Comments on: Discuss: Who, If Any, Of The Current Crop Of Leading Ladies Are Reliable Box-Office Draws?

By: kris

kris — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

i think the amazing spider-man is kind of franchise big budget , superhero movie also both the help and crazy stupid love ensemble movies , for kstew im not her fan or something but its unfair to say forgettable bacause her upcoming movie snow white looks like a hit and on the road is clever choice for her acting career.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

You should indeed have included Aniston. And maybe even Katherine heigl… They have been handed starring roles in commercial films quite a few times in recent years.

By: Andrew James

Andrew James — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

I think you've probably nailed out all the main contenders here. But small cases MIGHT be made for the following:

Charlize Theron
Jodi Foster
Kate Winslet
Anne Hathaway
Emma Stone (in a couple of years maybe)
Cate Blanchet

Though again, it's tough to think of any that you didn't already list. Good show!

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

"The Blind Side" is the biggest-grossing film ever to star a female lead? Uh…no. Try "Alice in Wonderland" and most of the "Twilight" movies. They had female leads and made substantially more money than "The Blind Side."

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

The sad thing is, the A list men you cite are in their 50s. Women don't get as long to establish their brand. Once a woman turns 40, it's time to make "serious" movies that don't make big money, or be resigned to playing The Mom. Take a look at the women who starred opposite Cruise and Depp back in their early films. You haven't seen those women in anything in a long time.

By: kris

kris — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

why do you put czj and soderbergh picture under the rachel mcadams photo?

By: KitCon

KitCon — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

Lawrence and Stone probably have the best shot of the younger batch. Their acting abilities were recognized before they became attached to huge franchises and they're both charismatic interviews.

By: Oogle monster

Oogle monster — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

Emma Stone is probably the only one of the younger batch that can draw in audiences without being attached to a franchise. J. Law and K Stew have only managed to usurp Stone when they are in franchise-mode. "Winter's Bone" and "The Beaver" did not set the box office on fire and anything outside of Twilight that was heavily sold on K Stew was entirely forgettable. "The Help" was entirely sold on Stone's appeal and while it may have had a somewhat large following, I don't think anyone expected it to perform the way it did. Add "Easy A" to that list, and you have a bonafide movie star. I think Charlize Theron is a rare exception since does well for the films she's in- she doesn't usually go after tent poles (exception: everything this year) and the fact that she's been an A-lister for nearly 15 years, is HIGHLY respected in the industry, and had one of the most memorable Oscar wins in Oscar history is saying something. Cameron Diaz, on the other hand, is the poor man's Charlize Theron… Bad Teacher may have been a hit, but boy was it awful. Young Adult was never meant to appeal to the mainstream movie going public and for a film that was thought to be "unfilmable"- it not only earned back its budget but then some (and you KNOW Paramount barely spent a dime in awards campaigning on behalf of Theron and co… they spent everything on Hugo).

By: Oogle monster

Oogle monster — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

Also, I think Rachel McAdams is certainly a box office draw. But she just picks really shitty projects from time to time… even if they perform well. She's wildly talented though.

By: David Lawrance Barnes

David Lawrance Barnes — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

I believe Angelina jolie is Retiring from the film biz ! so My new film Project need a new Leading Lady that is or can play the part of a Dutch Blond lady in " A Splintered Family "
as described at :- http://www.hollywoodscreenstorywriter.com . By David Lawrance Barnes.

By: seren

seren — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

In a sense, women don't need to be in the tentpole films to generate decent box office. If you look at the blockbuster films, they also cost so much to make. Most of those movies that female so-called A-listers make may not reach 100 m marks, but I think they make decent money more often than male equivalent in non-tentpole movies.

By: sasha

sasha — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

The star system is dated and belongs back in the 90s. Hollywood needs place more focus on making good films, to cast and MARKET them well. Successes such as Avatar prove that stars aren't reliable anymore. Something Hollywood needs to understand.

That it's not about the star as much as it is about the MOVIES they choose to make. The only thing that would make me want to see a movie because of a particular star is if I know that the actor/actress in question has made good films in the past. I hate Leonardo Dicaprio but I would still see his films because he has good taste. Same with Brad Pitt.

Not to mention some are successful in certain genres (see Kate Hudson + romcoms) but place them in something else and they're not a big draw. Proving it's more about familiarity about what you're expecting than the star itself.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

I'll see anything for Streep or McAdams. It doesn't matter the movie, they have the most talent. It's unfortunate that McAdams took a breather in 2006/2007 and Anne Hatheway somehow started getting her roles. McAdams has an old Hollywood allure with modern day looks, not to mention a unique ability to get an audience to buy into every one of her characters. There aren't many of those. And Meryl is just Meryl. Always brilliant. Both Streep and McAdams choose to be actual actors and not just movie stars, also choosing not to get too into the Hollywood scene. They love the craft not the lifestyle.

By: Gemini71

Gemini71 — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

Instead of discussing the current crop of leading ladies, I would like to predict who will be the next big screen leading ladies, both here in the UK and in America.

The US Girls:
Elizabeth Olsen
Dakota Fanning
Dianna Aragon

The UK Girls:
Holliday Grainger
Imogen Poots
Felicity Jones

Regards.

By: Haydn

Haydn — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

You say that THE BLIND SIDE is the highest-grossing film to have a female lead… then directly under is Meryl Streep's column, where you state that MAMMA MIA grossed $600 million. One could argue that Amanda Seyfried was the lead in that, but nevertheless, it grossed far more than THE BLIND SIDE.

And please don't tell me you're one of those assholes who says certain movies were "one of the highest grossing ever", just talking about US box office.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

Cameron was wonderful with Tom in Knight and Day, I'm more drawn and inclined to watch her future movies after that.

By: Uncle Gibby

Uncle Gibby — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000

All these ladies have "been there" and "done that" regarding box office success.
All have their fans who will stick with them through "thick and thin".
All have been involved in stinkers as well. That's the way it always have been and
it will continue that way long after we are all gone.
The fact that you list these women shows that you realize, given the right conditions, all can succeed and be "box office". That is if that's their personal goal.
The fact that people are still talking about them 10-40 years after their initial effort proves
that they have "staying power" and will continue to entertain us. The new crop of "in" actresses,
let's see where THEY are in 5 years.

By: David Lawrance Barnes

David Lawrance Barnes — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:18:18 +0000