Well, the easy is answer is that while he technically has not been in every single movie since the early 1980’s, it just seems that way at times. Occasionally I fear going to the cinema for sure enough, with the regularity of a clock, the previews will announce that, once again, Mr. Hanks is appearing in yet another feature.

I find this to be a bit spooky. Is there a cosmic law that says that every movie goer must sit through another preview for a Tom Hanks film? With well over 50 movies to his name in addition to his stage work on Broadway, he has not lacked for visibility. We see him often… very often.

But let’s back up a bit. What could anyone have against Tom Hanks? He is, after all, the American Everyman. He was Capt. John Miller from the movie Saving Private Ryan, the Astronaut Alan Bean in Apollo 13, the voice of Woody in Toy Story, and of course Forest Gump. He played both a ship’s captain in Captain Phillips and an airline captain in Sully. And this short list merely scratches the surface of his filmography—there are plenty more.

Many of his films have been blockbusters and he is consistent in the roles that he accepts. The audiences find him believable and they never complain about him being miscast or straying too far from type. He can do either a general entertainment or a romantic comedy role without too much trouble and he doesn’t push his luck by going into the egoistical territory of conducting experiments with his films. He is ranked as one of the most liked actors in American movie history—so what’s not to like?

To add to his screen successes, he enjoys a great reputation for working well with his colleagues and those actors he directs. When he is away from the studio, he dedicates himself to many good causes such as working to honor veterans of World War II and sparking interest in space exploration. He seems to have no dark corners. He is what we see on the screen.

Was it really necessary however, for him to take the lead in so many Hollywood productions? It is almost as if he were on a conveyor belt—one movie after another.

A couple of years ago as we were taking our seats at the movie theatre, I facetiously told my date that it seemed as if it we were due for another movie from Hanks. Sure enough, as if Hollywood had heard my voice, the first preview was for his new film Circle with Emma Watson…and this as just a few short months after Sully had appeared.

“So what?” you might say. “He is a good actor and I enjoy watching him.” That’s fair. You could even add that he has, for the most part, avoided seriously bad movies—those real stinkers that bomb with the public. But there are times when, for dessert, we want something other than an Oreo cookie. We want variety if, for no other reason, than a change of pace.

Yet those in favor of him have their reasons and they are not in short supply. A female friend who, while she agrees with me, adds a few more into the mix.

The first is that he is adept at playing the average guy. The viewer can imagine himself being that person up on the screen, a person you might work with, or who you might run into in the course of life. She pointed out that any number of other male actors are just too handsome to play that “Everyman” role. Brad Pitt or Pierce Bronson, for example, just would not be able to fit into many of the roles because, as we know from our life’s experiences, seriously beautiful people are usually not found doing just average things.

Yet he has used this to his advantage. Because he was not the most handsome man on the studio lot, he could express himself differently as an actor and do it in a believable way. There is an aura of authenticity that his everyman looks allow.

Another reason that he probably found so much work is that he is a dependable asset. His life has not been plagued by serious substance abuse issues and he leads, by all accounts, an extremely stable private life. When the curtain goes up Hanks is well prepared and ready to act—he knows his lines and what is expected of him. As simple and obvious as this sounds, over the years Hollywood directors have dealt with a number of serious dependability issues, even deaths, from their actors and that obviously throws a big wrench into filming and production schedules.

The fact however, is that once an actor has an initial success then further work comes easier. Yes, many directors have taken chances on unproven talent and had it pay off, but more often than not the film makers play it safe. If they find someone that the public likes, then they are reluctant to break the mold. This is good for the established actors but tough for the newer thespians. In the United Kingdom it is said that only 2% of all actors can actually make a living from their film, stage, or voice work and I imagine the numbers are much the same in the United States.

While we all enjoy some of the true ingenuity that comes from Hollywood and the world’s leading studios, this business is always finely attuned to the public sentiment.

This means that in playing it safe, a good deal of the storytelling on the screen is formulaic. The truth is that while we enjoy seeing the risks that pay off, we never see the risks that were not taken—and who knows what gems have remained hidden?

With these good arguments why then do I wish for less of Hanks instead of more? Quite simply it goes back to the desire for variety. I would have liked to have seen any number of other actors take up some of his roles just to give us a change of pace. It doesn’t even need to be high-risk, just something different.

The odd thing is that casting staffs do such a phenomenal job of being able to find just the right actor for a role. It is as if they can manufacturer the person they need right out of thin air. Why not then with the leading roles? Why the disconnect?