Actors who play one role for most of their career

Perhaps they realise they’re not that good, the role suits them and they’re making enough money without busting a gut?
I don’t watch soaps so have no idea…

I suppose its a regular steady income or maybe they haven't been offered anything better. I agree with you that its not very challenging.

Husband and I were watching a show on Netflix last night and two actors had previously been on soaps. They weren't very good imo.

Maybe when you’re young, passionate about your work, unattached, the world can be your oyster.

As you get a bit older, maybe married with a family, and you start to realise that you are not going to be the next Olivier, then perhaps a steady job and income can seem very attractive after all.

How many of us non-actors settle for the next best, not what we had dreamed of when youthful and idealistic?

I get your point , I too would have thought actors would want different roles. However it is a job like any other , many people stay in the same profession throughout their working lives.

Well many people are content to stay in the same job for all their working life what about all the people that walk the same route delivering letters day after day ot stand at a factory bench watching biscuits or chocolate their whole life

If it’s a role they are happy with and they are working with people they like and it suits their character why change after all it’s a different story line all the time and they are acting and being creative because it’s not their life they re talking about

Of course it wouldn’t suit everyone but it obviously has suited Bill Roach and others they must feel so part of that persona that you wonder if they would know wether they are Ken or Bill

Actors stay where they will earn money. They have mortgages, alimony and school fees to pay like the rest of us. If they are sensible they look around and realise that people who branch out on their own don’t always have a career or any work. While they might have hoped to appear with the RSC or have a career in Hollywood, if they are sensible they are just grateful they are earning money. Also, they can put down roots and have a stable family life which is much harder if you are always touring.

I suppose I feel that people who choose acting as a career are prompted more by creativity than security. But if you're not good enough to make a living from stage work or playing different TV and film roles, maybe playing a soap character for 40 years is seen as better than working in a bank, or teaching kids or doing secretarial work for 40 years.

I agree that it may see like a comfortable niche and not terribly stretching but there's always the sword of Damacles hanging over their heads in that, at any unspecified time, the script writers may opt to either kill them off or write them out. Then they'll either have to trade on their fame or think again. Never totally secure methinks.

Yes I think there's always a lot of angst and concern when a new director is appointed to a soap. Many of them want to do a bit of a purge in order to quickly put their own stamp on a programme.

It's also interesting the number of actors who leave a soap and then, a few years later, reprise their role and stay for years and years. The Sarah Lancashire and Suranne Joneses seem to be the rare lucky and very talented ones.

It's a job for life (not many of them anymore!) and maybe they know their limitations.

I only watch Coronation Street but if some wanted to look elsewhere for work they would be unemployable- no names mentioned.

well, as another poster said, they have mortgages, and household bills and families to keep so why wouldn't they.......several over the years have thought they were better than they were and left a good comfortable income to try and crack America only to find nothing doing.. a good example of this is Michelle Keegan who was in Corrie doing well but left and apart from 'our girl' and one other part has not done much..good job she married Mark Wright to keep her.....she also changed her face so much.

We have a relative who trod the boards, has played Shakespeare, Ibsen etc but had a few years in a soap and I imagine that helped pay the mortgage when the children were young.

Yes I've noticed some older established actors taking a role in the soaps for a while, Timothy West, Maureen Lipman etc. I suppose it's a way of securing some money for their old age.

Or some actors take roles in a variety of different films, etc. but always play it the same, eg. Hugh Grant.

Slightly off topic, and I know acting is all about being someone else for a period of time, but I often wonder if long term character actors, such as Bill Roache as Ken Barlow, have difficulty in separating their two persona. Playing a character for so long, in the above case, from earnest teenager to great grandfather must be like living a double existence, does he ever correct himself during a conversation and think, no that is what Ken Barlow would say, not what I, Bill Roache would say? Hmm.

I don’t think creativity comes into it at all looking at william roach a perfectly able actor in his role maybe he enjoys that role why rock the boat if you’re doing something you love
I don’t think it makes him any less of an actor
Some actors will love the spontaneity of going from one job to another, some will be perfectly able but content and that mirrors life outside the boards too Some people will stay in the same job all their working life others will hop around doesn’t make them any less competent
I don’t agree if you’re in a soap you re not good enough to be on the stage it may just be choice ( having said that there are a few really bad actors in the soaps but there’s some splendid ones too )

I think it’s pretty judgemental to assume if you choose to act in a soap it’s an inferior form of creativity

Just thinking of Maureen Lipman as someone mentioned her. That's when we see real acting as compared to the hopefuls. I think she's wonderful and she and her writer are certainly attune.

The chap who plays Peter Barlow had to have a break didn't he because he said 'Peter' was taking over his real life/personality?

I suppose people stay in soaps though because it is well paid and a regular income?

There are so many Actors out of work, I think if you have a secure role, it's probably sensible to hang on until your "killed" off or you have heaps of other offers on the table.
Lots often dip in and out for Panto or the odd play, but they all need to pay their bills.

An actress I met many years ago in St Andrews in the old Byrne Theatre (sign at the front,” Please Do Not Put Your Feet On The Stage”) Carole Boyd, has made an excellent living ever since on Radio, first on Waggoners Walk then as Lynda Snell in The Archers.

Michelle Keenan’s net worth is 2.7 million, I doubt she needs Mark Wright to keep her.

I do think your forgetting all the life changes the writers for Ken Barlow have used to stretch Bill Roaches abilities, Beswitched
Lothario, jealous husband, angry young man, intellectual, sage, bully, aggressive husband ect. In this case the writing has been good enough to allow other sides of the characters personality to show. That's the old Corrie though!
I would argue that the character Ken has given Bill Roache the chance to play a kinds of types. Maybe more than if Bill R was type cast and appeared in lots of other productions.
An actor who has played basically the same persona all his life is Ray Winston. Brilliant in Sexy Beast, but basically every part is a version of this.
Mortgages aside, I think very few actors can actually play lots of very different parts.

BlueBelle

I don’t think creativity comes into it at all looking at william roach a perfectly able actor in his role maybe he enjoys that role why rock the boat if you’re doing something you love
I don’t think it makes him any less of an actor
Some actors will love the spontaneity of going from one job to another, some will be perfectly able but content and that mirrors life outside the boards too Some people will stay in the same job all their working life others will hop around doesn’t make them any less competent
I don’t agree if you’re in a soap you re not good enough to be on the stage it may just be choice ( having said that there are a few really bad actors in the soaps but there’s some splendid ones too )

I think it’s pretty judgemental to assume if you choose to act in a soap it’s an inferior form of creativity

Oh for goodness sake. I never said it was inferior. I was talking about wanting to play lots of different types and scenarios to challenge your creativity. I would have wondered the same about someone playing Hamlet or Blanche Dubous for their entire career.