Sometimes I don’t know how Forbes comes up with all these lists that they run. Here is their latest. Actresses who provide the biggest bang for the buck.
The woman who provides the biggest bang for the buck is Naomi Watts. She doesn’t star in big movies, and earns around $5 million a picture but she’s been in a bunch of hits which put her in the top position.
Here’s one important assessment:
One thing most of the actresses on this list have in common is that they did not carry the films on their own. In Hollywood, it’s still rare for a woman to be the main star. For the most part, women are co-stars or they appear in ensemble films like He’s Just Not That Into You, which was a surprise hit in February, earning $177 million at the box office worldwide.
A couple of the women on the list get paid the most and provide the biggest bang for the bucks and those include Jennifer Aniston, Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchett and Anne Hathaway.
I haven’t noticed Forbes creating a list like this of male actors. Why do it for women who make so much less and barely carry any movies?
The list:
Naomi Watt – 44 to 1
Jennifer Connelly – 41 to 1
Rachel McAdams – 30 to 1
Natalie Portman – 28 to 1
Meryl Steep – 27 to 1
Jennifer Aniston – 26 to 1
Halle Berry – 23 to 1
Cate Blanchett – 23 to 1
Anne Hathaway – 23 to 1
Hilary Swank – 23 to 1
Here’s how they came up with the list:
They looked at the 100 biggest stars in Hollywood. To qualify, each actress had to have starred in at least three movies in the past five years that opened in more than 500 theaters.
Best Actresses for the Buck (Forbes.com)
What I don’t understand though, is why certain actresses continue to make a crapload of money and yet they’re not reliable in terms of box office success. Angelina Jolie has a pretty average box office track record, and yet demands a pretty hefty salary. Buzz and tabloids =/= box office receipts. I’m sure there’s plenty others but she came to mind first because I saw Jennifer Aniston on the list and I’d remembered reading an article a while back comparing them and saying that Jennifer’s movies were way more profitable in relation to her salary than Angelina’s.
This is one of those cases that shows you can get statistics to argue anything. I’m sure that if I looked at the box office returns for a certain length of film I could argue that 98 minute films were more profitable than 103 minute films or something. Even though these things have nothing to do with why people choose to pay and see a film or not.
Even where these actors are the star of the film that may not be the reason for the success or lack of it at the box office. It seems like just another excuse to assess women’s value and make judgements on their worth.
Yep, what Soirore said. What really is the point of the Forbes article?
In the past I’ve seen this list with Morgan Freeman as the most underpaid actor compared to the box office of his films. In a later year the most underpaid was Vince Vaughn.