SHOCKER: Tom Cruise Exits ‘Man From … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Hannibal’ Hits Low, … 
‘Fast & Furious 6′ Opens To Big $6.5M … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
When Horrible Bosses passed the $100 million worldwide gross mark recently, it became the eighth film in the last eight years to hit that milestone with Jennifer Aniston in a starring role. Right now, only a few actresses mean much at the box office, a list that includes Angelina Jolie, Sandra Bullock, Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Reese Witherspoon and Katherine Heigl. Has Aniston quietly joined that group?
While Aniston hasn’t had to carry all of those films, her worldwide gross track record compares favorably to the other actresses over the same eight-year period. Aside from Horrible Bosses, Just Go With It, The Bounty Hunter, He’s Just Not That Into You, Marley & Me, The Break-Up, Along Came Polly and Bruce Almighty all passed the $100 million mark worldwide. Over the same corresponding period, only Jolie had that many cross the $100 million WW mark. I didn’t count animated films, but for Jolie I did include Beowulf, because she gave a performance that was converted to performance capture format. Jolie’s other films that passed $100 million worldwide in the last eight years: The Tourist, Salt, Wanted, Changeling, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, Alexander, and the Lara Croft: Tomb Raider sequel.
Roberts had six films cross $100 million worldwide in the last eight years: Eat Pray Love, Valentine’s Day, Charlie Wilson’s War, Ocean’s 12, Closer and Mona Lisa Smile. Earlier in her career, her films routinely became blockbusters, when she was clearly Hollywood’s top actress.
Streep, who’s in her 60s, has become as bankable as any female star this side of Jolie. She has had five films cross $100 million in worldwide grosses in the last eight years: It’s Complicated, Julie & Julia, Mamma Mia!, The Devil Wears Prada and Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events.
Bullock has had four films cross $100 million WW in the last eight years: The Blind Side, The Proposal, The Lake House, and Miss Congeniality 2.
Witherspoon had five films cross that mark in the last eight years: Water for Elephants, Four Christmases, Just Like Heaven, Walk the Line and Legally Blonde 2.
Heigl had four of her films cross $100 million worldwide, all since her movie career was launched by 2007′s Knocked Up. Since that movie crossed $100 million WW, 27 Dresses, The Ugly Truth and Life As We Know It also passed the mark, and Killers barely missed.
Now, this is a fun argument for a slow summer day, because $100 million worldwide doesn’t guarantee that a film made money, and appearing in a hit movie doesn’t mean you are necessarily the reason for its successs. But Aniston’s consistency says something, doesn’t it?
Loading ...
Jennifer Aniston is SOOOO overrated. she had very little to do with the success of most of these films…She was surrounded by actors who could act. That simple.
Agreed! I’m sorry, she’s terrible but lucky in some of her choices of movies.
Why is it that a story like this never mentions the films she was in that failed? Someone should do an analysis that compares these 100M grossing films against those that grossed far far less and then calculate just how much money a performer has made and or lost for its Studios. In spite of the ‘muscleing’ Studios undertake to cross the 100M mark, none of these films have the perception of quality associated with their box office numbers. Unless this number is strictly a BO number, and the story doesn’t say that at all, they seem to have crossed the threshold due to distribution factors and ancillary streams of revenue associated everything from foreign to home video to television. Seems like a story that really means nothing in Studio corridors. They know they have to put out rom com’s each year and they look to get the actress that doesn’t ‘hurt’, even if she doesn’t really help either… assuming a film is competent, the calculations are so precise, they know the numbers before the numbers come in.
She has nothing to do with these movie grosses. Any movie in which she has been the marquee star has failed. Why does she get cast? Why does Katherine Heigl still get movies? She will ruin the Plum movie.
