All my life I've read that Tina Louise regretted her involvement with "Gilligan's Island" because she believed it typecast her and prevented her from getting serious movie roles.
Why didn't Tina Louise star in the Rescue from Gilligan's Island?
Tina Louise declined to appear in the movie, claiming that she was not going to reprise the role that she felt had devastated her career. Reportedly she asked for a prohibitively large sum of money. Judith Baldwin, a substantially younger actress who resembled Louise, was cast in her place.
At the end of the day, she just wasn't good looking enough or talented enough to be a real star. We've all seen actors in minor roles in movies and TV and wonder why they never became stars. Tina Louise isn't one of them.
I disagree on the looks. Tina Louise was a perfect 10.
And there were other actors who were typecast by roles they played on cheesy sitcoms, but they went on to do great roles. Sally Fields is a great example with "The Flying Nun". She didn't let that stop her from doing dramatic roles with major impact and winning a Best Actress Oscar.
Even Elizabeth Montgomery went on from typecast Samantha to do serious roles on tv movies.
I think Tina Louise was limited by her own "butthurt". She should have embraced her image and moved on from there. She devastated her own career and can blame no one but herself.
"I disagree on the looks. Tina Louise was a perfect 10."
Wow, people really haven't been to Asia much or seen Korean or J-Pop idols or or or..?
This 'numbering' thing is tricky, because people don't understand how it's supposed to work. Just because YOU like someone's look and think they are the perfect ones, doesn't mean she is a ten in any kind of more absolute meaning of the rank.
I have known faces I have absolutely loved, and would not want to have changed them in any way, but I have always recognized that they are not 'tens', whereas the rest of the world is concerned.
This woman is DEFINITELY not even close to being ten, and I didn't know you have to add adjectives and qualifiers to these ranks.
It's as if you sub-consciously KNOW she's not a ten, so you have to add the word 'perfect' in there.. just to convince yourself.
Look, I will give her a 'six' on a good day, but without any make-up, she's probably closer to a 'five'. Fair enough?
These number rankings never work, because people misinterpret what it's supposed to mean.
A ten does not mean 'perfect', and you don't add qualifiers to the number, unless it's something like 'solid' or 'and a half'.
The numbers have to do with this planet's gene pool (usually - if you happen to encounter a beautiful visitor from another planet, you probably should use a different scale altogether).
This means, it's not some kind of 'opinion', it's not some kind of 'confidence thing' as women seem to think (everyone is a 'ten' according to women, so there's no point in EVER asking women about this stuff, or they rate themselves 'ten', thinking anything less would be disparating themselves or not confident enough, and 'confidence' is something they project as being important in mate selection, because to women, it is).
I SIMPLY means someone's rank within that gene pool.
So a ten does not mean anything 'perfect', it does not mean 'can't look better', etc.
Ten would simply mean, she is ON PAR with the BEST-LOOKING women on the planet. That's it.
The comparison is to 'what this planet has to offer'. If this planet ONLY had bug-ugly women, then the rank would not even mean much, but a 'ten' would not necessarily even be good-looking, let alone beautiful. If a six from the current Earth then happened to move to the bug-ugly planet, then she would instantly become ten, and the previous 'tens' would be lowered to maybe three max. Then she would be the measuring stick.
So the way it is SUPPOSED to work is:
- You take the BEST-looking women on the planet, the best gene pools, the best DNA, the best faces and bodies, the people that look 'maximally good' COMPARED TO OTHERS, so they are the cream of the crop, the best this planet has to offer. Those are tens.
- You take the SECOND-best-looking women on the planet, then compare them to the best-looking ones to rank them 'nines', then compare them to anything worse-looking to solidify that rank. Those are nines.
And so on.. the 'ten' does not mean some 'etheric opinion thing', it means a very solid, hardwired fact based on the best-looking people on the planet. This woman might be charming to you, but that does not mean she ACTUALLY belongs to the small group of the best-looking women on the planet. Those women are SO good-looking, there are no better-looking ones (only equals and lower ones).
Women don't understand this concept, so they always rank themselves 'ten' or choose some arbitrary lower number if they want to appear 'humble' or something.
Men don't understand this concept, so they always rank 'whatever their boner happens to schwing to' as ten and then even add silly qualifiers to boot.
