Where Does Katherine Heigl Fall on the List of Best-Value Actresses?
In the New Hollywood Economy, the old-school, "Back Dumptruck Full of $1000 Bills into Julia Roberts's Driveway, Release Load, Hope Movie Breaks Even After Home Video and Cable Sales" formulas just don't apply anymore. That's why Forbes has now begun ranking movie stars according to value, as opposed to only their Gross Celebrity Product. A simple algorithm calculating how many box office dollars they've pulled in per dollar earned reveals some surprising results.
Naomi Watts stoop atop the list, the King Kong star offering $44 per $1 she's earned. She's followed by Jennifer Connelly, who brought in $41; then Rachel McAdams at $30 per; Natalie Portman at $28; and Meryl Streep rounds out the top five with $27 per dollar earned, due in no small part to the $600 million-earning performance of Mamma Mia.
For fun, we tried to figure out on our own where Katherine Heigl, who's a top ten no-show, figures on this list. She made $300,000 for Knocked Up, a rumored $6 million (!) for 27 Dresses, and, based on the success of her previous films and her EP credit, let's shoot conservatively and say $8 million on The Ugly Truth.
Total gross of those three films: $314,492,785
Heigl Value Index: $22
Of course, that number could tumble precipitously, if we only knew what she made for the $30-earning Zyzzx Road.
The full list:
Top 10 actresses and their ROI
1. Naomi Watts, $44 for every $1
2. Jennifer Connelly, $41 for every $1
3. Rachel McAdams, $30 for every $1
4. Natalie Portman, $28m for every $1
5. Meryl Streep, $27 for every $1
6. Jennifer Aniston, $26 for every $1
7. Halle Berry, $23 for every $1
8. Cate Blanchett, $23 for every $1
9. Anne Hathaway, $23 for every $1
10. Hilary Swank, $23 for every $1
· Naomi Watts named Hollywood's best-value star [Guardian]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
What am I supposed to do with all these Gretchen Mol coupons?
This obviously doesn't put a price on the psychological toll placed on her fellow cast & crew members over the course of a 3 month location shoot.
Counting Zyzzyx Rd. of course would be ridiculous since it was never intended to be released in theatres. It was shown in one cinema and not advertised to meet SAG criteria. By that rationale you should consider every straight to DVD movie. 🙂 Not sure where you got your figures from either...Knocked Up took $219 million, 27 Dresses $160 million and currently the Ugly Truth has taken $160 million to date. I am sure her per movie figure would drop though with some of her early movies such as the My Father The Hero, Under Siege 2 etc etc. Also the results are a ridiculous way of calculating success. If you take a huge blockbuster like say.. Harry Potter. If you had a minor role in that movie and were paid peanuts you would have a great return on investment. However, how much of the success is attributable to you is something else.
I clicked this link hoping for an Old No. 7 comment, is that so wrong??
Truly, Movieline should do a tribute to the hate/hate relationship between #7 and Ms. Heigl. (or maybe an investigation> What's the connection? Did they date? Is Heigl his estranged daughter? I MUST KNOW!)
this is a silly rating system and the people at Forbes have demonstrated that they don't understand how movies work. The end result "value" completely neglects all of the variables that contribute to a profitable film.
Of course Watts and Connolly have a higher value. They have both proven they are not a box office draw, so their rates are very cheap. Yet they are respected, Oscar-nominated actresses, therefore they get cast in high profile projects that don't need star power to succeed. KING KONG is an event movie with a built-in audience. They didn't need to cast Julia Roberts so why would they spend the money? People didn't go see KING KONG for Naomi Watts, they went for King Kong. Yet with this study, Forbes is falsely attributing the success to Watts. I actually really like Watts, but let's see her open The Ugly Truth. Wouldn't happen.
I agree that lots of women like Heigl, Roberts, etc, are overpaid, but this system is really just an inaccurate fluff piece.
too much caffeine?
"Also the results are a ridiculous way of calculating success. If you take a huge blockbuster like say.. Harry Potter. If you had a minor role in that movie and were paid peanuts you would have a great return on investment. However, how much of the success is attributable to you is something else."
this kind of a formula would never be used on someone that only had a bit part. but for those so called 'bankable' stars it is a way to look at things more clearly. I'm trying to choose between Tom Cruise at $20 million or Brad Pitt at $10 million. Seems easy, all else being equal, go for the cheaper star. But lets say that Tom has a track record of an average 15 to 1 box office to salary since he got up that high, but Pitt's record is only 7 to 1. makes Cruise look at the better bet (again, all else being equal).
and certainly when you look at the ratio of a star's salary over the whole budget it says something when the total budget is $200 million against the star making $20 million (10 to 1) but the box office is only $240 million.