I like him, too, he's just not a box office star by any stretch of the imagination. Even in the 90s, but especially now, he mostly does little indie movies and rarely more than 1 or 2 a year.
I was shocked Sharon Stone didn't make the list. I forgot about Silverstone, but seems like she should be there. Really wanted Pauly Shore, but alas...
How depressing is the low number of women here? Not surprising, I know. Lets hope Quizmaster's equivalent quiz on the 2020s proves to be a little different.
Actresses aren't as big a draw as actors, it's not depressing, it's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with it and they are still compensated extremely well. Be depressed about veterans living in the streets or something else that is actually important.
At the risk of wading into the culture wars, I've started noticing lately how any example of male advantage is bemoaned, while examples of female advantage are celebrated.
It's true that a higher percentage millionaires and celebrities are male.
On the other hand, men are more likely to perform dangerous and dirty jobs, to die on the job, to commit suicide, to be murdered, to die early in general, to be childless, and to be imprisoned.
For high status people, it is probably better to be male. But low status men are treated absolutely terribly by society, and their legitimate grievances are ignored.
That last sentence is incomplete. It should end with "but low status women are treated worse." To quote https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2020/08/03/488536/basic-facts-women-poverty/ "In the United States, more women than men live in poverty. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, of the 38.1 million people living in poverty in 2018, 56 percent—or 21.4 million—were women."
And while the entertainment industry pays much better for those actors, stars and otherwise, who get steady work, the disparity of earnings at the top tier is even greater. https://theconversation.com/exploring-the-data-on-hollywoods-gender-pay-gap-127414. There are also fewer female stars these days, as compared to the 1930s when Davis, Shearer, Crawford and Stanwyck had movies written for them. Now as the industry converts itself into producing blockbusters for 14 year olds (of whatever chronological age), women have fewer opportunities.
So I've learned more about the poverty in the U.S. recently. It turns out that the poverty rate doesn't include many government transfers such as food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing. Taking those into account, the poverty rate falls to something like 3%.
When it comes to extreme poverty in Western countries, which I'll define as the lack of either income or access to government programs, it is men who are more likely to be poor. This becomes obvious when you look at the homeless populations of any major city.
I'm not saying that "something should be done about". It is what it is. But neither do I think we should care if one gender of millionaire actor is more successful than another.
I've seen it said many times that giant Hollywood mega stars, like Hanks, Cruise, Roberts, Costner, Carrey, or Arnie in the 80s-90s, don't really exist anymore. And I think that's accurate. Any one celebrity actor's star power is no longer significant enough to get a movie made or make it successful in today's blockbuster economy. Much more important is the studio or franchise that the film is a part of - if it's in the MCU, in the Star Wars or Fast & Furious or some other huge franchise, or made by Disney or Pixar, it will be successful. Who's cast in the film is 95%+ less relevant than the Marvel logo at the beginning.
On the other hand, when I see people say this, they sometimes make an exception for Scarlett Johansson. And she's female. So... yay?
But if you look at the top 50 highest-grossing films of the 2010s there's not a single one that succeeded based on its star power. Arguably excepting Jason Momoa in Aquaman.
Will Smith, Gal Gadot, and Margot Robbie are also arguably big enough names to sell a movie on their own. Most of them are female. And culture warriors may rejoice in Will Smith not being "white." Not really anyone else. Ryan Reynolds? Angelina Jolie probably if she was still working?
Also QM is mostly right. Except for what I think is his evidence for higher-status males having advantages over higher-status females. Being CEO of a Fortune 500 Company or being elected to Congress is not evidence of privilege. It's evidence of psychopathy. Men are more likely to be psychopaths than women. They're also more likely to be assigned value based on how much money they make or power they have and feel more pressure to spend their whole lives trying to pursue these things so that people will think they aren't worthless. Which most of the time makes them completely miserable even while it makes some of them rich and/or famous.
I think The Rock probably has enough star power to sell a movie on his own. Adam Sandler too. But his movies are basically their own genre...and it's not a good one.