Aniston had about as much to do with the success of 7 of the 8 movies as the man in the moon. Any actress on the planet can co-star with Jim Carrey (in his heyday), Ben Stiller, Adam Sandler, Vince Vaughn (4 years ago, not now though) and 22 cute dogs based on a book that sold 5 million copies worldwide and have $100 million worldwide grosses. The true mark of a box office draw is if an actor or actress can get over the $100 million worldwide mark as the sole star of the movie – and Aniston has yet to prove she can do that. Don’t make me bring up Management – a movie she made in 2007 that took over a year to find a distributor and when it did hit theaters didn’t even gross $1 million domestic and barely $2.4 million worldwide. Then there’s The Switch, Derailed, Friends With Money, Rumor Has It, and Love Happens. Even her one critical success, 9 freaking years ago, The Good Girl, didn’t earn $20 million worldwide. The only elite group Jennifer Aniston belongs in is one people with really, really, REALLY good PR flacks. She’s so overrated it’s embarrassing that Hollywood keeps paying her to be in movies. She should be paying the studios instead. Plus, she can’t get a movie greenlighted on just her name. If a movie is already a go, she can get cast in it, but nobody is sitting around in their office saying, “If Jennifer Aniston wants to make this movie, then dammit, I’m in!” That’s why she’s been playing the same character since Friends came on the air. Well, that and she sucks.
To answer your question, no it doesn’t. As much as I find Aniston charming and beautiful, she’s yet to carry a picture to any huge success. By your own admission, she’s often casting in a movie. Do you judge below-the-title co-starring actors/actresses by the same criteria? I’ll bet there are more than a handful of women who co-star in films who have been in as many 100 million dollar grossing films as Aniston or Jolie. Why not list them in your article?
100 million gross doesn’t seem to be the bellweather it used to be. It has the feel of Dr. Evil asking for a million dollar ransom.
Until Aniston can open a movie on her star appeal, she will never enter the ranks of the Bullocks or Jolies. It’ll happen. But articles like this only point out that she really doesn’t have the same box office appeal.
Oh, I can’t wait to see the Aniston-haters start to pour out their bile……………..while she sits back with $100 million or so in personal wealth.
Esquire, I was thinking the same thing.
So is Paris Hilton…so am I supposed to be praising her as well? Aniston has ONE character – Rachel Green. EVERYTHING she does is a that same character. Same gestures and facial expressions.
People in the media have been underrating Aniston for years. Her films are called flops when they open on target or better, and for some reason she is held to a standard no one else seems to be. She’s had 6 films in the last 5 years that opened greater than $20 million domestically, with most over the $25 million domestic mark. This is something none of the other actresses can say they’ve accomplished (including non-animated pics only), nor even most actors generally. The thing to note too about Aniston is that her pics routinely make money – none of her pics have had huge budgets and so given the money they take in, she is more bankable than most included in this article, or generally. She’s one of the few that has consistently been on Forbes’ most bankable list since 2007, yet she is also one of the highest paid. That means that even though she makes big bucks, she still continues to be valuable to studios. Again, few on the above list are in her company (Strepp being the exception).
The big difference is that all those other women were the stars of their movies whereas Aniston was either in an ensemble or the female lead to a male comic actor.
Just because you type it does make it so. If you go by you assertion, than Jolie loses a few of her successes: we discount The Tourist (co-lead with Johnny Depp – the far bigger name) Wanted (supporting role), Mr. & Mrs. Smith (co-lead with Brad Pitt – the far bigger name at the time) and Alexander (supporting role.)
JOLIE was so obviously the main draw of WANTED though. The film was marketed on her guns and tattoos. There was even an article on this very website with the exit polling showing 60% of the OW crowd showed up for JOLIE. On top of that- “WANTED 2? was dropped like a hot potato when it became clear JOLIE would not return for the sequel.
Mr. & Mrs. Smith and The Tourist – while she had a popular co-star those films were also equally advertised on her name as Pitt & Depp. Aniston on the other hand has almost always played second fiddle and been less of a “co-star” and more of a “supporting” role.
I hate for this to be a Jolie/Aniston comparisoin but when Jolie said she wouldn’t do a Wanted sequel the movie was scrapped. By all accounts her role was shortened because Jolie took lines out. She was the biggest draw of the film despite her supporting status and it did 300 mill. Aniston simply isn’t as big as Jolie. She doesn’t have any franchises and she probably won’t. She is talented but she does best at supporting roles with decent casts. She is also good at picking pictures (like Bruce Almighty or Marley and Me) that would be hits with or without her. She also works ALOT she does 2 movies a year. But when she is the solo big name actress (The Switch,Love Happens) she doesn’t bring in that much. She is a smart woman and I admire her work ethic though.
