awards mean nothing - don't waste your breathe or an audioblog.

For those who want to see a good list of "Bankable" films you can go here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/daily/movies/100million/100mstars.htm

Check it out!

Phil everything around us means nothing. We hand out awards and do audio blogs to keep ourselves busy. Everything we do is just a distraction from the fact that we are born to die.

I need more red wine.

dear john,

you have to consider the budget of her movies though. J.Lo movies usually have lower budgets than the usual action/sci fi hit movies, so when her movies make 80-90 million it is considered a hit. Maid In Manhattan made 94 million, pretty close to 100. In fact in today's movie market, if a movie makes beyond its production budget not alone its production and promotional budget it is considered a hit. Compare the number of bombs starring Brad Pitt to the number of bombs for J.LO. And, consider Kate Hudson who had ONE 100 million dollar hit in th past 5 years. J.Lo may not have any of those, but she is a much bigger draw than Hudson. you mentioned Angelina Jolie, who only recently had Mr and Mrs Smith go beyond 100 mil. She had failures from '01 to '05, not counting Shark Tale which has her voice. From Original Sin to Alexander, one expensive movie failed after another. Is she a bankable star yet she does have a few bigger hits than J.LO? My point is that your argument is a little weak. You have to consider the consistency of the stars.

Please stop saying if a star has hundred million dollar hits, that means you're a bankable star.

Cheers to that Doug!

That bankable list is a bit fishy.

They list Sam Jackson as having ten $100M films, but five of them - the three Star Warses plus Jurassic Park and Coming To America - are really just bit parts.

They list John Ratzenberger for eight (!), but would you fund a Ratzenberger vehicle with your own money? Didn't think so.

Let's limit it to starring roles if we want it to mean anything.

I just noticed they put Clint Howard on their list!

Clint. Frigging. Howard.

As bankable as Schwarzenegger.

Uh huh.

Hey Jack,

Once again... I have to ask you... DO YOU EVEN LISTEN TO THE SHOW?!?!?! I said a NUMBER of times that having a $100 million dollar film does NOT make you bankable. But that it is a prerequisit to be considered bankable.

Think of it this way. Just because you have 1 credit from university in Psych 101 does NOT mean you have a Psych degree. BUT, you can't get your Psych degree without AT LEAST having that Psych 101 credit. It's a prerequisit.

Having a $100 million dollar movie does not automatically make someone "bankable". But there is no way you can be thought of as "bankable" without AT LEAST having 1 or 2 of them.

The budget of the film has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with it. Why? Because the actor/actress has ZERO control or influence over the budget of a film. NONE.

When talking about the "Bankability" of a star, you can ONLY compare the elements that the star has influence over. In this case, Box Office returns.

So basically Jack, saying "You have to consider the budget of the film when evaluating the bankability of the star" is like saying "When evaluating how good a Basketball Player is you have to consider what company made the popcorn in the arena". It's ridiculous. The Basketball player has NO CONTROL OR INFLUENCE over what company makes the popcorn. The actor has no control or influence (aside from they're paychecks) over the budget of a movie.

The Basketball player can only control or have INFLUENCE over how many points they score, assists, rebounds, fouls ect. An actor can only control or influence how well they play they're roll AND how well they draw people to the theater.

So, let's look at the numbers shall we? Let's just compare Brad Pitt to J-Lo in live action movies in which they have one of the leading roles. According to Box Office Mojo and Variety:

Brad Pitt
Domestic # of $100 million+ movies = 6
Worldwide # of movies that lost money = 0

J-Lo
Domestic # of $100 million+ movies = 0
Worldwide # of movies that lost money = 7

And there you go again bringing up names I NEVER mentioned. Did I EVER say Kate Hudson was bankable?!?!?! No.. .I didn't. So why did you bring her up?

Look Jack, you can't win this debate. You can be 3x smarter than me, but the facts are the facts. This isn't a matter of opinon.. .the NUMBERS don't lie. J-Lo does NOT have enough drawing power to her name to push a film over $100 million, and if you can't at LEAST do that a few times... then you're NOT "bankable". AND, 7 of her leading role films have actually LOST money, even when you cheat and take into consideration not just the domestic box office, but the worldwide box office as well.

