rw2516

One way to look at it is movies that only get made if a particular actor agrees to do it. Studios won't risk the investment without an actor's participation.

Goldberg74

I guess you would have to further define “Hollywood” by the genre or the audience… Some would argue that Tyler Perry was very bankable during the height of his career. His target audience would see everything that he was in. His “Madea” franchise could do no wrong for a long time.

Sure he tried to branch out with small parts in about a dozen other movies, that he was bankable in his genre. I think the same can be said about many of the actors and actresses that have been mentioned so far.

Count Dooku

There have been many, many stars who were pretty much money in the box office bank in the history of the movies. Mary Pickford and Charlie Caplin were bankable during the silent era. I took the thread title at face value to mean right now (2020+) and I don't think any star is bankable, for various factors. The argument can be made for Tom Cruise, but that's it. Hollywood is still hanging on to the presumption that big stars will draw big audiences because that is the business model that has worked for them for 100 years. And "movie stars" aren't going to complain about the big paychecks. Last year, Julia Roberts and George Clooney had Trouble in Paradise come out. The MSM was freaking about star power returning to the movies. Nobody gave a shit. I would love it if Michael B Jordan or Florence Pugh could be for the 2020s what Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock were for moviegoers in the 90s, but I think the audience mindset is just so different today.