film as has been pointed out. Then there is Southland Tales, The Air I Breathe, Girls' Guide, Alice and a brief cameo in The Grudge 2 (which she will probably be paid a very nice sum for after the huge success of the first film). Since only The Grudge films are in the horror genre, she certainly hasn't been typecast in that respect.

It seems like this person used nothing more than imdb to come up with the points in this article, which explains some of the incorrect information and superficial take on things. I'm guessing it was the same for the others mentioned.

[ edited by Impossible on 2006-03-24 20:47 ]
I agree with RambleOn623- it's just a piece of poorly written "journalism". Do you think the author of that article comes to whedonesque to see how much sh%te he stirs up? Cuz it was a fairly meaningless piece. Give me some of DB's or Aly's "lack of sucess" - I could put that money to some good use!
Actually, Simon posted the link to that article.
Well, I think Sarah is doing great. She has a lot more than that list.

And Alyson has great chances in cinema too.
Tony has Him & Us.
Michelle has a lot of future.
So the article annoyed me so much that I sent some feedback to the editor just pointing out some inaccurate information they had. No I was not a crazy fan but I think if you are going to publish something you should do it accurately and this was not. Perhaps the point of the article was to say hey look they aren't box office hits but SMG, DB, AH & ASH are all doing well. NB is the exception. I'm personally really impressed with how well the cast of BtVS and Ats is doing. They are all doing relatively well, some more then others but that's Hollywood for ya.
Yeah, it just seemed an odd show to use as an example - there are many other shows he could have used as an example for the cast not doing well after it ended. Frankly, the whole Seinfeld curse is blown out of proportion anyway as most shows that are big hits in their day never seem to have a cast that goes on to bigger and better things. For an example Dallas was huge in it's day but how many of that cast had even moderate success after the show ended?
I suspect whoever wrote it will judge the success of the column by the amount of outraged posts on the internet. They are not only a troll, but worse, a troll with a paycheck.

[ edited by giles (yes, it is my real name) on 2006-03-24 23:57 ]
Wow, I'll bet the authors smiling to himself, thinking how much fun it was poking a stick into this bee's nest.

I wonder how long it'll be before we get another stab?
I sort of read it more as, why aren't they getting more work (or perhaps, making better choices)? These are all good actors, you know?

If artistic and commercial success in H'wood were easy for good actors to achieve, then this question would be a lot of fun to answer. But it isn't. 80% of everything produced for the movies or TV is blah -- frankly, I thought Kitchen Confidential the best post-BtVS project any cast member had landed, and it was cancelled. While I thought The Grudge boring and unscary, and contrary to my expectations, it and NOT BtVS has launched SMG higher to touching the A-List. She may have landed magazine covers and such with Buffy, but The Grudge proved she could "open" a movie with her name alone. And 2 former cast members are in steady TV shows that are, by objective (if not artistic) standards, doing better than BtVS and AtS; Bones and Aly's show are both on bigger networks, get better ratings and have been easily renewed for next year. At this point, they are both making more money and getting more exposure (in terms of number of people watching them weekly) than they ever did for BtVS or AtS.

So they're on shows or doing movies that are conventionally successful but not memorable, not intriguing, not as interesting as their work on Jossian shows. Well, the sad fact is that good actors are lucky to get steady work in unremarkable but successful shows and movies. To want them to work again in something the caliber of a Joss-written show is to realize how fricken sparse they are on the ground -- how rare and precious they are, and how very unlikely it is for lightning to strike twice. As it is, I think soon SMG will have the clout to get very interesting work, and work with very interesting directors and writers. She's already in the new Richard Kelly movie (he did Donnie Darko) and the movie with the twisted Alice-in-Wonderland concept sounds interesting as well. But we can only see.
Wow, lots of commotion from a sloppy article. And if you think of articles as devices to attract attention to the ads that support it - they WIN!

In the end we can debate what is a meaningful acting job, or the applicability of that to these relatively young actors and all that. But when thinking of this sort of thing, I always hark back to a statistic that the average SAG (or was it Actor's Equity?) actor earned an average of $6,000.00 per year. Even if that number is a 5-10 years old, that's not enough for anyone to live on. So my rule of thumb is that if an actor is working - they're successful. Look at the guy who did the Dunkin Donut commercials - he had steady work for well over a decade. So what if he didn't do a lot of Shakespeare or "meaningful" films - he was working, as an actor.

Personally my guage of whether the film or show is good is whether you remember it afterwards and if you'd be willing to watch it again. Or again and again. And I'm not talking about us and our joy at watching the Buffy or Angel or Firefly DVDs - how many of you have seen that 1940's Frank Capra directed box office and critical flop - "It's a Wonderful Life"?

