I realize this is an older thread but I had been meaning to put a few other observations in here and have been distracted by other things. In answer to the OP, no, I don't think the sutta says all actors go to hell. More precisely, I don't think it's appropriate to read this sutta as a teaching that all actors under all circumstances are bound for rebirth in a hell realm.
This sutta appears in a part of the Samyutta Nikaya that includes the Buddha's responses to the teachings of other teachers. So in this case, Talaputa asks the Buddha about a teaching he has heard elsewhere that actors will be reborn in a deva realm. There's another sutta in the same group, worded very similarly, in which a fellow named Yodhajiva asks the Buddha about a teaching he has heard elsewhere that a mercenary will be reborn in the "company of battle-slain devas." In another, a fellow named Asibandhakaputta asks the Buddha about "the brahmins of the western region" who are said to guide the dead to heaven. In each case, the Buddha gives particular teachings that address specific misunderstandings with regard to the path.
In the case of Talaputa, the Buddha's description of what happens to actors is conditional. According to the Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi translation, the actor's rebirth is conditioned by that fact that he is "intoxicated and negligent himself." The actor's rebirth would be conditioned differently if the actor does not have this afflicted mindstate.
One sees the idea pop up now and then that the Buddha taught that all actors go to hell. Personally, I think that's an unfortunate oversimpification that could tend to turn people off from hearing the Dhamma. It's important to bear in mind that the Buddha's Dhamma's teachings are not intended for us to use them to judge other people; they are intended to help us see the path for ourselves. There may be religions that make blanket statements about entire classes of people who are going to hell, but Buddhism should not be one of them. If someone inteprets the Buddha's words to then hold the opinion that all actors are bound for hell, I believe that person may have misunderstood the underlying purpose of the Buddha's teachings.
With regard to those of us who are not monks, there are other teachings that can guide us about livelihood, such as this one
"Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison.
"These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in."
Could a person be an actor within that framework? That's not even the appropriate question. The appropriate question is: Could I personally continue to be an actor in that framework?
I think a certain amount of harm can come from an unclear presentation about the Buddha's teaching about actors, especially in this day and age when actors are so highly regarded. Many children want to be actors. If a child wants to be an actor, is it our responsibility to teach that child that actors go to hell? I don't think so. Rather, I think it's our responsibility to encourage that child to pursue his or her authentic and healthy interests while also understanding, for example, the importance of moral conduct.
I don't think we have any basis for using this sutta to hold the view that the actors we see all around us are all going to hell, or to make any judgements at all about others. The relevant question is: How does this sutta help to inform my own path of practice?