I think this is one that Tom did for the paycheck. I didn't really like seeing him in such a small role as a rather quiet crook. Such a huge step down from being the larger than life Doctor in the lead. I felt it was beneath Tom(at that time especially) and didn't utilize his huge talent. So I do cringe a bit when watching it.
I agree and I highly admire actors that stretch and do things more for the art/craft as opposed to commercial projects. But I just feel that Tom's role on this particular episode of "Remington Steele" should have been much larger. After playing the larger than life lead on "Doctor Who" for several years and being one of the biggest tv stars, a minor role like this seemed beneath him, I feel. I mean come on. Tom Baker playing not second but third fiddle to the wooden Pierce Brosnan! Tom deserved better! If Tom is gonna play a baddie/villain, he should most certainly be on equal footing with the lead hero.
I'm not arguing on that. Tom can indeed take the tiniest role and make it great. I think most of us here know that. But after playing the doctor. The lead role of which he had for 7 years. Being seen as one of the biggest stars of tv(especially in Britain). I still say that such a minor role like this was a step down and it certainly did not increase his stock value..pertaining to obtaining lead roles. I'm just saying that an actor of his ilk deserved much better. I mean Tom Cruise has been a leading man for years and has been in some good movies but he is not even half the actor Tom Baker is. That's an example of the injustice concerning actors and their ability. All too often, average at best actors get leading man status and great roles while excellent character actors that can do anything are relegated to minor roles and obscurity. It's very rarely that you get a Tom Baker or Peter Cushing in lead roles. And I think that is a great shame!