The Numbers Bankability Index measures the worth Hollywood's fifty
biggest players give to a film project. Specifically, it estimates the
value each person adds to the projected box office for an average
non-franchise film, regardless of whether they are in front of the
camera or in a role behind it. The Bankability Index is constantly in
flux, based on the success or failure of recently released movies.
Regardless, it makes for an interesting Hollywood list with some
surprising and some not so surprising ranks of the degree of influence
one person can have on the financial fortunes of a movie. Source: Numbers Bankability Index
Which of these people, widely considered the most bankable players in movies, would you most bank on to make a film a hit?
See the snapshot of the thirty-five most bankable people in Hollywood, as 20 December 2018 here: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls047131270/
Which of these people, widely considered the most bankable players in movies, would you most bank on to make a film a hit?
See the snapshot of the thirty-five most bankable people in Hollywood, as 20 December 2018 here: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls047131270/
Posted 2 years ago
Based on the record, I'd go with Gale Anne Hurd's ex husband, I think.
...plus, I'm admittedly kind of biased against the CEO of Lucasfilm and some of the other candidates of the leading 35.
I have a couple quick observations.
First, it is a snap shot of time, so I would call it accurate to a moment, but not necessarily reflective of a long-term reality. Second, I would agree the CEO of Lucasfilm is too high for my liking, but probably accurate based on the numbers. I probably have issue with same ones that you do and personally find #36 - #41 grouping more deserving in a long-term perspective.
Kathleen Kennedy
Best known as a Producer based on credits in that role in 35 films, with $11,780,694,622 worldwide aggregate box office (rank #2)
Best-known technical roles: Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens (Producer), Star Wars Ep. VIII: The Last Jedi (Producer), Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Producer), Solo: A Star Wars Story (Producer), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Executive Producer)
Best-known acting roles: Herself (Contact)
Most productive collaborators: Steven Spielberg, Frank Marshall, John Williams, Gareth Edwards, Felicity Jones
I would suspect the challenge of this metric is the limited sample size and the non-ability to factor in the reason behind the numbers. While I don't dispute her #2 ranking as a producer. The fact she worked her way up via a non-traditional route allowed her to avoid lower grossing credits normally accrued when earning your "chops". Plus, when your first producing credit is 1982's E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (producer), there is really no place to go but down. I would also argue her ranking benefited from her partnering with Steven Spielberg. As well as, she was rewarded for never doing any indies that lowered her average. Seems to me to be a "perfect storm" of circumstances in play here, as well as, her obvious talent.
First, it is a snap shot of time, so I would call it accurate to a moment, but not necessarily reflective of a long-term reality. Second, I would agree the CEO of Lucasfilm is too high for my liking, but probably accurate based on the numbers. I probably have issue with same ones that you do and personally find #36 - #41 grouping more deserving in a long-term perspective.
Kathleen Kennedy
Best known as a Producer based on credits in that role in 35 films, with $11,780,694,622 worldwide aggregate box office (rank #2)
Best-known technical roles: Star Wars Ep. VII: The Force Awakens (Producer), Star Wars Ep. VIII: The Last Jedi (Producer), Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Producer), Solo: A Star Wars Story (Producer), Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (Executive Producer)
Best-known acting roles: Herself (Contact)
Most productive collaborators: Steven Spielberg, Frank Marshall, John Williams, Gareth Edwards, Felicity Jones
I would suspect the challenge of this metric is the limited sample size and the non-ability to factor in the reason behind the numbers. While I don't dispute her #2 ranking as a producer. The fact she worked her way up via a non-traditional route allowed her to avoid lower grossing credits normally accrued when earning your "chops". Plus, when your first producing credit is 1982's E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (producer), there is really no place to go but down. I would also argue her ranking benefited from her partnering with Steven Spielberg. As well as, she was rewarded for never doing any indies that lowered her average. Seems to me to be a "perfect storm" of circumstances in play here, as well as, her obvious talent.
(Edited)
Jen, Champion
Is it necessary to have the link to the same exact page in every entry. It seems like it could be confusing for voters. Can't you just emphasize it more in the intro?
I agree with
Jen.
I agree it is imperfect, but seems to be the best way to provide the relevant information. I like these Player Bankability information profiles for each person, but the only way to access them is to link to the entire page. They seem especially relevant and great for making an informed decision. I don't want to cut-n-paste the info directly into the answer options, because that seems like plagiarism and I don't have express permission. I could add an instruction notation: Numbers Bankability Index Rank (scroll down to appropriate person) for clarity.
Each person's Number Home Page that I could directly link to provides different information and not well formatted and seems not appropriate to the purpose. I also don't think voters are going to go back to introduction, if they want more information. It needs to be clustered within the answer options and readily available. The only options seem to be to do it the way I did or not at all.