If we lived in a rational world, we would all understand the ranking system and use it appropriately.
You are not making any sense using it wrong - you belong to the women who just arbitrarily rank themselves or other women 'ten' regardless of facts.
Now, you can hate, dislike or not appreciate some 'tens'' looks, but that does not mean they are not tens. I have seen women, whose face I absolutely hate and think they are not charming or good-looking to my eye - but I have also recognized their 'general beauty' and can tell their number pretty accurately, because I realize other men would probably see them as good-looking, gorgeous or beautiful.
So the 'consensus of what most men would think' of someone has a lot of bearing on the rank, but even without any men's viewpoints, these ranks would still be pretty much the same, because beauty is so universal that even an A.I. could probably rank women correctly most of the time.
Beauty is beauty, even if there's no one to see or rank it - you can have different opinions about which kind of beauty you like or love, or like better than some other versions, and you can even think something 'factually beautiful' is rather ugly, but you should keep your opinion separated from the more factual ranking.
Beauty is actually surprisingly predictable. If there's a 'classically beautiful skull and face shape' with genetically 'good looks', most people will instantly react to it as 'beauty'.
In any case, your ranking system makes no sense, because you obviously base it in subjective emotions/experiences/boner rather than objective evaluation, assessment or facts.
Tina Louise took the role because for some reason she believed she was intended to be the star. There was a story that during a script read she kept making suggestion on how to make her role bigger. Sherwood Schwartz shut her down with a response something along the lines of: "It's called 'Giliigan's Island' for a reason." Afterwards she bad mouthed the show because she believed it cost her better opportunities. And she distanced herself from the show as much as possible. That turned a lot of people against her.
Ironically now that she's the sole surviving cast member she is currently in high demand. A lot of reunions and conventions want to hear the stories and she is now the only source available.
Lol. Yeah right, can you imagine if the whole show centered around the actress Ginger Grant? I mean was Tina Louise known as a slapstick comedienne? She wasn't exactly Lucille Ball.
Kinda crazy for her to expect the show to center on her character.
I have heard the story multiple times. Sherwood even mentioned it in an interview I believe. Tina has over the years embraced the show though. Her reluctance and dismay over appearing again probably had to do with her still being young and wanting to do more. Young actors do fear being typecast but few realize that its probably better being typecast and getting steady work rather than hitting the lottery and becoming A list.
Yes, and the fact that she turned down the "Rescue" sequel over a decade later shows she still hadn't wised up that "Ginger" was the role which most actresses would kill for.
Ungrateful bitch! Just kidding. I still love Tina Louise 🤣.
Sure. But if the actor is talented they'll rise above it. Look at Sally Fields. She was the "The Flying Nun" and then became an A-List film actress.
I just suspect that if Tina Louise hadn't been "Ginger", she would have been like a million other actresses and faded into obscurity. It's on her to land a good role in film and rise above it.
The entire cast of Star Trek — especially Nimoy — were typecast and distanced themselves from the show until the 1979 movie brought them back together.
Shatner and Nimoy were the only ones to carve out a career outside of Trek (and Nimoy did it as a director more than an actor) but they’re still identified with Trek.
It's really difficult to say. You'd need to assemble a list of the leading sex symbols of mid-60s to mid-70s, ranked, and see where she would fit in, in terms of looks, talent and general appeal.
She was not the only one. Natalie Schaefer aka Mrs Howell really did not like the show but was far less outspoken about it. Also, Schaefer was a millionaire most likely after her GI days. Rumored to have been worth more than Jim Backus or Alan Hale, Jr.. Don't know about Tina Louise's outside of GI? It did take a fair amount of luck to hit it big. Lot's of attractive actresses angling for a handful of regular roles.
Exactly. So they were typecast. There are plenty of gorgeous actresses who never get even one break. We wouldn't even know Tina Louise's name if not for Ginger Grant.
While I question whether Tina had what it took to become a big star, I think she was entitled to feel disappointment and to have tried to distance herself from the role for whatever reason (e.g., in attempt to find other, more rewarding, work). It sounds like she came to accept her fate in time. And I’d rather she related her authentic feelings about the show in her recollections rather than serve up pleasant fictions.