Options
Who is the most bankable movie star?
Possibly Johnny Depp.
Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides and Alice in Wonderland both went over the billion dollar mark in the cinema.
He received over $50 million for each movie but the return is immense.
However he was in The Tourist which was a bit of a flop.
Or Will Smith, his last 9 movies have made over $100 million in the cinema.
Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides and Alice in Wonderland both went over the billion dollar mark in the cinema.
He received over $50 million for each movie but the return is immense.
However he was in The Tourist which was a bit of a flop.
Or Will Smith, his last 9 movies have made over $100 million in the cinema.
0
Comments
Matt Damon
Will Smith
Brad Pitt
Sandra Bullock
Leonardo DiCaprio
Jennifer Aniston - I can't stand her but she's a safe bet
Anne "the new Julia Roberts" Hathaway?
Steve Carell?
Seth Rogen?
Reese Witherspoon?
Bradley Cooper?
Are you living in the 80s?
Then the 90s were Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise.
I don't think they really have stars like that anymore, its more about a certain genre that is bankable rather than movie star.
In the case of Will Smith such stars do still exist. I doubt 'The Pursuit of Happyness' or 'Seven Pounds' would have generated over $150 million without his involvement.
Stallone also appears to be on his way back to being a big hit at the box office.
I don't think Depp alone is as bankable as you would think. The POTC franchise and Alice in Wonderland were major hits, but they had the right incredients (i.e big budget and Disney,). He defintely supplemented them though and in the case of Pirates is now a vital piece of the puzzle. Definitely a much more bankable star than before 2003.
Leonard DiCaprio has come a long way. Shutter Island and Inception did big business, but then they involved Scorsese and Nolan. Body of Lies and Blood Diamond performed quite strongly though.
Tom Hanks isn't as powerful as he was but Angels & Demons showed he still has that box office appeal. om Cruise has also declined. Yet Knight & Day was still successful enough.
The most bankable stars are the producers and directors imo. Bruckheimer, Nolan, Speilberg, Burton etc.
With Avatar and Titanic, the two highest grossing movies of all time under his belt.
Do you mean each or all together?
Also I would say the potter trio would be quite bankable but only for the next one or two films, if they happen quickly.
Thats true actually, I never got the appeal of Will, haven't watched many of his movies so didn't think of him when replying to the thread earlier.
I can see The Rum Diary being more of a cult hit like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas rather than being an outright box office smash. It's not exactly mainstream.
He hasn't done anything amazing for a while but I feel that he's an actor that is only ever one film away from being at the top of his game.
Johnny was better as a cult actor anyway, less cheesy blockbusters.
I really don't think that they are that commercially bankable. The HP and Twilight movies are successful because of the brand names, but outside of those movies the stars have only seen mild success.
I can see the HP actors crashing and burning (metaphorically) now that they don't have the HP franchise to rely on. Lets face it, none of them are particularly good actors (infact, in the case of Radcliffe and Watson, i'd say they are downright awful).
I agree. I'm not sure what Daniel Radcliffe has got besides the fact that he looks like Harry Potter.
Saying that, Tom Felton seems to be making a name for himself and I like him. I also think that Rupert Grint has got something about him. Other than those two I think the rest of the cast will be forgotten in a few years,
I expect that Daniel Radcliffe would do more stagework, wasn't he just in Broadway.
Did you see The Tourist? No? Well, neither did anyone else.
I don't think there is a truly 100% bankable star.
Blood Diamond did mediocre business ($171m worlwide), while Body of Lies did worse ($115m ww)
I think they did, actually. $278m ww - not exactly fireworks, but it ain't too bad. Disappointing, perhaps.
$274m ww - hmm, okay.