Leave it to the number-crunchers at Forbes to determine which movie stars offer the biggest bang for the buck. According to the magazine’s new "Ultimate Star Payback List," the best return on investment comes from Matt Damon (pictured), whose last three films (before The Bourne Ultimatum) grossed an average of $29 (factoring in worldwide box office and domestic DVD sales) for every dollar of his salary. Using that formula, Brad Pitt comes in at No. 2 (because of his widespread overseas appeal), Johnny Depp and Vince Vaughn tie for third (Depp for the huge gross of the Pirates movies, Vaughn for how much films like The Break-Up have grossed, relative to their low cost and his modest salary), and no. 5 is… Jennifer Aniston?
Uh, okay, I guess she deserves credit, along with Vaughn, for the success of The Break-Up, and her salary is modest by A-list leading-lady standards, but is that enough to make up for her string of flops and her inability to open a film on her own? By Forbes‘ logic, shouldn’t Pirates‘ Keira Knightley be the top actress? How useful is any list that ranks Aniston well above Tom Hanks, Tom Cruise, and Will Smith? Granted, those three actors star in big-budget movies and take big back-end cuts. In the end, though, if you’re a studio exec, you’re still not going to cut Hanks’ or Smith’s pay, and you’re going to think twice about giving Aniston a raise. Forbes‘ math could be right, could be wrong, but it’s oftencounterintuitive to what the stars are perceived to be worth, which iswhat really matters.
Similarly, shouldn’t Tobin Bell, who plays Jigsaw in the Saw movies, be Forbes‘ top actor? After all, his movies cost next to nothing and earn huge returns on their investment. Then again, the major studios aren’t in the business ofgetting the best rate of return; they’re in the business of generating the highest possible grosses. They’d rather spend $200 million togross $800 million than spend $10 million to gross $100 million. To the extent that the Forbes list bucks Hollywood’sconventional wisdom about who’s being paid what they’re worth and what kind of grosses its movies should generate, it’sgoing to be shrugged off in the executive suites.
Comments (1-30) of 41 Add your comment
Will Smith is the only one who hasn’t made a box office flop ever since he became big from making “Independence Day”. “Wild Wild West” was a bad movie, and it STILL made money! He should be the #1 investment on the list.
Jennifer Aniston shouldn’t even be on that list. She can’t box office draw on her own, and the only reason why she got half of those roles is because she was married to Brad Pitt. Now that she isn’t married to him anymore, nobody gives a good g** damn about her (and you people can disagree with me ALL you want, but I AM correct)!
Thank You, Angelina. Does this mean Matt doesn’t have the massive Cruise ego that he has to make mega millions on a huge blockbuster everytime starring himself. He’s even appears in ensemble casts and supporting roles. I don’t see Tom taking scale to do The Good Shepherd.
Matt Damon is a fine and very nice looking young actor..and ditto for Brad Pitt,but I must admit that Johnny Depp is my favorite…as Keira Knightly supposedly put it..he is real “eye candy”…I have absolutely no use for the likes of Tom Cruise.
As long as Harrison Ford sticks with the action/adventure movies, he’ll always be a sure bet with grossing money. (Hint: don’t do any more dumb movies with Josh Hartnett)
Damon’s really put together a great career over the last few years, he doesn’t stick to one genre and no movie’s too big or too small for him, the way it should be.
I have to say that Matt Damon is smart for doing action films. With comedies he can only be in an ensemble cast or with his friend Ben. I can’t see him going solo in a comedy or a romantic comedy. Plus with the “Bourne” trilogy, he is pulling away from the “Good Will Hunting” genre which started with “School Ties”.
Jennifer Aniston? There’s no way. She must have the best PR/agent in town that she ends up on so many lists. A b-list, former tv, not a lot of range, can’t open a film without a big comic costar??!! Are they talking about the same Jennifer Aniston that me and all my friends find blah and can’t be bothered to watch open an envelope, let alone a movie???!! There’s no way!!
Everytime I see Jennifer Aniston’s name on any honorary list I figure there is a mistake. Who the heck keeps rehiring this below-average actress? Agree, if wasn’t for once being Mrs. Pitt, she would be as powerful in Hollywood as say.. Courtenay Cox or Lisa Kudrow.
Are you kidding, Jennifer A? *shaking head in disbelief*. There are tons more actresses in her age group that I’d pay to see before her. Hollywood execs are delusional if they think she can act or open a flick. I tired of this Friend a long, long, long time ago. And at 40, she’s pretty past her prime considering her small range.
Simply put, Jennifer Anniston cannot act. Sabatoging the “art” of the movie for her name appeal is just wrong.
Jennifer Aniston is just as limited as Marissa Tomei and Meg Ryan, sorry.
I love Jen Aniston. I’ve seen all her movies.
The suggestion of Jigsaw is ludicrous as Bell is not a “movie star.” Cult film weirdo.
Though it is quite true that studios are looking for highest possible gross figures. The Forbes list is just a different way for us lay-people to look at it.
