The Star Wars movies aren't high earners because of Samuel L. Jackson.
Well, it depends what you're using the list for. Me, I'm using it to bolster my idea that it's as much (if not more) the reign of the franchise as the star.
Jackson, Jones, and Ford are heavily affected by franchise participation. Willis, Murphy, and Gibson aren't hurt by it. Cummings is Disney all the way.
Hanks and Cruise are the only guys on that list that I'd say opened a movie big in the last five years. Murphy if you count
Shrek.
A lot of Cameron Diaz's money comes from two franchises, Shrek and Charlie's Angels.
Me, I'm using it to bolster my idea that it's as much (if not more) the reign of the franchise as the star.
Oh, you're completely right. I went to Pirates for the pirates; I was happy to get Depp as a bonus. And Geoffrey Rush. Mmm, Rush.
Thug. Mercenary. Gunman.
Don't forget "Would-be king."
"Would-be king."
Sorry, but Sean Connery
owns
that role.
A lot of Cameron Diaz's money comes from two franchises, Shrek and Charlie's Angels.
Yeah. I liked that third list -- what was it, average box office? Because it basically tops out with a bunch of LotR stars....
....and then some other people.
Also because, thanks in no small part to LotR, Hugo Weaving is much higher on the list than Keanu.
Murphy if you count Shrek.
You can't count Shrek as an Eddie Murphy Movie. I mean, it's (a) a cartoon, (b) Mike Meyers, (c) Eddie Murphy. I think in that order, box-office-wise.
think this ought to be sorted by franchise. The Star Wars movies aren't high earners because of Samuel L. Jackson.
Yep. Star Wars also puts Carrie Fischer at #27.
You can't count Shrek as an Eddie Murphy Movie.
The reason I made it as fast as "if" is because he's (annoyingly?) Eddie throughout the whole thing. If you watched it for your Mike Meyers fix, you're likely to be more disappointed than if you watched it for Murphy.
However, franchise.
(a) a cartoon
I can only presume it was voice-over work that put John Ratzenberger in the top ten of that first list.
