Star Power

The Hollywood Reporter recently issued the results of its annual star power survey. Tom Hanks was named most bankable followed by Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, and Jim Carrey.

How were these results attained? By polling 135 random movie executives from around the world, who were asked to consider stars' ability to get projects green lit and to fill seats. This "subjective look at bankability" then had numerical values imposed upon it. For instance, Hanks scored a 100.00, while Gibson got a 99.44. You can read more on it here.

This list has a fundamental problem. Namely that it is just a poll, subjective by its creators' own admission, and therefore completely meaningless. 135 random movie executives say that these are the most bankable stars. So what? What does this have to do with reality?

There is only one poll that can possibly count in this matter: the box office. People can say so-and-so is the most bankable all they want, but if it doesn't translate into tickets being sold, then the star is not truly bankable. I know this is obvious. That's what makes this list ridiculous.

According to my box office based Star Power 69 formula, Jim Carrey is the most bankable star, while Tom Hanks is fourth. That makes sense too. Who is more crucial to their pictures? Whatever your opinion of each is, you have to agree that the answer is Carrey. He is his own special effect, and clearly the primary selling point for most of his pictures. Whereas Hanks usually has the help of other stars and special effects.

I just had to mention this, because this Hollywood Reporter list received much attention from the media and was blindly accepted as the truth by many.

Editor's Note: Articles published before 2001 were assigned and reported as box office briefings, not a full evaluation or analysis.