Love me some Matt Damon!
That’s Academy Award Winner Marissa Tomei!
Normally, I believe those Forbes stats but by adding Jen Anniston to the mix, they just lost my confidence in their numbers crunchers. And by the way, excuse me, but hasn’t Jennifer Lopez had a lot of hit movies in the $100Mil range (Mother-in-law, Maid in Manhattan, the Weddning Planner, Anaconda, Selena; forget about Gigli). Girlfriend has a lot of movie mileage and you would think she would be above Anniston…you think?
Forbes IS run by a guy who spent more per voter than any other candidate in 2000 and still lost the nomination. So I’d guess these cats may not be the best ones to say who’s a sound investment. Just my 2cents…
Chris, she’s funny. That’s it. Come on.
The author Gary Susman is right – they are missing a third figure (total grosses?), in order to get BIGGEST bang. ANd he is right I think they limited their query to “name celbrity” actors (no Tobin Bell? no Seth Rogen? no Daniel Radcliffe? No Emma Watson? No Shia Leboeuf? ), which says something about intangible celebrity value right there, as well as the fact that Forbes editors are defnitely OVER 50 (Tom Hanks and Sandy Bullock? how 90’s). But I would agree with the posters here that Will Smith and Johnny Depp have GOTTA be a better value than Jen.
Fl:
I have to agree with that. Tobin Bell (while he has a great name) is on the same level as Warrington Gillette, Richard Brooker, and Kane Hodder who all played Jason Vorhiees. It is silly.
Isn’t there a stat on Samuel L. Jackson being the $1billion actor because his movies in total add up to $1billion in revenue. Hmm… seems that he’s leading the pack in boxo receipts per movie. And I don’t think Sam asks too much for salary, maybe in the $2-$5mill range.
Forbes got it wrong.
An interesting — albiet flawed — article.
My understanding of the article is that it is meant to gauge a star’s impact on the returns of a movie. In other words, Forbes is asking who is the best ROI (return on investment) in Hollywood.
That’s why you won’t see Radcliffe — he hasn’t done anything big but HP so there’s no way to factor out the HP effect of boosted sales. If he does a bunch of films, then you can use that additional data to determine what he — as an actor, not Harry Potter — brings to the film’s profits.
This survey is fundamentally flawed two ways: inferring a causal relationship (X lead actor is directly leading to a certain movie gross discounting other reasons), and assigning a more desirable outcome to ROI metric instead of total net profits. This is underscored by having Jennifer Aniston show up at 5th place. Ludicrous!
If you’re going to throw out Daniel Radcliffe because he’s only done HP, doesn’t that logic include Mr. Depp? If you throw out the Pirates movies, his stuff hasn’t made much at all. (Even though he’s the primary reason people go see the movies he’s in.) And then if we do add Messers Radcliffe and Depp, where’s Elija Wood? Curiouser and curiouser… (But for what it’s worth, this kind of number crunching is always good for a laugh.)
Jennifer Aniston is 5th?! And Hollywood wonders why movie attendance is on the decline when they hire blah actresses like this over and over again. She belongs on TV.
Yappy: even TV is too good for Jennifer Aniston. Unless they decide to make a show entitled “Ross and Rachel, the middle-age years”. Poor Jen, she tries so hard to be a big star and Forbes seemd to think so, but she doesn’t deserve $10 a pic let alone $10mil or whatever.
Jennifer Aniston is worth that much? Amazing what a gal can do with limited talent and a big chin. Goes to show that all b-actresses should aspire to marry a movie star on the upper echelon of Hollywood if they want to kick-start their limited career.
While Matt Damon is a good enough actor, I think he has been lucky is choosing films with appeal. I mean people did not go see the Bourne movies, the Ocean movies, or The Departed because of Matt Damon. They went to those in order to see cool action, big stars having fun together, and Martin Scorcece’s best film since GOODFELLAS, respectively. He’s been smart enough to associate himself with pedigree directors, writers, and fellow actors. I don’t think he’s big enough to make a hit out of a non-traditional movie such as SPANGLISH, HOLLYWOODLAND, or THE NUMBER 23–all box office disappointments with big stars.
Regarding Jennifer Aniston, she may not be able to open a movie on her own, but she is not as bad actress as most of you say. She has turned out good performances in THE GOOD GIRL and FRIENDS WITH MONEY that suggest there is more to her than “Rachel Green.”
But aren’t good choices how you get to be a big star? In an interview with Tom Hanks a few years back he said it’s one of the primary things that separates long careers from short. And–from watching actors come and go all these years, I’d say there’s a certain amount of tenacity and luck too. Damon seems to show all these characteristics while Ms. Anniston (and her ex, too) show just as many poor choices as good.
Star investments should also apply to people from behind the scenes.
Like Martin Scorcese (that’s how you spell it right?)
Everyone knows the guy is famous for violent films and that’s why he makes hits.
C´mon. We all know Jennifer Anniston paid for this article, so she could beat Angelina at SOMETHING.