Dana5140 - LOL, it seems like you can understand why George O'Dowd changed his stage name to Boy George, can't you now?

As for me, well I had to go out and get a DVR just to keep up with our favorite whedonverse alums on HIMYM, Bones and Veronica Mars...
By "cursed" they mean "sucess" then ya.
Lame article. Acting on a television show or in a motion picture are in and of themselves significant achievements for 99% of the actors out there, regardless of the work's critical reception.
ZachsMind mentioned Mash and that made me think of Alan Alda, certianly Alan was to Mash what Sarah was to Buffy. I looked on IMDB - Mash ended in 1983. Alan Alda has been working ever since but I think most people would have a hard time naming 5 films he was in since Mash. In 2004 he won an Oscar for his part in The Aviator. When is he judged successful? I see his whole career as successful, he was always working.
Alan Alda was nominated in the best supporting actor category for 'The Aviator' but he didn't actually win. The award went to Morgan Freeman for 'Million Dollar Baby'. However, I do agree with the point Passsion makes, although of course 'MASH' was a far more successful and well-known show than 'Buffy'. I'd be very happy if SMG were ever to achieve the kind of respect that Alda is (rightfully) afforded.
I didn't see "Million Dollar Baby", I will have to rent it.

I did think Alan Alda was wonderful in "The Aviator". I guess in my mind Alan won ... because I wanted him to! Alec Baldwin was also excellent in "The Aviator"(and I am not generally a big fan of his).
I did think Alan Alda was wonderful in "The Aviator"...


I think Alda is pretty much wonderful in everything he does, no matter what the quality of the material.
Kyrax, how ya doing, dude? :-) I'm still looking for that recumbent...

Anyway, yeah, and me with two wives (not at the same time!), one named Randee and the other Gail- no end of problems with the heavy phone breathers back in the day, since all our names are ambisexual. :-)

Which is all OT, I know. I still think there was lot of ire over a pretty simple article that wasn't worth the commotion. :-)
Actually, the article demonstrates exactly the opposite of what the writer is stating. How many actors on successful television shows go on to star in another successful series, especially immediately after the close of the first series? Very few. Mary Tyler Moore comes to mind - she got her series only about 4 or 5 years after the Dick van Dyke show. Cheers' Ted Danson managed to score a successful second series, but there were what ten years in between and at least one series flop in that time, and Frasier got a spinoff, but none of the other actors in what was a very talented bunch. Of course William Shatner is on his second big series and that only took 30 years, and the Iron Chefs in between. It seems to me that the fact that Alyson Hannigan and David Boreanaz are major characters in new series that have been renewed, that Nick Brendon and Seth Green made it as far as new series even if they didn't last, that Charisma Carpenter, Aly Hannigan, Amy Ackerman, and James Marston landed recurring roles in other series suggests that when it comes to television, Buffyverse actors have been MORE succesful than most in their immediate careers.

As for the "Seinfeld curse", none of those people have had any career successes since then because none of them have a lick of actual talent. That show got by on Jewish stereotype schtick that was old when I was a kid in the 50s, that happened to click with a national 'tude about New York City. As far as I'm concerned you couldn't get those people off television fast enough.
Of course William Shatner is on his second big series

Wasn't T.J. Hooker a hit for a few seasons?
I'm usually just a lurker here, but I've actually got something to say.

First of all, David is starring in a successful basically 1 year after the cancellation of Angel. Aly is likewise doing the same after 2 years. James has a recurring role on a successful series after 1 year. Buffy was Emma Caulfield's second successful series (she had a role on 90210 for a couple seasons). ASH is doing his thing, as is Amber Benson. J. August is on a new series (hope he's not typecast as a lawyer-type). Charisma is playing recurring role on VM and raising her children. The only big players really not working at the moment are Nick and Alexis, but my wife and I have been wondering if Alexis isn't playing manager for Aly.

I'd say that is a rather large amount of success for a series. Just a few long running series examples would be:

MASH--already mentioned
Star Trek -- Only Bill Shatner has ever really been in the spotlight. The rest of the original cast are probably the most typecase cast, ever.
Star Trek, the Next Generation-- Patrick Stewart has gone on to other lucrative things, but has anybody seen any of the rest of that cast?
Seinfeld--Already mentioned
Roseanne--Tom Arnold and John Goodman had fair luck as supporting actors. Glenn Quinn got a starring role on Angel before his untimely death.
Dallas--????
Falcon Crest--voice of Charlie--that's about it.
ER--George Clooney--that's about it

The Truth of the matter is, its rare for a television actor to become a major hollywood star, very few actually make the transition one way of the other. Dan Akroyd, Bill Murray, Patrick Stewart, Bill Shatner, SMG, Aly, The Rock, Alan Tudyk, and James Garner have all had decent film careers.

When you think about it, though, how many television actors have made A-list power hitter careers? Clint Eastwood, Jamie Foxx, Jim Carrey, and George Clooney come to mind, and who knows what the future holds for SMG, Aly and The Rock (who is only included on this list because of the lack of action hero's such as Chuck Norris, Sly Stallone, and Arnold at the moment)?
Don't forget Bruce Willis. I mean, c'mon, how can you forget the guy that starred in Die Hard!!!

Sorry, automatic response ... now where is my Die Hard trilogy box set again? ;)
Wasn't T.J. Hooker a hit for a few seasons?


Unfortunately that was the case.
I have to disagree with this article. Sarah has been doing well, she hasn't been too visible in the last year or so, but she has a lot of high profile projects in the pipeline and her career is definitely going to be getting even better. Alyson has been working fairly steadily and been quite successful with American Pie and Date Movie, even though I personally don't really enjoy those films. I was under the impression that HIMYM was doing quite well, too.

I basically just don't see the foundation for this article. Sure, a few castmembers haven't been working on too much lately, like Nick or Alexis, but nearly all of them have been working to some degree, Nick was on Kitchen Confidential and Charisma has been guest starring in several series, and then people like David Boreanaz have been a main castmember in a fairly succesful series whilst SMG has been working on several films. ASH has continued to go Little Britian and guest spots on different British TV series.

Seth Green has also been insanely busy in the past few years, and been involved in many interesting projects. I know the writer was referring more to Buffy than Angel, but the mentions of DB and Charisma reminded me that Angel castmembers are doing well too- Amy certainly did very well moving to Alias for its last season.

I'm really excited to see where the castmembers go in the future, and although I know practically all of them deserve to be in successful, respected projects, luck may not pan out that way, or in some cases, they may not want to go in that direction, or have placed other things in higher priority, like their family, which is something I completely respect. But I think most of them will continue to work in some capacity and they will definitely be successful in whatever they do.

I am a little worried about the lack of Nick Brendon and Emma Caufield. They definitely played two of my favourite characters on Buffy, and I really think its a shame that Emma's amazing comic ability isn't being exploited. I remember reading that she was going to have a part in Munich, but judging from IMDB I assume that was only a rumour.
Is anyone really outraged over this article? We just find it odd. If any show DIDNT have a Seinfield curse on it--Buffy would come to mind. Almost all the actors/writers have worked since they left the show. Just check Imdb..

Sarah has done several movies. (They are filming, in pre-production or post production.) Seth has had a series and several movies, James did two movies, worked recurring role in SMALLVILLE and is nominated for a Spacey Award, David and Ally are on shows that have been renewed, Amy was made a regular in Alias, J August Richards is in a new series--CONVICTION, Nick did a movie and a series, Tony Head is everywhere in ENgland and is in the Elton John Pilot, As someone said, Buffy was Emma's SECOND successful series. so I'd say this is pretty good.

Then you have the writers--Joss, Fury (Nominated for an Emmy) Jane, Stephen Deknight, Drew Goddard etc. etc--all working steadily. I'm thinking that Buffy/Angel had more the Midas touch then the Seinfield curse.

[ edited by spikeylover on 2006-03-26 17:36 ]
"Don't forget Bruce Willis."

While we are at it we should probably include people like Michael J. Fox, John Travolta, and Steve McQueen as people who were on TV shows before they achieved success in the movies. There were others, but they all happened differently and at different rates. On the other hand should success in movies be the measure unless that is what the actors actually has his or her heart set on?

The interesting thing is, it is unusual for more than one or two people from a show to become "names" in their field from any one show. "Welcome Back Kotter" spawned John Travolta and...John Travolta. That is why shows like "Your Show of Shows" stands out. The writing talent on that show reads like a who's who for comedy for the next couple decades afterward. There were other variety/comedy shows that we can look back on like that as well. "The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour" comes to mind. But those are writers, not actors.

I think with Joss's shows, people are going to look back and see a cast of writers that make a mark, but I think the actors are also going to do very well in their chosen endeavors...of which I expect there to be a variety. I repeat; what is valued as success by one person is not always what another person wants for his or her life. Money and fame are not the most important things to everyone. They are certainly not the main reason most quality artists get into their profession. Judging an artist's success by how much money they are paid or how commercial their work is, is denigrating the artist and the work.
Both Boreanaz and Hannigan have at least one more year of TV work to look forward to.

I just found this quote funny. Six years later, both shows are still on the air!

[ edited by RogueScribner on 2012-10-10 14:33 ]

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home