PenguinJoe

Johnny Depp and Robert Downey Jr. films don't make more? I guess Rum Punch was a bomb.

http://www.gossipcop.com/forbes-best...ries-earnings/

PopcornTreeCt

I like how the 2nd half of the list actually includes actors that people pay to see.

Larry C.

What a joke that first half of the list is. That's like being on a great sports team and getting the benefits of a good GM.

arminius

I'm sure the last half of the list takes a hit due to how much those guys are paid compared to the first half. And I couldn't care less who is in the film, I am more interested in the story. No actor is an automatic watch for me.

bluetoast

By that same token, Shia LeBouf isn't the draw in Transformers.

But in any case they're still movies that the stars were in, so this is a pretty weak argument on Forbes' part. If these figures were included, the list would probably be skewed in favor of Tom Hanks or something.

TomOpus

Every thread about a list always seems to go the same way.

Dragon Tattoo

What a fucking joke. No one pays specifically to see that goth bitch in that movie about the gay vampires.

Drexl

Huh. I assumed this was going to work a different way. As in, which actors are the best (at least, in terms of awards/nominations) for the least amount of money (average contract).

PenguinJoe

Cate Blanchett is the most curious one on that list to me since I only saw her in one movie this year (Hanna).

Drexl

It covers the last 5 years, so Indiana Jones is a big factor. Robin Hood and Benjamin Button grossed over $300 million each worldwide, although I don't know if they're counting domestic or international grosses. And, I imagine she's not a super highly paid actress like a Julia Roberts.

She should actually move up on a future list after the Hobbit films are released.

DRG

The actual Forbes page discusses their methodology:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothyp...-for-the-buck/

"We added up each star’s compensation on his or her last three films and the operating income on those films, and divided the total operating income by the star’s total compensation to come up with a return-on-investment number. The final number represents an average of how much a studio earns for every dollar paid."

Drexl

Yeah, so Kristen Stewart gets 3 Twilight films counted, while The Runaways and 2 other films she did aren't factored in.

Boba Fett

Daniel Day-Lewis.

Drexl

Agreed. But with him, there's also the consideration that if he agrees to do a film, it must be something interesting. I like watching Christopher Walken, but he does a lot of crap as well as good stuff.

PopcornTreeCt

Michael Shannon

Solid Snake

Joseph Gordon Levitt
Tony Leung
Maggie Cheung
Michael Fassbender
Ryan Gosling
Choi Min-sik
Christian Bale
Viggo Mortensen
Javier Bardem
Robert Duvall (even in the crappy small roles he gets in crappy films...enjoyable)
Maribel Verdu

Dragon Tattoo

Christian Bale's been in some real shit, and so has Maggie Cheung. You aren't too picky, are you, SSP?

islandclaws

The correct answer here is still Will Smith. Even though he hasn't made a film in a couple years, the guy puts asses in seats better than almost any other actor out there.

Solid Snake

I dunno about that. Since probably Equilibrium I've been pretty much on the track w/ watching every movie onward..granted...I haven't watched Harsh Times. But...he hasn't had a bad acting job really. Terminator Salvation was probably his weakest..but that who film had issues during production..still a good action flick..but not a good Terminator flick.

And w/ Cheung..since In The Mood for Love..pretty solid. I never saw that romantic comedy she did.

Let's add in that i'm 25 years old...discovering them at whatever age I was w/ the release of Equilibrium and ITMFL (though...I never knew that it was her in the Chan films)...they've been pretty damn defined in terms of filmography. Also...fucking love Cheung w/ WKW.

arminius

"In my opinion, the chief requisite for an actor is the ability to do nothing well, which is by no means as easy as it sounds. He should be willing to be utilised and wholly integrated into the picture by the director and the camera. He must allow the camera to determine the proper emphasis and the most effective dramatic highlights."

I agree with that. I can understand wanting to see a film for the parts in it, but it is the filmed story that is more important to me than any part of it and what gets me interested in a film.

inri222

To me the director is more important than the actors in baiting me.

Ash Ketchum

What the hell is Cate Blanchett doing on that list? Does anybody go see a movie because she's in it?

Also, people don't go to the Harry Potter movies because Daniel Radcliffe's in them, they go because Harry Potter's in them! The fact that Radcliffe is the one who plays Potter is purely incidental. Any actor who'd gotten the part would have had the same result.

Ridiculous.