Also, Salt was rewritten around her. it was originally supposed to be a man. And she opened the Tomb Raider movie.
You obviously didn’t see the marketing data on Wanted. That movie was sold solely on Jolie’s back – and the studio said as much. Plus, the exit poll results were that 67% of movie-goers said they came to see the movie because of Jolie. Name one movie Aniston co-starred in where the exit polls and marketing indicate that SHE was the reason people came to see the movie. Good luck with that.
As for Mr. & Mrs. Smith – that movie was marketed equally on Pitt and Jolie’s names as well as their blossoming romance. Jolie had more of a reputation in action movies than Pitt did, so be fair, please.
When it comes to The Tourist, that movie was marketed equally on Jolie and Depp and in fact Jolie had top billing over Depp, which was noted by many reviewers at the time.
Correct.
It is the only point that matters.
I look forward to Aniston’s return to TV where she would rule like Lucy or Mary Tyler Moore.
Julia Roberts wasn’t the star of Charlie Wilson’s War, Oceans 12 starred Clooney and Pitt, Closer had 4 stars. Most of Heigl and Witherspoon’s movies on that list had male co-stars. Some of Jolie’s movies had some big name male co-stars (Pitt and Depp). I think you could argue that any elite actor benefits from choosing projects with other popular actors or the subject matter has built in appeal. That’s what makes someone successful, lucking into or wisely choosing good projects. Aniston isn’t at the level of Jolie or Bullock but it’s silly to argue that people go to see her movies for everyone but her.
Yep. When she can open a movie on her own and not as one of four or five, then we can talk. The same goes for a lot of these actresses, though.
Aniston is a likable actress. She is also popular abroad because of the syndication of Friends. I don’t quite understand the vitriol for this woman. Sure, she should change things up. Thankfully she tried something different with ‘Horrible Bosses; Unfortunately, I’ve heard Wanderlust is terrible. Perhaps she needs a different manager and agent? I think she could do better if only she’d step out of her comfort zone.
Her reps seem to be doing a good job to me. After all, she wouldn’t even be getting this kind of publicity (i.e. this article) if she wasn’t consistently picking strong ensemble films to work on.
Aniston’s success has more to do with her male leads than it does with her. She simply cannot carry a film on her own.
I adore Jennifer Aniston, I really do, but she does have limited range and very few movies that are actually halfway decent. She’s a star, but one that’s kinda fading despite what the numbers may suggest. People need to remember also, in these films, she’s never THE lead. She’s always a co-lead, riding sidecar to the male star and/or part of an ensemble, whereas movies with the rest of the actresses you’ve named above usually feature them in the title and/or lead role.
Is this a joke? Of all the movies listed Aniston STARRED in one of them, THE BOUNTY HUNTER, which was atrocious and was a two-hander with her and Gerard. The only other one you might EVEN be able to argue is MARLEY AND ME and the star of that movie was a dog! Go look at the majority of all the other films listed here for all of the other actresses…. they were star carrying roles where the actress was the centerpiece for both the movies and the campaigns. Aniston was not. Almost ever. Except BOUNTY HUNTER. Take out movies where she was paired with a huge male co-star (Sander, Carey, et al) and what you have is Ryan Reynolds syndrome. If you haven’t read the Grantland article about movie stars go do it now.
I have always liked her. I’m gay but she is one woman that I find kind of sexually appealing. I wonder who will join this 100 mil list soon????
IS THIS A JOKE? 100 million in WORLDWIDE box-office is NOTHING. Think about it. 100 million equals 50 for the studio (and 50 for theaters). If the movie cost 30 with another 30 for worldwide prints and adds, that’s a money loser. Jennifer Aniston is a prop.
