Proof that Julia Roberts is the biggest female superstar ever

bump

Julia is. It's a strange thing but there has never been a female movie star like her. Marylin was the sex pot slut version to the wholesome girl next door type America wanted Julia to be.

Jennifer Lawrence makes the same amount of money if you look at the list. Jennifer remains the bigger and younger star.

R3 Just you try and tell that to uber cunt Julia

r3 Fucking blind idiot, that still makes her the highest paid actress. And JLaw is close to Julia's niece age. That just proves how big a superstar she is !

$40 million for Denzel in The Little Things? That HBO streaming movie could have been made for 12 bucks.

Does one paycheck make her the biggest?

Sandra Bullock had Ocean's 8 three years ago (an ensemble, for sure, but with her as captain), which, despite the reporting, made 4x its budget globally. She also had a streaming film that went viral the same year. She has an upcoming dramatic role in an indie from a Berlin Film Festival winner. She also has an upcoming ensemble action film from the director of Atomic Blond and Deadpool 2.

Roberts had Wonder four years ago which was based on a bestseller with a built-in audience. For this new film, she's reuniting with her Pelican Brief costar and the creator of the last streaming series she did.

Bullock--who is three years her senior--has caught up to her since 2009 and has remained ahead.

Did she get paid $25 million for Wonder?

Roberts was paid $6M for Wonder.

Bullock was paid $15M for Gravity + 15% of box-office and $10 for The Heat (according to "the richest").

She's like Jennifer Aniston, she's just good looking enough to be a star so fraus don't feel threatened by her girl next door looks. Plus she is brunette, so black women won't find her as hostile. Bullock was never beautiful and she wasn't meant to be. Her eyes are close together and set back which gives her a stern look. Winona could have toppled Roberts, but she killed her career by taking arty ingénue roles.

[quote]Winona could have toppled Roberts, but she killed her career by taking arty ingénue roles.

Um, no?

Ryder didn't have the charisma to deliver the numbers Roberts did in the 1990s rom-com/suspense genres.

Ryder, God bless her, is an anemic actor. Whilst I'm not a huge fan of Roberts, she does brim over with magnetism to spare. That makes a difference at the box-office. So, no, she couldn't "topple" her.

However, Roberts probably would have never fit into any of Scorsese's films, like Ryder managed, let alone in any corseted film. Roberts wasn't believable in period pieces (Mary Reilly, Michael Collins).

Incidentally, Ryder wanted to do Shakepeare in Love. She claimed Paltrow stole the role from her.

I'm not sure if the movie would have still been a hit with Ryder (maybe, maybe not), as I can kind of see her in the role (whereas Julia Roberts--who also wanted to do it--probably wouldn't have been as successful in the role). Essentially, Paltrow took over her place in Hollywood (this was right before Ryder's fall), but Paltrow--also lacking Robert's level of charisma--couldn't make it as a consistent leading lady commercially.

There are some actors people will just keep paying money to see. Julia Roberts is/was one of those actors. Whilst she decided to focus on her family (after breaking up a couple, lol) over her career post-Oscar, it was also a time when interest in her brand of films was dying off. Mona Lisa Smile did "okay" business. And her own next hit would be based on a bestseller (Eat Pray Love). Roberts hasn't had her "own" hit since the mega-successful Erin Brockovich. Hollywood could still plug her into a formula, but not one in which people were showing up specifically to see her. Part of it that is that she began to alienate some of her audience by being more vocal about where she stood politically (I recall her using the term along the lines like "rethugs" sometime in the mid-2000s).

Sandra Bullock, on the other hand, was a box-office draw in her own right. She rose up the ranks during Roberts' "setback" period circa 1994 - 1996. She wasn't able to do Julia Roberts numbers, especially once Roberts made her comeback and had the phenomenal streak. But, Bullock's presence did slowly grow stronger with films like Miss Congeniality and Two Weeks Notice. The Blind Side shook everyone when the never-nominated Bullock made a huge hit and parlayed that into an Oscar win, and then followed that up with the immensely successful Gravity. And, in her 40s, she was making Julia Roberts numbers in the films that made her a success in the 1990s. It didn't hurt that she's more likeable and manages to keep above the political fray.

Also, most of these listed salaries in OP are ridiculous.

It's like it's still the 1990s and the Movie Star hasn't died.

The truth is, it mostly has. Most of these salaries are unwarranted.

Oh, please, you plebs. I got almost $500 million for doing nothing but lecturing you fools.

Sandra's peak was never as high as Julia's but I actually think she's maintained her place atop or near the top of the pecking order longer.

It seems every three years or Sandra has a huge hit that keeps her at the top or repositions near the top (despite a clunker or two in between). That has kept her relevant since her first peak during the Speed era.

Sandy, since 2000, has either massive hits or decent hits like Miss Congeniality, Two Weeks Notice, Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, Blind Side, The Proposal, The Heat, Gravity, Birdbox, Ocean's 8. That's just off the top of my head.

Julia goes away for years and she doesn't always come back with big hits like Sandy. Since Erin Brokovich, does Julia even have a huge blockbuster? She very well might, but none come to my mind. Mona Lisa Smile? Ocean's 11? I think those are sorta it.

