film / tv / streaming / politics / web / celeb/ industry / video / love / lists / think pieces / misc / about / cbr
film / tv / politics / web / celeb

September 11, 2008 |

By Dustin Rowles | Industry | September 11, 2008 |

nicole_kidmanadsaf.jpgForbes Magazine, which has nothing better to compare an actor’s salary to his or her box-office performance (and we have nothing better to do than report it), has surmised that this year, Nicole Kidman got the least box-office bang for her buck (sorry, not punny). According to them, Nicole Kidman’s films over the last year have made only $1 to every dollar that she was paid. In other words, her films made as much money as she did, which would be great if you also didn’t have to pay for the rest of the cast, the director, the sets, catering, assistants, grips, gropes, and marketing.

This isn’t exactly a surprise. The woman hasn’t had a hit since 2002, and she’s still being paid $17 million a film. It’s cause the Scientologists turned their back on her after the divorce. Also, because audiences don’t care for her. And she makes bad films. And she’s Australian. The world hates Australians. Except for Crowded House. Everybody loves Crowded House. Try to catch the deluge in a paper cup.

What is a surprise, however, is that Jennifer Garner came in at number two, after starring in The Kingdom and Catch and Release. Still, her movies made more than triple her salary. Tom Cruise came in third. And the rest of the top ten included: Cameron Diaz, Jim Carrey, Nicolas Cage, Drew Berrymore, Will Ferrell, and Cate Blanchett.

It's Scientifically Proven / Dustin Rowles

Industry | September 11, 2008 |

Dustin is the founder and co-owner of Pajiba. You may email him here or follow him on Twitter.

Confessions of a Shopaholic Trailer

The Chris Farley Show by Tom Farley

The Pajiba Store


Privacy Policy