Will Smith "Voted" Top Moneymaking Movie Star 2008: Does it Make Sense?

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Will Smith being named the top moneymaking movie star in 2008 by theater owners, despite his films, Hancock and Seven Pounds, grossing a combined $267 million, significantly less than other blockbusters like The Dark Knight and Iron Man. The conversation suggests that the ranking may be influenced by factors beyond box office numbers, potentially including DVD and TV sales, as well as Smith's overall bankability as a star. Participants note that Smith's consistent career success since his breakout role in 1995 has established him as a reliable box office draw, capable of generating revenue even from less successful films. The dialogue reflects admiration for Smith's talent and appeal, attributing his status to his ability to attract audiences and ensure profitability for his projects.
russ_watters
Mentor
Insights Author
Messages
23,692
Reaction score
11,130
Can you explain to me...

How Will Smith was "voted" (?) the top moneymaking movie star in 2008 by theater owners? http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-01-02-smith-top-moneymaker_N.htm

He had two movies out, Hancock and Seven Pounds, which together grossed $267 million. But The Dark Knight grossed $530 (!) million, Iron Man $318 million, and Indiana Jones $317 million. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/domestic.htm

I'm a big fan of Will Smith, but this is just weird.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


It could include DVD/TV sales?
Anyway according to Hollywood the other movies made a loss.
 


I believe he is one of the top, if not the top, box office draw in movies.

I mentioned in the Weekend Fix that Will Smith was without a doubt, the biggest box office star around (unlike Terrence Howard). For the last 12 years, Smith has not made a single bad move in his career choices. Since his breakout in 1995's Bad Boys, he has starred in huge movie after huge movie, including ten $100+ million successes. Here's an overview of his phenomenal career:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-01-02-smith-top-moneymaker_N.htm

If the requirement was for top box office sales for a single star in 2008, I agree. If it's just an opinion poll among theatre owners, and the award isn't restricted to only movies released in 2008, I could see it.
 
Last edited:


I suppose if you are voting on bankable stars that makes sense.
Batman/Ironman weren't successes because of the star, where as having Wil Smith in a movie guarnatees you make money
 


russ_watters said:
How Will Smith was "voted" (?) the top moneymaking movie star in 2008 by theater owners? http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2009-01-02-smith-top-moneymaker_N.htm

He had two movies out, Hancock and Seven Pounds, which together grossed $267 million.
Hancock wouldn't have grossed even 2-mil if it didn't have WS in it! That's the reason - he can get good money out of a lousy movie.
 
Last edited:


Probably because Will Smith is pure money in all aspects of life. By money i mean solid, and by solid i mean an all around great guy.
So either 1 of 2 things (or both, OR J) can explain that above statement:
1.) Will Smith is Christ
2.) Will Smith is the second coming of Christ
J.)The guy is a triple threat, wholesome rapper who represents south Philly and respects his elders, great actor, had a solid cube cut in fresh prince of bell air.
 


Yeah, I like Will Smith's movies except "Legend of Bagger Vance" and "Wild Wild West".
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top