J-Lo is not bankable.

I have to disagree with you, Campea.

If the guy was three times smarter than you, he could totally fool you into killing yourself in which case he is the winner by default.

= )

Hey Stuka,

HAHAHA! Ok, I conciede that point to you. well played sir.

LOL

There is one small point in your arguement to Jack that is incorrect, John.

" Because the actor/actress has ZERO control or influence over the budget of a film. NONE."

Hold your tounge! When Chris Tucker asks for 20 mil for hardly doing shit, and his ass gets paid, I'd think that has some influence on a film's budget to be sure.

Now don't think I'm siding with Jack, I'm not. I'm just saying, be fair.
But the AE was slightly confusing. If this measuring stick were true, then 1997's 'Batman & Robin' would be considered a 'hit' and we'd have had 'Ghostbusters 3' ages ago.
The 100 mil rule should only apply to the films that break even or show profit.

You should also distinguish between domestic and foreign; up until Sin City (*which featured Bruce Willis in the cast-you seem to forget that, John*) Mickey Rourke, who nearly pissed his career away, only got roles because he was bankable in France. Who knows what the French are like nowadays- maybe they love J Lo. Maybe she does well in Greece.
Who the hell knows.

I'm not the biggest Angelina Jolie fan either- but Jack slipped up. She did have the Tomb Raider films. Also, say what you want about Gone In Sixty Seconds (don't get me started) that also cracked the 100 mil mark as well.

You are, however, correct in saying that there aren't that many bankable stars anymore. Not sure why you nearly brush off Cruise, but isn't Tom Hanks slipping? In 04 few people went to see Terminal --but I'm still reminded of Castaway, a huge hit where he carried the film near solo, and got an Oscar.

Now, on to Robert Altman.
I cannot disagree; the man deserves the lifetime achievement award.
The Academy should also consider Scorcese for next year.

Teenage Turtles- I'd like the new film to be a tad more violent and getto the comics roots as well. IT"LL NEVER HAPPEN. They would want to sell the Happy Meals, John. You suspect it, Doug suspects it, we all know it. Eastman/ Laird's creations are right next to the french fries and watered down sodas and then by the kid's attic right next to the dusty Elmos.

Last podcast I cared less for; this one was far better.
Good work.

-Sealer out

I'm sorry, but nothing will ever compare to the TMNT original.

John,

DOug Nagy is right when he said Will Ferrell is a crowd drawer. He had a few big hits (Elf, Anchorman, Old School). Elf made 170 something million with a budget of 30, Anchorman made 80 something million, and Old School made around 70 million. All had fairly low budgets.

I say you have to consider the budgets of an actor's movies when considering if they are bankable. J.LO's movies are modestly budgeted compared to most 100 mil hits. If you need 70+ million for production alone and you pull in 100 million, it isn't very impressive. Or in the case of most movies, you need even more than 70+ mil, sometimes 100+ mil. I just respect a "hit" movie more if their budget was lower. Another thing to consider is international box office. Kingdom of Heaven and The Island failed domestically but not internationally. Do you consider those a flop or a hit? A movie like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and King Kong which has 150-200 mil budgets but only earned back domestically what it cost to make, is that a hit or flop? Or, is that just a no win no loss situation?

And Darren,
Tomb Raider 2 was a flop, earning only 60 something mil. and Gone in Sixty had Jolie on screen for maybe 5 minutes tops which counts as a cameo in my book.

I'm not sure you can consider Jolie or Pitt bankable. Say an actor makes 8 flops in a row, and then have 4 hits after, does it right the past? Suddenly Brad Pitt is "bankable" because he got lucky and got a part in Ocean's Eleven? Was Ocean's Eleven Pitt's movie? Was he a main star of it? NO. He didn't carry that by himself. Was Troy even considered a hit movie? I say no way, studios were disappointed with that movie. It made back its production budget, but that was it. And do not forget studios have to share that money with the theater owners.

