I have heard several reports on actors from old TV shows not wanting to be typecast. In TV, film, and theatre, typecasting is the process by which a particular actor becomes strongly identified with a specific character; one or more particular roles; or, characters having the same traits or coming from the same social or ethnic groups. There have been instances in which an actor has been so strongly identified with a role as to make it difficult for him or her to find work playing other characters.

So, is typecasting really a good thing or a bad thing?

I have heard several reports on actors from old TV shows not wanting to be typecast. In TV, film, and theatre, typecasting is the process by which a particular actor becomes strongly identified with a specific character; one or more particular roles; or, characters having the same traits or coming from the same social or ethnic groups. There have been instances in which an actor has been so strongly identified with a role as to make it difficult for him or her to find work playing other characters.

So, is typecasting really a good thing or a bad thing?

I would say it's more of a bad thing than a good thing, it depends on what else the actor or actress wants to do really. If an actor or actress wants to continue playing a similar type of character, then it's not really a problem, is it?

I recall Ed O'Neill having trouble getting serious roles after playing Al Bundy. I think he was in "A Few Good Men" but his scene was cut when test audiences laughed when he was on screen. On one hand that is proof of what a great actor he is that people remember him for his comedy work so much they laugh just from seeing him. But until "Modern Family" his work was more sporadic. I think if an actor was previously unknown he should be grateful for the paycheck and the exposure, but know for a few years the role may follow them. I do think it is less of an issue today unless the show is a major hit. Back then there were only 3 and the 4 networks.

It depends on how the actor/actress goes about it.

I remember at one point I think Leonard Nimoy tried so darn hard to avoid his Dr. Spock character.

Gary Coleman hated hearing "Whatcha Talkin' Bout, Willis?" and sometimes felt haunted by his character from DS.

Then there are some like Adam West that seemed to be more grateful for his role he's played. In fact on FG, he often seemed to have fun parodying himself on there.

IMHO typecasting is the worst thing that could happen to some actors. But it really all depends on the actor and their goals. Some are just glad to be earning a paycheck and have no qualms about playing the same part over and over. But many can find it creatively stifling and limiting to their growth & thus overall value as an actor. It's easy to understand why some simply turn down roles and outright distance themselves from previous success.

Then some who shun their success eventually learn to accept it and make an even bigger name for themselves by embracing it with open arms. After Batman ended Adam West used to run in the other direction from anything remotely similar, even if he needed the money. I mean the guy clearly had the leading man looks, talent, and desire to do the heaviest roles and all he was getting was fun but corny lower wage jobs. Oddly enough he was rewarded with better roles and recognition after he reconciled with his Bat-past. On top of that he became an active force in the Batman universe and fans like him that much more for it.

I'm sick of typecasting and I don't understand why audiences find some actors so brilliant in roles they've taken on many times before. It becomes tedious when you're an actual fan following different actors and after a while the typecasting becomes a running joke. It's even worse after the actors have received awards, which makes them even more likely to be considered "brilliant" for one thing.

When it comes to discussion of television and film, I've noticed that certain actors are categorized as "That guy that dies in every movie" or "That guy plays a lawyer all the time" That dude is always evil", ect.

If there was an actor that portrayed a character at a certain point in time, and the actor is only referred to by the character's name instead of his/her usual name, then would that be considered "typecasting"?

Sometimes, a really good actor can surmount this - look at Betty White. And if you can't then be grateful you had a great role loved by many - like lovely and now departed Barbara Billingsley.

But there are many venues for actors determined to avoid typecasting: doing plays, voiceoverwork, guest spots, summer theatre. Where there's a will there is often a way.