In response to
"worldwide gross Adam Sandler 2.979 billion, Dan Aykroyd 3.548 billion Eddie Murphy 6.996 billion -- (link)"
by
crash davis
|
to do this properly, you would have to a) adjust for inflation b) include DVD sales and the like
Posted by
Reagen (aka Reagen)
Feb 25 '11, 14:29
|
c) pro-rate for importance in the film.
Does anyone actually believe Samuel L Jackson is the most successful actor in history?
|
Responses:
-
Plus, you'd have to factor in the bedget of the movie.
-
the wrong element, bad guy
Feb 25, 15:13
1
-
or just ask executive producers what they're willing to pay the actor before they see a return. -- nm
-
Max
Feb 25, 14:43
-
It's not like Bill Murray didn't also do bit parts and cameos. He's measured on the same scale as the others. -- nm
-
Mop (212 lbs)
Feb 25, 14:38
3
-
sure, and I believe John Ratzenberger is the 4th most successful actor in history -- (link)
-
crash davis
Feb 25, 14:35
-
It's more like... no one's willing to tell him he's not. -- nm
-
con_carne
Feb 25, 14:32
1
-
I'm just pointing stuff out to the people who automatically assume Sandler leads at the box office -- nm
-
crash davis
Feb 25, 14:30
-
if you include DVD sales Murphy crushes even more thanks to the Shreks I bet -- nm
-
Beaker
Feb 25, 14:29
3
|