People like Jim Carrey,Will Ferrell, Adam Sandler and J.LO deserve more props because they carry those movies by themselves.

Darren, Hanks didnt get any Oscar for Castaway.

Darren,

Jolie's career didn't score a hit from after Tomb Raider 1 til Mr and Mrs. Smith. look at the list of failures at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id;=angelinajolie.htm

I'm not sure you can consider Shark Tale because that uses only her voiceover

Jack, your logic is so flawed I'm getting tired of responding to you... but for one last hurah...

Jolie (as I said in the Audio Edition... but we've already established that you don't actaully listen to what I actually say before responding), is "ify" at best. But if you want to compare her results to J-Lo's... ok... lets do that and see what the numbers say.... I'll not count Skarks Tale, and only count films in which they were legitimate leads in the films... and I agree... we won't count Gone in 60 seconds

Angelina Jolie
Domestic # of $100 million+ films = 2
Worldwide # of films that LOST money = 4

J-Lo
Domestic # of $100 million+ films = 0
Worldwide # of films that LOST money = 7

The bottom line is this... and you can't get around it....

For a star to be "Bankable", they must be able, by their name power alone, to pull in and draw a large enough audience to from time to time push a film over the $100 million mark.

ANY ACTOR ON THE PLANET can make profitable films as long as you make the film cheap enough. Hell... I can make a movie tomorrow for $6, then just charge my mom and dad $3.50 each to see it... and BOOM! I've got a profitable movie! Whheeeee!

And even with Cheap movies... J-Lo has 7 of her leading role films LOSE money... even when you take the world wide box office take into consideration.

So J-Lo has 7 films that LOST money... even though they were made cheaply, and none of her movies even come within the top 150 box office films over the past 5 years. NOT EVEN IN THE TOP 150!

In the debate about weather J-Lo is "bankable" or not... that bears repeating....

NONE OF HER FILMS EVEN COME IN THE TOP 150 OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS, AND EVEN THOUGH HER FILMS ARE MADE CHEAP, SHE STILL LOST MONEY ON 7 OF THEM.

Look Jack, this debate is done. If you still want to believe that J-Lo is bankable... then that's your opinion and you have every right to have it.

You're right Simone. Hanks was nominated for "Castaway" (2000), but didn't win. The award went to Russell Crowe. (Who many believe should have gotten it for 'Insider' the previous year and not for "Gladiator")

Hanks has yet to win his 3rd Oscar, (the first 2 from Philadelphia and Forrest Gump) I was hoping his performance in Ryan would be it, or in Castaway, still the 3rd is very elusive!

Now that one I agree with you Darren, Crowe gave a much better performance in "The Insider".

Directors are more bankable today than actors.

Jack, youre tenacious! ;-)

Great discussion going on here, I love it. I'm just going to throw some more points at you guys so you can hack away at them.

1. I believe there are 2 definitions of bankable. a) making a profit (100mil gross - 40 mil cost = bankable) versus b) 100 mil minimum pull in. I couldn't care less about the 100 mil mark, since it's often the first bankable definition that decides if there will be a sequel ie. more money to be made.

2. Look at how many huge stars that are in the movie along with the other actors. I believe we can say that Angelina has been with other big names more than J.Lo which means all the credit can't be hers.

3. Look at the average gross per film they have done, you can't consider the best ones only. And if you go to www.the-numbers.com you will see that Anjie is at 43mil average and J.Lo at 40mil DOMESTIC. On a worldwide basis then it's a different story. Jolie is by far better.

4. Another thing to look at is the highest combined star rating for a movie again at www.the-numbers.com. 6 for J Lo and 6 for Jolie, a tie. So this totally throws out point 2 I made. Well that's a surprise cause I really thought Angie had it easier off.

In conclusion, with Angelina having a higher gross both domestically and internationally, and having the same assistance with big actors as J Lo, I'd say Angelina is more bankable. Unless someone shoes me a calculation of all the cost of worldwide gross - cost of production for each actor and indicates otherwise.

Feel free to rip it apart. ;)