Yeah, The Rock, I guess. But Adam Sandler? Maybe 15 years ago. He's done nothing lately that didn't go straight to streaming video services, and even his biggest hits (back in the 90s and early 2000s - he actually peaked right around the end of the period covered by the above quiz) never made that much money. $100-$200M at best, and often much less than that. So if he wanted to make a low-budget crude comedy starring him and his friends he could get that done, but he never had the star power necessary to get a big-budget blockbuster green lit on the back of name recognition alone.
I'd add Jennifer Lawrence to the mix. She hasn't been as active lately as she was a couple of years ago, but she still has an impressive draw on moviegoers. Big-name directors also seem to be more and more of a draw these days. But I agree that franchises are currently the big thing in cinema. Hollywood doesn't like to take risks...
I agree re Sandler. By "selling a movie on his own," I meant that his movies are guaranteed to make money. His formula is to pair himself with a famous female lead, then populate the rest of the movie with his friends. They shoot in one location, using no lighting or cinematography or effects, so it's basically just Sandler walking around doing his stupid voices. But they always make money. I think we're just using different terminology. I agree Sandler doesn't have the drawing power to anchor a major blockbuster. What I meant is that he is a sure thing at the box office (or on Netflix). He's always profitable.
I see what you're saying. But in that case I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. I'm only talking about big-budget blockbuster movies. The kind that would be made in the past without being part of some big franchise just because the name Tom Cruise or Kevin Costner or Arnold Schwarzenegger was attached. With one of those names attached to the picture a studio would be willing to put up $100 million to budget assuming that the lead actor's star power would get butts in seats and they would make their money back. *Those* kinds of actors are extremely rare these days.
When it comes to smaller, but still profitable, films... there are a ton of people that can get those made, easily. And actually the proliferation of streaming services like Netflix and Disney + has made it easier than ever to get even quirky, risky, or niche projects green-lit and made and have them find their audience. They just won't be giant international blockbusters.
I'm surprised Johnny depp, Cathy Bates, Al Pacino, Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder aren't on here. Cathy bates was in a lot of films from Fried Green Tomatoes to Misery etc. She won an oscar and i think the latter did quite well at the box office. I remember Bram Stoker's Dracula bei ng an huge hit (not with critics) and both Ryder and Reeves are in that film. I don't understand why Julia Roberts got so many roles and so much clout. It's who you know.
It's true that a higher percentage millionaires and celebrities are male.
On the other hand, men are more likely to perform dangerous and dirty jobs, to die on the job, to commit suicide, to be murdered, to die early in general, to be childless, and to be imprisoned.
For high status people, it is probably better to be male. But low status men are treated absolutely terribly by society, and their legitimate grievances are ignored.
And while the entertainment industry pays much better for those actors, stars and otherwise, who get steady work, the disparity of earnings at the top tier is even greater. https://theconversation.com/exploring-the-data-on-hollywoods-gender-pay-gap-127414. There are also fewer female stars these days, as compared to the 1930s when Davis, Shearer, Crawford and Stanwyck had movies written for them. Now as the industry converts itself into producing blockbusters for 14 year olds (of whatever chronological age), women have fewer opportunities.
When it comes to extreme poverty in Western countries, which I'll define as the lack of either income or access to government programs, it is men who are more likely to be poor. This becomes obvious when you look at the homeless populations of any major city.
I'm not saying that "something should be done about". It is what it is. But neither do I think we should care if one gender of millionaire actor is more successful than another.
On the other hand, when I see people say this, they sometimes make an exception for Scarlett Johansson. And she's female. So... yay?
But if you look at the top 50 highest-grossing films of the 2010s there's not a single one that succeeded based on its star power. Arguably excepting Jason Momoa in Aquaman.
Also QM is mostly right. Except for what I think is his evidence for higher-status males having advantages over higher-status females. Being CEO of a Fortune 500 Company or being elected to Congress is not evidence of privilege. It's evidence of psychopathy. Men are more likely to be psychopaths than women. They're also more likely to be assigned value based on how much money they make or power they have and feel more pressure to spend their whole lives trying to pursue these things so that people will think they aren't worthless. Which most of the time makes them completely miserable even while it makes some of them rich and/or famous.
When it comes to smaller, but still profitable, films... there are a ton of people that can get those made, easily. And actually the proliferation of streaming services like Netflix and Disney + has made it easier than ever to get even quirky, risky, or niche projects green-lit and made and have them find their audience. They just won't be giant international blockbusters.