I also listed the answer options in descending order from #1 to #35. But, I don't want overtly list their rank numbers, so Tom Cruise is picked mindlessly because he is ranked #1. I want poll takers to pick someone because they perceive them to be the person they choose because they are the biggest "difference maker" in the movie business.
If there is a better option to achieve these goals, I would be open to it.
Each person's Number Home Page that I could directly link to provides different information and not well formatted and seems not appropriate to the purpose. I also don't think voters are going to go back to introduction, if they want more information. It needs to be clustered within the answer options and readily available. The only options seem to be to do it the way I did or not at all.
I also listed the answer options in descending order from #1 to #35. But, I don't want overtly list their rank numbers, so Tom Cruise is picked mindlessly because he is ranked #1. I want poll takers to pick someone because they perceive them to be the person they choose because they are the biggest "difference maker" in the movie business.
If there is a better option to achieve these goals, I would be open to it.
(Edited)
The only way to access them is to link to https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability?
Yes, that is only way to directly access them.
Alternative Format:
Julia Roberts
Numbers Bankability Index Rank
(hyperlink and scroll down to appropriate person)
Alternative Format:
Julia Roberts
Numbers Bankability Index Rank
(hyperlink and scroll down to appropriate person)
(Edited)
I see. I would suggest linking to https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability instead of https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability, preferably only in the list description, and mentioning the indices in the respective item descriptions:
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $17,860,710 per movie; 1.4 movies per year; $25,004,994 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/540401-Tom-Cruise](View Tom Cruise's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $14,838,285 per movie; 1.1 movies per year; $16,322,114 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/510401-Sandra-Bullock](View Sandra Bullock's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $13,452,242 per movie; 1.3 movies per year; $17,487,914 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/1660401-Denzel-Washington](View Denzel Washington's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $12,881,976 per movie; 1.1 movies per year; $14,170,174 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/43320401-Clint-Eastwood](View Clint Eastwood's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $12,625,569 per movie; 1.6 movies per year; $20,200,910 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/189790401-Kathleen-Kennedy](View Kathleen Kennedy's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $12,100,571 per movie; 1.7 movies per year; $20,570,971 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/770401-Will-Smith](View Will Smith's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $11,622,237 per movie; 2.2 movies per year; $25,568,921 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/203970401-Kevin-Feige](View Kevin Feige's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $11,395,817 per movie; 1.9 movies per year; $21,652,052 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/41500401-Robert-Downey-Jr](View Robert Downey, Jr.'s Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $10,957,845 per movie; 1.2 movies per year; $13,149,414 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/134500401-Zack-Snyder](View Zack Snyder's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $10,754,101 per movie; 1.4 movies per year; $15,055,741 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/199650401-John-Williams](View John Williams's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $10,273,842 per movie; 1.0 movies per year; $10,273,842 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/1300401-Ian-McKellen](View Ian McKellen's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $9,808,681 per movie; 1.2 movies per year; $11,770,417 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/203650401-Jerry-Bruckheimer](View Jerry Bruckheimer's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $9,345,321 per movie; 1.5 movies per year; $14,017,981 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/182270401-Alan-Silvestri](View Alan Silvestri's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $9,155,061 per movie; 1.4 movies per year; $12,817,085 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/75920401-Michael-Keaton](View Michael Keaton's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $9,147,039 per movie; 1.9 movies per year; $17,379,374 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/2700401-Ben-Affleck](View Ben Affleck's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $9,049,779 per movie; 3.6 movies per year; $32,579,206 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/135430401-Steven-Spielberg](View Steven Spielberg's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,916,989 per movie; 1.9 movies per year; $16,942,279 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/29530401-George-Clooney](View George Clooney's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,910,821 per movie; 1.9 movies per year; $16,930,560 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/39880401-Vin-Diesel](View Vin Diesel's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,889,129 per movie; 2.5 movies per year; $22,222,823 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/82410401-John-Lasseter](View John Lasseter's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,736,963 per movie; 1.9 movies per year; $16,600,229 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/680401-Angelina-Jolie-Pitt](View Angelina Jolie Pitt's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,699,442 per movie; 2.4 movies per year; $20,878,661 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/39750401-Leonardo-DiCaprio](View Leonardo DiCaprio's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,671,303 per movie; 1.3 movies per year; $11,272,694 