Well, Aniston was just a support in all the movies that she was in that reached US$ 100m worldwide, she did not carry on her own any of those films mentioned. So she doesnt deserve to be in that elite club.
HB – ensemble movie
JGWI -Adam sandler’s movie
TBH – Gerard Butler’s movie
HIJIY – ensemble movie
M&M – promoted as the dog’s movie (she was not in the movie poster)
TBU – Vince VAugn movie
Along came Polly – Ben Stiller’s movie
Bruce Almighty – of course Jim Carrey’s movie
Unlike Jolie who carried Salt, Changeling, Lara Croft. and She was equal partner in TT, MAMS and even Wanted was promoted as her movie. And before that Jolie had Lara CRoft 1, Gone in 60 seconds and the Bone collector also reaching US$ 100m WW so that makes 11 for her total career.
Julia carried on her own Eat Pray & love, Mona Lisa Smile and I think Closer.
Meryl carried on her own Its complicated, Mamma Mia and I think Julia & julia.
Sandra Bulock – carried all the 4 movies mentioned.
Reese – 4 out of 5 movies, Heigel3 out of 5.
Even Heigel carried 27 dresses on her own.
Despite horrible press and reputation, Heigl and her manager mother managed to wrest the title of “Rom-Com Queen” from Reese Witherspoon (who legit aged out of the spot).
Now it remains to be seen if she can segue into other roles.
In the meantime, let’s see Aniston legit star with someone like Patrick Dempsey in a standalone project (non-ensemble) and then talk about her generating $100M worldwide on her own.
Her role in Gone in 60 Seconds was extremely minimal. Lumping that movie in is not accurate.
Aniston’s films are generally a hell of a lot cheaper to make than the average Jolie picture.
Nice to see someone giving Jennifer her due. From the beginning the press seems to have discounted her as a movie star and ignored her considerable success.
@Annie
Really? TT and MAMS were equal partner movies and TBU, TBH, ACP and JGWI is male lead’s? You are hilarious!
What you should point out is that all movies that Aniston made when she is the much bigger star or the main star did not even reached US$ 5om WW; The Switch, Love Happens, Friends with enemy, The Good Girl and Management. She should be included in the “Flop” Club instead!
Didn’t the article just proof that she SHOULDNT be included in the “flop” club. 8 years of 100+ WW grossing!
If I were producing a movie, Aniston is more of a sure thing than Jolie. Jolie only became a box office draw after Mr. And Mrs. Smith which was successful because of her highly publicized affair with Brad Pitt. In fact, Jolie has sooooooo many bombs it’s crazy. Marley and Me, The Break Up, He’s Just Not That Into You and Just Go With It, Aniston was given top billing and I think a large factor in the movie’s success. The Changling and The Tourist were big disappointments despite eeking past 100 million.If Aniston can only do bland rom coms than the only thing Jolie can do are loud, dumb, violent, action pics which means her career shelf life is a lot shorter considering there is a small age window where that is passable.
The Tourist ‘eked’ past $100 million? It made $278,346,189 worldwide. Hardly consider that eking by $100 million.
And if you look at Jolie’s resume, she has NOT limited herself to “loud, dumb, violent, action pics.”
Please do more research before trying to support your argument, because making things up doesn’t work in the Internet age (unless you’re a Republican, then you can say the facts don’t matter).
Putting Aniston in the same sentence as Streep or even Reese W. is a stretch if we’re talking about acting abilities. But suffice to say she has a world-wide popularity on par with many of these actresses and that’s a different story. Any actress could have co-starred in Marly & Me and the results would have been the same. Can she carry a movie? NO! Can she help by her presence? Yes.
She has a great commercial eye and is pretty unpretentious in her choices. Even her VO work in IRON GIANT was spot-on. She could have checked out years ago from her Friends and divorce wealth but seems to geniunely like entertaining people. The one missing link is that she doesn’t tend to work with A-list directors, but I’d love to see Fincher or Paul Thomas Anderson put her in something that shuts up some of the haters/snobs.
Agreed – would love to see her with someone of note at the helm. She has a genuine knack for comedy, but I think she’s showed range in her few indie, dramatic flicks.
