Most Valuable Movie Stars

By August 12, 2012Nat-news

The Vulture have put a lot of effort into their list of the 100 Most Valuable Movie Stars. They came up with a system to determine star traits like bankability, magazine covers, likeability and critical heat etc. Once they had those values they came up with a method to weight and average everything out for the final list.

Natalie is 35th on the main list, the 8th highest woman. She’s 50th on the studio favourites list, probably hampered by her hopping from genre to genre. She’s 10th on the tabloid targets list, 61st on the international stars list and 24th on the most respected list.

Check out The Vulture’s explanation for the list criteria here, and the full list (click Natalie for a bigger writeup) here.


Author Dazza

More posts by Dazza

Join the discussion 15 Comments

  • DMarek says:

    one of the few “profile” where she has good photo 😀
    for me #1 in all.. so what

  • AmyB says:

    35th for acting but 10th for tabloids? It’s not like she goes out partying every night. Doesn’t quite make sense for someone with such a quiet life.

  • arrow77 says:

    What an odd list. Cameron Diaz listed higher than most other actresses despite coming out of a very rough patch, Clint Eastwood in the top 10 (isn’t he retired as an actor?), Mila Kunis – nothing more than a supporting role in most of her films – ahead of Anne Hathaway (who was popular enough to host the Oscars).

    Whatever methodology they use, they should burn it. The more valuable actresses should be (in no particular order) Nathalie, Hathaway, Rachel McAdams and Reese Witherspoon. Those are the names that are most sought after.

  • jesslv74 says:

    Interesting…how do they rank magazine covers? She’s had many more than 9. And technically (even though they did mention it) her Oscar score should be 1 win, 2 noms (she got nominated AND won for Black Swan, so she’s 1 for 2).

  • Dazza says:

    Did you guys not read the explanation page?

    Amy – She’s not 35th for acting. She’s 35th most influential based on all the separate criteria. The tabloid scoring was determined this way…

    8. Tabloid Value. Vulture polled three editors of gossip publications, asking them to grade each actor on a 1-to-10 scale based on how much interest readers have in their private lives, whether for salacious details or a wholesome demand for pictures of baby bumps and family trips to the park. (Our panel: Jared Eng, founder and editor-in-chief of; Justin Ravitz, senior editor at; and Jared Shapiro, editorial director of news and entertainment at In Touch Weekly and Life & Style Weekly.) As with Studio Value, their scores were averaged.

    So not how often someone does something to end up in the tabloids, but how much their readers want to see and hear about the person.

    Jess – Everything is based on the last 5 years, not the full career.

  • Dazza says:

    Arrow – Diaz’s last film was one of her biggest hits of her career, despite how awful it was. That and the fact that the studios know what she can deliver is what propelled her up the list.

    As they mention, Hathaway has fizzled with films that have her front and centre, but just being in TDKR would jump her up a bunch of places if the list had been done a month later.

    Clint is a failure of their system I feel. He’s so high up because of their box office metric, but with only one acting performance to go off, it’s unfairly weighted. He’s starring in the new film with Timberlake and Amy Adams btw.

  • jesslv74 says:

    Except for the Oscars…that spans the entire career:

    “This is the only category that used a career-long tally, as there is no expiration date on Oscars when it comes to publicity. For the Oscar score, nominations were given one point, wins two points, and then all eight categories were normalized to a 1-to-10 scale so they could be balanced to come up with each star’s value.”

  • CM says:


    You seem quite knowledgeable in the “Hollywood World”. I’d love to hear what you make of her placement in it. I know it’s not a big deal but if you stuck an edit/read more on this, I would love to know your thoughts.

  • arrow77 says:

    See, this is what I don’t understand: if they’re not gonna give Hathaway much credit for Get Smart or The Devil Wears Prada, then why would TDKR change anything? She was way more front and center in those two films than in Batman, and has a lot more to do with their success. If you get great parts in great movies, you’re gonna be surrounded by great people.

    Other actresses often mention that Portman and Hathaway were pretty much always a studio’s first picks for any given role, and that they were impossible to beat if they wanted a part (they were both up for Catwoman). That’s why seeing Diaz ahead of both of them seems weird: her position seems fragile and, like Clint, based too much on only one film.

  • Dazza says:

    Jess – My bad. I clicked on Denzel and it’s clear they count separately. So Denzel has 2 wins + 3 other nominations for 5 total. Natalie has 1+1 for 2 total.

  • Dazza says:

    Arrow – TDKR would change things because it’s made a lot of money and she’s in it. Hence her BO average number would go up. Is that the perfect way to judge something, of course not. That’s why they’ve come up with so many different categories to combine. Still doesn’t make it a perfect system but probably the best attempt at one of these that I’ve seen.

    And Diaz, I can go to my neighbours who aren’t film geeks and say “I have a new Cameron Diaz movie” and they will want it. You don’t have to say anything else, they know the kind of films she makes. That is a big part of what makes a star in Hollywood. What is a Natalie Portman film? There really isn’t a genre that pops into ones head.

  • Dazza says:

    CM – You mean if I think it’s a fair reflection? Uh…I don’t have too many complaints really. The system is obviously not perfect. If Natalie hadn’t been on hiatus for a year she’d probably be higher. Then again, I already said Hathaway would be higher after TDKR and possibly Les Miserables if it does well and maybe gets her an Oscar nomination. So a lot of actors will have these “excuses” or “bad luck” reasons why they could be higher.

    As mentioned to Arrow, Natalie’s problem with the studio system is that she is a genre chameleon. A ballet horror thriller, a superhero blockbuster, a romcom, a weird little dark indie comedy…those are her last films. Next are two arty Malick films, another superhero flick and then a western.

    Studio’s like actors who have shown continued success with a certain type of film. When they green light the film they can predict, based on the similar films that came before, how well the film will do.

    As a film lover, I enjoy the opposite – being surprised. But if it was my money I’d probably feel the same as the studios.

  • CM says:

    @Dazza Your second paragraph is what I was looking for. You explained what I thought as well.
    Also the CamDiaz comparison was a great point and a good way to help others understand how “valuable movie star” works.
    One thing I thought was strange, Ashton Kutcher doesnt make the list…at all.
    I was sure he would be right up there for Studio Favourites. Just checking quickly on wiki, so many of his movies have grossed $100m+ on decent budgets. I mean, I dislike him as much as most film watchers do but there is no denying his ability to pull in women for a bad romcom. I doubt No Strings Attached would have grossed what it had if someone like Jake Gyllenhaal had the role.

  • CM says:

    Forgot to say he is always in the press esp with the divorce and Mila Kunis. I dont keep track of celeb gossip and I know about it. I genuinely think they just forgot about him, or class him as tv star now.

  • Dazza says:

    Yeah, that is a bit strange. Should definitely be on the studio list.