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/590401-Cameron-Diaz](View Cameron Diaz's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,660,875 per movie; 2.3 movies per year; $19,920,012 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/46750401-Jon-Favreau](View Jon Favreau's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,616,154 per movie; 1.1 movies per year; $9,477,769 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/1350401-Gwyneth-Paltrow](View Gwyneth Paltrow's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,454,078 per movie; 2.8 movies per year; $23,671,418 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/31530401-Bradley-Cooper](View Bradley Cooper's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,397,057 per movie; 1.3 movies per year; $10,916,174 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/18220401-Kenneth-Branagh](View Kenneth Branagh's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,351,048 per movie; 1.1 movies per year; $9,186,153 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/157100401-Robert-Zemeckis](View Robert Zemeckis's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,336,917 per movie; 1.4 movies per year; $11,671,684 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/149580401-Emma-Watson](View Emma Watson's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,257,349 per movie; 2.9 movies per year; $23,946,313 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/650401-Tom-Hanks](View Tom Hanks's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $8,124,402 per movie; 2.7 movies per year; $21,935,886 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/126870401-Adam-Sandler](View Adam Sandler's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $7,942,088 per movie; 1.3 movies per year; $10,324,715 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/23100401-James-Cameron](View James Cameron's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $7,857,295 per movie; 1.5 movies per year; $11,785,943 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/195710401-David-Heyman](View David Heyman's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $7,748,151 per movie; 1.8 movies per year; $13,946,671 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/33810401-Russell-Crowe](View Russell Crowe's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $7,578,760 per movie; 3.1 movies per year; $23,494,157 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/550401-Matt-Damon](View Matt Damon's Numbers)[/link]
[link=https://web.archive.org/web/20181124212352/https://www.the-numbers.com/bankability]Numbers Bankability Index™[/link]: $7,572,781 per movie; 1.5 movies per year; $11,359,172 per year [link=https://www.the-numbers.com/person/750401-Julia-Roberts](View Julia Roberts's Numbers)[/link]
(Edited)
WOW! Jeorj Euler
Thanks, this was much more than I expected. I only was looking for an idea.
I like the idea of using an archived data webpage data set, as the ranking will change. This is only way to see the poll ranks and links stay matched. It makes a lot of sense, but I had overlooked that simple fact.
I also like how you replicated the data on each person's profile card by posting their yearly averages and then hyperlinking to their key info: best known acting roles, best know technical roles, collaborators, etc. I tweaked the lay-out and wording a bit.
The only problem I still have is getting the three key numbers to display in an appealing way and in a way poll takers understand what the numbers are communicating. As set-up, the string is too long for a single line. If I use categories on one line and the numbers on a second line, they don't line up. I found three lines works best. But, in the past I have had a wrap-around issue when just using [return] button to separate each line. I found a double-spaced format solves this issue, but uses six lines for just three lines of data. Is their a better way or a coding trick to use just three lines or to install a <break> (as shown in the after graphic below), Anyone???
BEFORE
Julia Roberts
Numbers Bankability Index Rank
(hyperlink and scroll down to appropriate person)
AFTER
Julia Roberts
Bankability Index DEC 2018 SNAPSHOT
$7.6m box office added per movie
1.5 movies released per year
$11.4m total box office added/year
Current Julia Roberts's Numbers OVERVIEW
Thanks, this was much more than I expected. I only was looking for an idea.
I like the idea of using an archived data webpage data set, as the ranking will change. This is only way to see the poll ranks and links stay matched. It makes a lot of sense, but I had overlooked that simple fact.
I also like how you replicated the data on each person's profile card by posting their yearly averages and then hyperlinking to their key info: best known acting roles, best know technical roles, collaborators, etc. I tweaked the lay-out and wording a bit.
The only problem I still have is getting the three key numbers to display in an appealing way and in a way poll takers understand what the numbers are communicating. As set-up, the string is too long for a single line. If I use categories on one line and the numbers on a second line, they don't line up. I found three lines works best. But, in the past I have had a wrap-around issue when just using [return] button to separate each line. I found a double-spaced format solves this issue, but uses six lines for just three lines of data. Is their a better way or a coding trick to use just three lines or to install a <break> (as shown in the after graphic below), Anyone???
BEFORE
Julia Roberts
Numbers Bankability Index Rank
(hyperlink and scroll down to appropriate person)
AFTER
Julia Roberts
Bankability Index DEC 2018 SNAPSHOT
$7.6m box office added per movie
1.5 movies released per year
$11.4m total box office added/year
Current Julia Roberts's Numbers OVERVIEW
(Edited)
Is their a
better way or a coding trick to use just three lines or to install a
<break> (as shown in the after graphic below), Anyone???
No. However, on the now-discontinued swiki-based contribution system, I've experimented with code in the following form:
[h2]Line 1[/h2]I've never tried it on my IMDb user profile description or an IMDb list description. It did not work on the now-discontinued IMDb·Com message boards.
[h2]Line 2[/h2]
[h2]Line 3[/h2]
Thanks, that was helpful and I appreciate it.