Sorry Hit the post button before typing all up.
@Annie: Sandy didn’t carry The Lake House. It had Keanu also in it and Julia’s Monalisa Smile and CWW were both FLOPS.
Key statement in the article is > “because $100 million worldwide doesn’t guarantee that a film made money ” Because more than half the films listed under other actresses were Financial BOMBS even with 100M gross. Aniston’s all 8 films are money makers.
Aniston is so overrated! She is a mediocre actress who only does shitty rom-coms. She makes movies just for the money only. And worst, she takes credit for the success of her movies even if she is just a support by promoting them heavily as if she is the main star. She goes to every tv shows and bares her body in every magazine covers when she has a movie opening.
Btw, Angelina looks so beautiful in that pic and is the only one who really looks like a real glamorous movie star among them.
Without looking at how much each movie cost, simply reaching 100 million WW means very little.
The craziest thing about this list is that Julia Roberts took a significant break from making films to raise her three kids. After Erin Brockovich she slowed down CONSIDERABLY and was only doing one film a year, if that, and that she still has that many $100 million dollar films in the last 8 years? For real? WOW.
I know Jennifer Aniston has a lot of haters, but these numbers don’t lie:
Julia Roberts Lifetime Gross Total: $2,538,919,699
Meryl Streep Lifetime Gross Total: $1,660,596,680
Sandra Bullock Lifetime Gross Total: $1,653,985,194
Angelina Jolie Lifetime Gross Total: $1,577,288,869
Jennifer Aniston Lifetime Gross Total: $1,237,726,749
Reese Witherspoon Lifetime Gross Total: $1,094,360,081
Katherine Heigl Lifetime Gross Total: $578,627,761
Aniston is posting pretty good numbers, it’s just a question of whether she is solely or even mainly responsible for the success of those films. I’m not sure that it matters though because Cameron Diaz always gets credit for the success of films like Shrek, Vanilla Sky, Gangs of New York, etc. and she never has anything to do with their success. She really only has Bad Teacher and Charlie’s Angels.
I didn’t realize Julia was that far ahead of everyone else. She’ll probably be the first woman to reach 3 billion at the box office (though wasn’t she the first to reach 1 billion and 2 billion).
She’s not remotely responsible for the success of those films, it could have been anyone! If we are using Mike’s logic Zoe Saldana is now the biggest female star in the world! Her gross in the last few years is DOUBLE most of these women! All hail Zoe, where is her name in this “elite company”?
You see why this analysis is so ridiculous? It was concept and co-stars, Aniston did not sell it.
That said; she is a very limited actress, she knows it (or at least her agents do), and she is making her money so well done in that respect.
That list is (with all due respect to Ms. Bullock, Ms. Streep (and occasionally Ms. Jolie) pretty dire. It breaks my heart that $100 million WORLDWIDE is our new benchmark for female superstars. Pathetic!
At least Zoe Saldana is a better actress than Aniston
What’s even more impressive for Aniston in relation to those worldwide numbers is that she has fewer roles/fewer years in film to get her to those numbers compared to some of the others. You have to consider she spent 10 years of her acting career mainly doing Friends.
Only to a Greedy Agent/Manager pumping for green.
I feel like aniston gets set to a different standard and I don’t know why there are a lot of haters. Are they just team Jolie? Even though it was aniston who Was cheated on? If not it makes zero sense. She is one of the select few who have star presence.
STOP with the Aniston cheated on crap. Wow has she been able to spin this strory for years!
How about this:
Two years before she and Pitt split up, she gave an interview to W magazine stating that she didn’t know if her husband was the “love of her life”. ?!?!?!?!??! Who says that about her husband. And with him sitting right there next to her?!?! That marriage was clearly already a sham at that point. SHE THREW HER HUSBAND AWAY! You cannot say such a thing (especially to a worldwide publication) and expect your husband to stick around. She is a moron and the divorce is her fault.
Cry me a river that she didn’t want to have kids b/c she thought it would interfere with this mega movie career she was going to have. She has neither, and Jolie has managed both.