It makes perfect sense. Angelina and Jennifer A. get paid tons of money and their films usually only have mediocre returns at the box office. Of course they're not that bankable for movie studios.

I think its great, but unexpected. I figured it would be some dimwit half ass actress. Someone who is actually GOOD and DESERVING? Well I'll be..........

angelina didn't make the list because she's overpaid, overrated and unless it's an action movie, her movies BOMB

That is the cutest thing! They have a vespa!

Can someone give me the title of a hit movie that Naomi Watts has ever been in recently? Nice woman, good actress and cheap. Most of the women on that list fit that description. If you don't get a big salary and your movie does not make money, it makes it look like you are bankable, it is all mathematics.

Don't make sense to me because Angie was releasing drama movies so the type of film that she was making as not expected to make good box office but they at last exceeded the mark of 100 millions so this is a successes specially because of the type of movie. But her movies in comparison with others actress that do it drama sell very well and better than the others now when she makes action movies no other actress sells better and more specially worldwide

I'm surprised Naomi and Rachel McAdams made the list.I like both of them but I didn't think they made that many movies and I didn't think they brought in the crowds.

WTF is #5 talking about? A Mighty Heart and Changeling died at the box office.

That's great news. It goes to show that when comes to success papparazi pictures and psycho fans mean a little.
Talent is what matters. Naomi is very private person too and that has not stopped any director from offering her jobs.

i think that i'm a little surprised but i think that she's been pretty smart about her professional choices. i guess i just need to remember that bankable and highest paid really are very different

This whole list sounds like total BS. I can't even recall the last time have the actresses listed had a number one film.

Changeling might have bombed at the box office but holy hell that was a GREAT movie and I highly recommend it! ( I know this really doesn't have nething to do with the post, but what the hell)

I completely agree with you Ali 77. Excellent movie and Angie was quite good. Naomi is good but I don't think she has found that 'breakout' movie that will put her even higher. But then it is quite possible she isn't looking to be up in the hollywood ranks.

It makes perfect sense...the rest of you are confusing tabloids and blogs with bankability. Angie and Jenn are in the rags. Naomi may have been having babies but the last films before her pregnancies were hits and she isn't to expensive.

Consider timing and less exposure...she hasn't been in our face like the others. She just works and when she isn't she isn't on the cover of papers all the time.

Angie and Jenn probably even made as many films as you think or they were in post production long ago.

Changeling made over $113 million worldwide. That's hardly a bomb. Yea, It only did $35 million in the US, but what works for Angelina is her worldwide appeal, same as Brad, who even if his movies doesn't gross over $100 million in the US, 9 out of 10, it will make over $100 million overseas alone.

cont..

And Jen does not have worldwide box office appeal, and she barley has it her in the us. Her last 2 hits were both based on best-selling books. One starred a dog, which 75% of Americans either have or love, and the other was an ensemble cast, and she had a small part in the movie.

While her last 2 starring movies didn't make a dent in the box office. Management only grossed $900,000+ in theaters, and "Love Happens" opened in more theaters than "Changeling", and made $1 million less, and I doubt it would make it to $35 million like Changeling did, let alone it's worldwide gross of over #113 million.

You don't have to have number 1 movies to be bankable! Jeez.
Its cost of profit of movie - cost of movie = bankable.

If you would have read the article rather than just start writing Angelina something, you would have read that.

most of watts' films she is playing second fiddle to someone. AJ AND JA are always the stars, plus Angelina mixes up the type of films she STARS in so that puts box office on the back burner.

angie is over-paid and her drama movie roles did poorly in the Us.Angie ruined mighty heart movie and the clint eastwood movie. Jennifer does do well in the us and overseas, ie,marly and me. brad pitt movies are bomb also. The last ocean movie and the movie he did for the coen brothers were both bomb.

Briandiesel is right and not too mention people shouldn't confuse the celebrity of a person and their media exposure with bankability (ie briandiesel's example)

For some reason people are confusing hits with bankable. People are not running to the theatres to see most of the women on the list. Jennifer Connelly and Halle Berry? They have a couple of big hits and the rest are minor profits/bombs. Other than The Ring and King Kong, Naomi doesn't have any hits. She stars in independent and lower budget films. If she gets paid $2 million dollars, the budget is $25 million and the movie makes $50 million then of course she's considered bankable whereas as a higher paid actress would eat into profits.

Sue1 you need to stop whatever you are smoking. AMH was a low budget film and Changling made more than $100 million. Neither of these films were supposed to make $300 miilion. "Burn" cost $37 million and made $161 million, "Ocean's" around $110 and made $311, "Buttons" cost $150 and made $332, and "Basterds" cost $70 million and is at $248 million. How are these movies bombs?

"Watts' paychecks are relatively small (by Hollywood standards), which helps her return on investment number, especially when she stars in a movie that turns into a major hit, like 2005's "King Kong," which earned $550 million at the box office worldwide. For every dollar Watts was paid on her last three major films, the movies earned an average of $44."

cont..
In order to create our list, we looked at the 100 biggest stars in Hollywood. To qualify, each actress had to have starred in at least three movies in the past five years that opened in more than 500 theaters. (In Watts' case we didn't count her 2008 film "Funny Games" because it only played on 288 screens.)

We didn't include animated films because the actresses aren't really the draw, and they tend to take pay cuts for voice work.

For past lists we have required that actresses earn at least $5 million per movie, but we decided to waive that this time around. We calculated each star's estimated earnings on each film (including upfront pay and any earnings from the film's box office receipts, DVD and TV sales). We then looked at each movie's estimated budget (not including marketing costs, which are susceptible to accounting chicanery) and box office, DVD and television earnings to figure out an operating income for each film.

We added up each star's compensation on her last three films and the operating income on those films and divided total operating income by the star's total compensation to come up with each return on investment number.

Lastly,

One thing most of the actresses on this list have in common is that they did not carry the films on their own. In Hollywood, it's still rare for a woman to be the main star. For the most part, women are co-stars or they appear in ensemble films like "He's Just Not That Into You," which was a surprise hit in February, earning $177 million at the box office worldwide.

That film's success helped Jennifer Connelly take second place on our list. For every dollar Connelly was paid, her films earned an average of $41.

In third place is Rachel McAdams. The young actress is one of the few to really carry a movie, 2005's "Red Eye," which also featured Cillian Murphy.

McAdams has scored by appearing in relatively low-budget movies (like "Red Eye" and 2004's "The Notebook") that have done well at the box office, though none have been massive hits. For every dollar McAdams was paid, her films earned an average of $30.

Its early for Trick or treating although this feels more like an April fools joke. Connelly,Watts and McAdams films are box office poisons.

I think Rachel McAdams fits on the list. A lot of her movies - Mean Girls, the Notebook, Wedding Crashers etc are hugely popular and yet her paycheck isn't massive compared to the Angelinas, Camerons, Julia's.

i'm surprised, but only because i didn't realize naomi made that many movies is the last 5 years (taken from Peachy Keens' post). i'm sure king kong's success really helped push her to the top, especially since she probably didn't make that much (compared to Angie's typical salary/film).

rachel mcadams makes since w/ the success of wedding crashers and mean girls and the notebook.

although jen aniston may not be the best actress, most of her movies are funny and entertaining and are at least mildly successful at the box office.

Apologies all, there's a typo on our website. We meant to say that she's the "Most Bangable Actress in Hollywood".

this is because she only makes those crappy horror movies teenagers go see. there's always gonna be teens spending their parents money on crap films just to get outta the house on the weekends. these movies are also super cheap to make so there's like 3 a year. as a filmmaker i'd rather have 1 great movie than 3 crap in a year

Like totally makes sence, you can't trust these figures ya know. Naomi has like 0 box office draw, she is number 1 on this list because of how little her paychecks are and King Kong blockbusters that NOBODY went to see because of her!!

What are you some of you even on about? If Naomi Watts was in a movie, I'm more inclined to see that than if Angelina Jolie was in it. That, in my book, makes her more bankable. Who cares about the box office? A good movie is a good movie regardless of how much it makes.