In that end, maybe that is the judge of if she's popular or not, because obviously, she's not appealing to everybody.
That's illogical. No matter how popular someone is, they're not going to appeal to everyone. I'm not saying you have to like her. I'm saying it's petty to claim that just because you personally don't like her, she must not actually "count" as a success. And I'm saying that the rationales you're using to dismiss her worth are invalid and arbitrary.
Acting may be a profession, I'd like to think it is still an art. But unfortunately today in Hollywood is about fame. That is exactly why Angelina Jolie would get a part over Summer Glau. Not because of who deserved to get the part.
Angelina Jolie is a movie actor, Summer Glau a television actor. It's apples and oranges. And it's antiquated thinking to argue that television acting is somehow less worthwhile than movie acting, that you haven't really "arrived" until you're a movie star. Television is a much more prestigious medium these days than it used to be, and it's generally smarter than movies because it's more of a writers' medium. I'd also submit that it's more of an actors' medium as well, because an actor can have much more opportunity to develop a character and demonstrate one's range, as well as simply to do a greater
amount of performing.
And within genre television, Summer Glau is one of the hottest talents around, as evidenced by the fact that
she keeps getting work and her prominence keeps rising. You insist on trying to define this by the standards of general movie-star fame, who gets in the tabloids or covered on
Entertainment Tonight or whatever, but that's just not a relevant or useful standard, since we're talking about the specific niche of genre television. Lots of people have become icons within SF fandom without ever becoming widely known to the general public. You're just applying too narrow a set of standards.
We are a celebrity obsessed society, I didn't make it that way. I obviously like obscure Brit actors. Saying acting is about the work is like saying writing a book is about the accomplishment. If that were true, we'd all be JK Rowling, and obviously we aren't.
What??? Of course we aren't all Rowling, but my point is that
that doesn't matter. Not everyone has to be equally famous to be successful by
some standard. Your mistake is insisting there can be
only one standard for success, and that's just bull. Me, I'll never be anywhere near as famous as Rowling, and I don't bloody well
want to be. But within my particular niche,
Star Trek tie-in fiction, I'm at the top of my field, and by the standards of that field I'm quite successful, even if I'm barely a blip on the radar by some other standards. It's all relative. And yes, I am hoping I'll eventually make a name for myself writing original science fiction, but I never expect to be as big as Asimov or Benford or Banks, and I don't need to be in order to consider myself successful. You don't have to be at the absolute top in order to be considered a success, because there are plenty of different degrees of success.
And even in the unlikely event that my original SF became an Asimov-level success and won me the Hugo and Nebula and Saturn and so forth, even if every SF reader around knew my name, I'd still be obscure to the public at large, but I wouldn't care. The world is too big for everyone to care about the same things. Universal fame is so rare that it's an impractical goal to aim for. If you're successful within your own niche, within the specific finite audience you're targeting, then you're successful even if you're never considered important enough to have paparazzi following you around. In fact, I'd say you're better off without paparazzi following you around.