Film Festival

'Twilight' stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson top Forbes' 'most-bankable' list

Which actors from 'Dark Knight Rises' and 'The Avengers' also made the top ten?

Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson top Forbes' 'most-bankable' list

Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart arrive at the "Twilight: Breaking Dawn - Part 1" premiere in Los Angeles.

Credit: AP Photo/Matt Sayles

"Twilight" stars Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have been ranked at #1 and #3, respectively, on Forbes' list of the top ten most-bankable actors in Hollywood, joining stars from other recent blockbuster franchises including Shia LaBeuof ("Transformers"), Johnny Depp ("Pirates of the Caribbean"), Daniel Radcliffe ("Harry Potter") and Robert Downey, Jr. ("Iron Man"). 

The top ten were culled from a list of the 40 highest-paid actors in Hollywood who have starred in at least three wide-release non-animated movies in the last five years. The total operating costs of each actor's last three films (released prior to May 1, 2011) were then divided by each actor's total compensation for said films (including back-end) to come up with a "return-on-investment" amount for each dollar they were paid. Based on that formula Stewart easily topped the list, with her last three films ("Eclipse", "New Moon" and "Adventureland") boasting a $55.83 average return for every dollar she received in compensation. 

Related

Stewart's co-star/real-life paramour Pattinson came in with a lower average of $39.43, good for #3, as only one of his last three films (released prior to May 1, 2011) was an entry in the "Twilight" series ("Eclipse").  The others were "Remember Me" and "Water For Elephants", both of which proved to be profitable enterprises but neither of which could come close to matching the grosses of the blockbuster "Twilight" films.

Coming in at #2, rather surprisingly, is "Dark Knight Rises" star Anne Hathaway, whose last three non-animated starring roles were "Love and Other Drugs", "Alice in Wonderland" and "Bride Wars" (Forbes presumably failed to include "Valentine's Day" in the average due to its ensemble nature). Guess which one of those movies jacked up her return-on-investment average to a whopping $45.67?

The rest of the actors to make the cut are as follows (listed in order of rank): Daniel Radcliffe ($34.24 average), Shia LaBeouf ($29.40), Robert Downey, Jr. ($18.74), Matt Damon ($15.83), Cate Blanchett ($15.17), Meryl Streep ($13.54) and Johnny Depp ($12.48).

Of course, the list is flawed for the simple fact that several of the actors who made the top ten are there because they recently toplined one or more major franchise entries with a huge amount of built-in appeal. For instance, would audiences really have stayed away from the "Transformers" movies if a young actor other than Shia LaBeouf had been playing the lead? There's obviously no way of knowing, but rationally speaking it's doubtful that LaBeouf's presence can in any major way account for the enormous grosses of those Michael Bay blockbusters.

To be fair, It bears pointing out that LaBeouf's two non-"Transformers" movies to make the cut - "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" and "Eagle Eye" - weren't exactly failures at the box-office, and both were undoubtedly sold, at least in part, on his marquee appeal.

So, which actors do you think truly merit a spot on the Forbes list, and which do you believe were incidental to the success of their last few films? Sound off with your opinions in the comments! 

 

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Michelle Mabelle

    In the case of Robert Pattinson, if you take away his two indie films, he would have topped the list. His appeal was the main attraction of the Twilight franchise, which appeals mostly to teen age girls.

    December 7, 2011 at 1:48AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Michelle Mabelle

    Robert Pattinson would easily have topped the list if you excluded the two indie films he fit in between filming movies for the Twilight franchise. Since he was the main box office draw for what is now a multi-billion dollar series, I think the survey is flawed by design.

    December 7, 2011 at 1:50AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Page Mckinley

    To critics (and this is not levelled at Hitfix) who would have us all rhapodizing over any RADA graduate or anyone who pontificates endlessly about methods/pedigree/ Independent cool etc etc -- take your pick -- here's a newsflash:


    Movie-making isn't just big business, it's epic monster-making business. Funded by financiers who make the Koch brothers look like Greenpeace activists, Pattinson's team made a canny business decision to position their 'talent' in a film which -- if it worked -- would advance him considerably in the player stakes.


    That no-one could have anticipated the ensuing success would become as exponential as it has -- is now the topic of countless talking-heads and avid note-taking by other agents. So how and why did Pattinson emerge as THE talking points in the entertainment world as we close out 2011?


    Easy. The presence and depth Pattinson and Stewart brought to their roles elevated the content above an exhausted genre. Add an outstanding supporting cast, innovative soundtracks and scores, plus what can only be described as hardcore promotion on multiple levels, and a great solid base to start with (due to Meyer's previous book success) to the mix -- and you arrive at the TS phenomenon.


    To view Pattinson as merely commercial eye-candy would be to make a very serious mistake however. Anyone remember the same guff being floated about De Caprio? Look how he turned out.


    It was Pattinson's astonishing funniness, openness and originality on the horrifically gruelling press junkets he undertook -- not to mention his iconic turn in Twilight et al --- that enabled him to capitalize on the expert way his agent and manager have handled his rise. Take a look at these interviews with Variety:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    - and tell me the movie industry in general doesn't have every reason to be very interested in how Pattinson will develop in years to come. The guy is talented, credible, genuinely funny, cultured and creative.


    I think many people working in arts and film currently trying to cultivate good relations for UK actors and producers in the US, would appreciate critics putting the tall poppy scythes down for once and pausing long enough to realize this:


    The TS saga does not define Pattinson, but it did make billions (or will do by the time the merchs tail off) while transporting audiences to a world of realized imagination. It also gave us a genuinely fresh, possibly profound new talent in the shape of Pattinson to look forward to in what will hopefully be a sustained and notable career.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:00AM EST Reply to Comment
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook