« Bat Bucks | Main | If It's Friday, It Must Be BYOB »

July 23, 2008

Hot Button - Forbes' List Is A Disaster

Why are journalists who know better talking about this idiotic Forbes value list as though it made sense?

And then I realize… it’s late summer! Any crap flies as news about now!

I mean, seriously. I have never read anything quite as random and profoundly irrelevant. The list purports to actually say something about the value of actors, but it is so random about the circumstances of rankings, you have to throw your hands up in the air.

=================

How did Hugh Jackman get to #9 on this list with 3 films grossing a total of $73.7 million… two outright flops and one soft grosser? Apparently, these three films happen to be the ones he did for $7.4 million total.

Yet where is Daniel Radcliffe on this list with $832 million from his last three films… his “gross income for studios for every dollar he was paid” can’t be less than $10, can it?

What about Seth Rogen, whose last three films grossed $345.9 and for which he got paid, what, $6 million total? $10 million total? Even $15 million total (and he is surely now getting paid that per film) means a $23 return per dollar, blowing away everyone else. And unlike many on this list, he earned every dime of it.

And if anyone at Forbes wants to pretend this project took months and months to research, I cry “bullshit” on them. Anything more than 2 weeks doing this was a waste of a salary. Really. Not complex. I ran the numbers on the first 10 people on the list in less than 30 minutes.

The rest...

Posted by dpoland at July 23, 2008 10:35 PM

Comments

Yes! I knew dPo would find a way to destroy this list. Though - that's why he's a journalist and I'm not.

Issues:

Why does Jackman's Scoop count? BO Mojo has it at only 541 theaters?

Stiller: His total should be 567m, no? Poland error I think...(Typo, so irrelevant?)

For 9 of the top 20, one movie accounts for over 65% of the total gross. Forbes doesn't consider outliers? Or, doesn't Forbes consider that, perhaps, if not for Denzel in Inside Man at 16, Foster wouldn't get to 14?

How does Jackman, at only 73.7m, even make the list? Surely he's the weakest per theater? (Unless you count X3, which you should, since Scoop shouldn't count.)

If Ocean's, as an ensemble, counts, why doesn't Lucky Number Slevin, for Willis?

Stupid, stupid list. (Hindsight.)

I would LOVE to know why Fred Claus didn't make the cut.

Posted by: Baudolino [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 01:48 AM

I agree that this list is incredibly useless.

If Naomi Watts makes this list, shouldn't vitually every actor in King Kong makes the list as well. Hell, Jamie Bell should blow her away just with King Kong and Jumper alone.

Posted by: Krazy Eyes [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 06:33 AM

Totally agree...Vince Vaughn is number one after Fred Claus? That film was not a moneymaker...granted Four Christmases will be...but that's mostly on Reese.

And Will Smith not in the top 10 when Hancock is the highest grossing original screenplay (non-animated) since 2003? And he made a movie about a real man struggling to overcome poverty a $300 million worldwide hit...just about as big as Ocean's Thirteen...and that's counted equal for every member of its ensemble cast? Uh...

Posted by: EthanG [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 10:15 AM

Like many Christmas movies, Fred Claus hasn't come out on DVD yet, which would my guess as to why it wasn't counted, since they say they take that into consideration in their numbers.

Still is an incredibly stupid list, though.

Posted by: DaveVanH [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 10:43 AM

This is fun. Anyone can do it! I did a few that they missed...

John C. Reilly
Ultimate Payback: $7.66
Movies Considered:
Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, The Aviator

Kate Beckinsale
Ultimate Payback: $7.20
Movies Considered: Vacancy, Click, Underworld: Evolution


Posted by: JPK [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 01:15 PM

I remember back in late 1990, a columnist in The Hollywood Reporter observed that if people were paid strictly according to grosses, the highest-paid actor should be character actor Robert Costanzo, who appeared in three summer movies--DIE HARD II, DICK TRACY and TOTAL RECALL--that each grossed over $100 million (serious money in those days). I guess some things never change.

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 02:20 PM

Well Cad, that is the "Samuel L Jackson is the biggest grosser of all" argument... which I think SLJ evokes with a smirk on his face.

Forbes couldn't possibly be using DVD tallies, since they are not readily available in any detail... besides which, the math suggests otherwise.

I can understand them not using 2008 films on the list... but Smith and Cruise still should rank higher by the standard they have so randomly created.

And you are right about Stiller, Baud... and his 3-film salary jumps to $60m, which makes more sense... though it still doesn't account for foreign, dvd, or points for stiller.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 03:36 PM

Idiotic list. But then Forbes power lists are stupid too.

This, however, is something else entirely. Think about this list implies. It implies that the most important thing for an actor is to make a lot of money in proportion to the ammount he's earning.
Sadly it also implies that Paris Hilton is the biggest movie star based on ‘Hottie and Nottie’.

"Producers", anyone?

Oh wait, I just realized that this movie would not be "considered", because they just ignore bombs.

Still, "House of Wax" should do the trick.

Posted by: Roman [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 10:19 PM

And what about Ian McKellen? All three RINGS movies, all three X-MEN movies and THE DA VINCI CODE in the span of about six years. How many billions IS that?

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 24, 2008 11:40 PM

How about Anne Hathaway? She's made smash after smash, and surely isn't pulling in eight figures yet.

Posted by: Rob [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 25, 2008 08:08 AM

Right on, Rob. She's starred in four $100 million grossers this decade. How many other actresses can make that claim?

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 25, 2008 09:29 AM

a much better forbes list here:

http://www.forbes.com/2002/09/13/400fictional_2.htm

Posted by: scooterzz [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 28, 2008 12:14 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?