So I give the nod to Sandy, despite her being one notch lower on this list.

100 Million plus for Daniel Craig?? really?

Bump

Sandra never was, never is and never will be as big a super star as Julia is. She is three steps below Julia's league and she knows it.

Sandra has the better resume of movies. Her movies are almost always entertaining, while Julia's are almost always boring.

bump

Roberts had an undeniable blockbuster start: Steel Magnolias > Pretty Woman > Flatliners > Sleeping with the Enemy > Hook (before taking her sabbatical). She showed she had drawing power both individually and in ensembles in a variety of genre. Pretty Woman was one of the most successful rom-coms of all times, and Steel Magnolias is in the gay(-friendly) canon. After her slump, she came roaring back with no other and had one of the most pronounced commercial streaks in the modern area which is right up there with the best of them, male or female. My Best Friend's Wedding > Conspiracy Theory > Stepmom > Notting Hill > Runaway Bride and then topping it off with Erin Brockovich which got her the Oscar. With a few other hits unmentioned, she was thee biggest female box-office star 1990 - 2000 overall, no question. And only second or on par to a few men in quantity and consistency.

HOWEVER, Sandra Bullock was also a force. She shot up to stardom as the female lead in Speed. Her performance and personality helped make that film a success. And with While You Were Sleeping and The Net in 1995, she showed she was no fluke (just as Sleeping with the Enemy made Robert's individual draw unequivocally bonafide). Her numbers weren't as big as Roberts at that time, but they were big. She was already showing that audiences were interested in her specifically. Compare her to Meg Ryan. She was also a big box-office star at that point, but most of her successes paired her with a major male draw/presence. The films she did with her name riding at the top were either mild hits or broke even, nothing near the number of While You Were Sleeping.

Even if Bullock wasn't doing Roberts' numbers, her draw kept building over the next few decades (where Roberts' would be on decline as the new century wore on). She had a series of middling performers for a few years with one clear hit (that was based on a novel by the then popular John Grisham). But, in 2000, Miss Congeniality showed that she not only shines in physical comedy roles, but audiences will show up in droves. Paired with Hugh Grant, she had another film that would make nearly $100M two years later. With Crash, she deliberately took on a role different than anything she had ever done before. Five years later, she would not only have a mega hit with The Proposal, but an even bigger one with a dramatic role in The Blind Side, which would also win her an Oscar.

Four years later, she would make a film unlike anything in Julia Roberts' filmography: a science-fiction film that grossed around $275M, which would go on to win eight Oscars. That same year she'd have a big comedy hit with Melissa McCarthy. A few years ago, she lead the female ensemble Ocean's 8, which grossed 4x its budget. That same year, she headlined a film that went viral on Netflix.

There is no dispute that Julia was the biggest thing around in the 1990s. But it's clear as an audience draw, Bullock has had more endurance.

Julia does not like being compared to Sandra Bullock. She will "not know her" to her death. Which is unfortunate. It would be fun to see them in a film together. Especially in a DL suggest remake of Baby Jane. The camp and cutting would be out of this world. I bet that queen Ryan Murphy would love to direct it.

And you bitches thought I was over. Ah…

How does Chris Pine score $11 mil and Robert Patterson only $3 mil? Not so long ago Patterson was also bitching that he never got fashion brand endorsements. I wonder if he needs a better agent? And if Denzel got $40 mil, how much did his two costars get? Leto was fantastic, Malek floundered.

Malek's career has gone nowhere since he won the Oscar.

What is/was the grand appeal of this ugly, equine biotch?

[quote]Malek's career has gone nowhere since he won the Oscar.

He's got two movies scheduled (the Bond one being one of the biggest franchises on the planet) and another in development. If that's a career going nowhere, most of Hollywood would murder for it. He can be prenaturally great (the peerless Mr Robot), but like all great actors (Streep: Plenty; Dench: Pride & Prejudice), obviously he can fail too. The Little Things is an interesting case I think for actors to look at. I think he was just terribly scared with the responsibility of playing an average guy up against Denzil, when I suspect I real persona is possibly someone racked with self doubt and anxiety. (I think Pattinson is the same.) He fell back on technique, and didn't let go. Some scenes were fine and natural, and some were just stiff and artificial.

Highest paid maybe but Bette Davis in her prime was a much bigger star than Julia ever was. And her films are still studied and watched today.

Julia has very few memorable films to her credit. (Pretty Woman, Steel Magnolias....Erin Brockovitch maybe but people remember that more for her hysterical laughter on the Oscars.)

She is not the biggest star ever based on this list. Jennifer Lawrence makes the same amount at half her age, won an Oscar in her 20's for lead actress, was nominated for supporting actress Oscar in her late teens/early 20's for "Winter's Bone", was part of 2 mega hit franchises. Say what you will, Jennifer Lawrence is a much better and versatile actor than Roberts. She's probably also raked in more box office dollars than Roberts by 25.

Aloe Vera says all you need to know about what kind of person Julia is.

Rami Malek is an ugly, talentless pipsqueak.