Who has the LEAST power in Hollywood?

163046__tomcruise_lTired of reading rankings of Hollywood big shots in power lists like the ones published in outlets like, um, EW? The antidote is at Film Threat, publisher of the annual Frigid 50, a list of Hollywood noteworthies who, through their self-sabotaging behavior, have done the most damage to their careers in the last year. Naturally, Tom Cruise is No. 1. (Let’s be fair, guys, when Mission: Impossible 3 flops, then you can say his couch-jumping, sonogram-machine-buying antics have harmed his career, but ’til then, shuddup.)

I won’t argue with the top-10 placement of Tom Sizemore, Jennifer Lopez, and Russell Crowe, but does someone like Dakota Fanning even belong on this list? As Defamer has already noted, she’s not just a power tot, she’s one of Hollywood’s most powerful actresses. At least Film Threat offers career advice to each of its victims.

Still, PopWatchers, are these really the 50 names most in need of career rehab, or can you think of others?

addCredit(“Tom Cruise: Michael Caulfield/WireImage.com”)


Tags:

Comments (11 total) Add your comment
  • Jason

    Keira Knightley?! They are joking, right? I guess they haven’t seen Pride and Prejudice aka Knightley’s coming out party.

  • Miles

    The people with the Least power in hollywood are the people who make up lists of powerful and not powerful people in hollywood, so people who will never ever be on the list, can read about it and dream of being non powerful but well paid, and out of debt.

  • Nancy

    I agree, Jason. I was reading the list and stopped at Keira Knightley’s name. Maybe Domino sucked, but she still has major star power.

  • movieguy77

    I am going to go out on a limb here: Who has the least amount of power in Hollywood, you ask? Wellletmetellya…Is it the filmmakers who have to cowtow to corporate powers to tell their stories? Partly. Is it exhibitors forced to shill mindless drivel and jack up the price of popcorn and gummi bears to compensate for diminishing attendance? Partly. Or…is it the moviegoer? A ha! Didn’t see that one coming, did ya?
    We are the ones forced to weather hours of schlock and hundreds of dollars to find that diamond in the rough where we leave whetted and content…possibly giddy. But we keep going to the local AMC 1024 Screen Theater and paying our ten bucks plus, don’t we?
    Think of us moviegoers like a union…we don’t use our strength in numbers to the extent we should. Sure, this year is running behind year’s past in terms of total dollarts spent but attendance has been swindling bit-by-bit for years…and they (the corporate mongers like Time Warner, who own this blog!) DON’T CARE. If we had any power, every film would be an event and not an excuse to get the DVD out in 3 months. Just my two cents…

  • movieguy77

    “dwindling, not swindling…I got excited, sorry…”

  • Dee

    The person with the least amount of power are people who obviously didn’t make it as legitimate journalists with major papers/magazines and have to go to online publications to hurl insults at public people in virtual anonymity. How easy it is to sit behind a computer and think up witty, often insulting and unfair remarks about people who at least have the courage to put themselves out there! And who made them the culture police anyway?!?

  • Arla

    It was more offensive during a previous year when they suggested Natalie Portman and Keira were interchangable clones. I can understand a comment only if it has merit. That was especially eggregious not only b/c they have completely different onscreen personas but also b/c Portman was in the midst of a banner year with Garden State and Closer. I guess they don’t go out much at Film Threat. I would say Film Threat is in need of rehab.

  • EP Sato

    Anyone else find the whole thing to be hypocritical? Film Threat says that the top 50 on it’s list were chosen by “the people”, but mean spirited rants clearly written by one guy lead me to conclude this was a solo effort. Who are these “the people” they refer to?
    I have to agree with them on Jane Fonda (after staying out of the limelight to avoid controversy, she came public talking more trash AND made a crappy romantic comedy. Two strikes for her!), but what’s up with them putting Dakota Fanning on that list? That “creepy little girl” (their words) draws more money and has been in more hit movies than any actress in decades. She’s this year’s IT girl!
    Finally, what’s up with everyone dissing the moviegoing experience? Even with a 50″ screen and a comfortable living room, home theater will never surpass the big screens, superb sound and large dark theaters of the cinema. And with climate change making the planet hotter, the A/C will continue to draw folks in during the summer no matter what is playing. Besides, where else can you down a 64 Ounce soda and several refills in less than two hours?
    Final note: It’s nice that folks OTHER than the Popwatch crew are talking about how lame and pointless these “Top 50″ lists are.

  • blah

    I have to agree with their theater comment. I saw a movie twice because people were talking all through it when I saw it the first time. And it was even worse when I saw it the second time! Theaters are too expensive and people are way too rude to make it an enjoyable experience anymore. I’d much rather watch at home, being comfortable and quiet.

  • Laura

    I agree with others that Keira Knightley does NOT belong on this list – she was fabulous in Pride and Prejudice. And Dakota Fanning is always great as well. And Sky High was not “crapola” – it was cute and clever and fun, and Lynda Carter was good in it.
    Obviously whatever cynical, sleazy guy who came up with this list has not seen Sky High, Pride and Prejudice, or Shattered Glass (a great “indie” film that Hayden Christensen was in) and is clearly only interested in Horror films and T & A hot chick action. His whole list is just meanspirited and nasty. I totally agree with Dee, who said,
    “The person with the least amount of power are people who obviously didn’t make it as legitimate journalists with major papers/magazines and have to go to online publications to hurl insults at public people in virtual anonymity.”

  • Tommy Marx

    I love Lynda Carter and she was great, but “Sky High” had horrible effects, cheesy song covers, and a story that just kind of sat there. I don’t agree with all their choices (Dakota Fanning was an obvious attempt to get publicity – she’s an extraordinary actress), but I was disappointed in “Sky High”.
    Lynda looked dam good in it, though. :-)

Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos

Advertisement

From Our Partners

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP