Skip Nav
Celebrity Instagrams
Team Taylor Swift Unites to Defend Her Against Those Kanye West Lyrics
Charlie Hunnam
22 of the Sexiest Charlie Hunnam Pictures Out There
Adele
Adele Continues to Be the Woman of Our Dreams by Photobombing Her Fans

Photos of Naomi Watts Who Was Named Most Bankable Actress In Hollywood

Are You Surprised Naomi Is the "Most Bankable" Actress in Hollywood?

Naomi Watts and Liev Schreiber hopped onto their Vespa together in NYC yesterday. Their preferred mode of transportation may be economical, and it turns out Naomi herself is a wise money choice — she just topped a list of the most "Bankable Actresses in Hollywood." She is ahead of Jennifer Connelly and Rachel McAdams who are second and third respectively. Angelina Jolie, who is the highest paid actress, didn't even make the top 10 and Jennifer Aniston, who has the second biggest paycheck is number six. Naomi often chooses indie films, but there are still movies like King Kong to boost her box office numbers. So tell us — are you surprised that Naomi Watts is the "most bankable" actress in Hollywood?


Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
Image Source: Bauer-Griffin Online
Around The Web
Naomi Watts and Liev Schreiber With Kids January 2016
Liev Schreiber Running Shirtless in LA
Best Celebrity Pictures Week of Oct. 13, 2014
About Ray Trailer
Alexander Wang Leaving Balenciaga
Shirtless Liev Schreiber and Naomi Watts at the Beach
Pictures of Celebrities in Bikinis

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

Join The Conversation
JenBrett JenBrett 6 years
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
redchick152 redchick152 6 years
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.
redchick152 redchick152 6 years
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.
Sophie827 Sophie827 6 years
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.
jtysgram jtysgram 6 years
Its early for Trick or treating although this feels more like an April fools joke. Connelly,Watts and McAdams films are box office poisons.
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
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.
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
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.
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
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.
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
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.
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
"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."
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
"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."
Lyllie Lyllie 6 years
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?
Lyllie Lyllie 6 years
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?
PeachyKeen19 PeachyKeen19 6 years
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) :)
Briandiesel Briandiesel 6 years
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.
Briandiesel Briandiesel 6 years
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.
tuscanstellina tuscanstellina 6 years
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.
Latest Celebrity
X