#Winning: Emilio Estevez is the most profitable male actor since 1980

Well, the Breakfast Club had a 1 million budget and made 50+ million
 
Madmick said:
That to me is the difference between "profitable" and "lucrative".
Click to expand...
does it mean eg. he starred in a $1 mill that made $10 mill, whereas eg, tom cruise in a $200 mill but only made 800 mill, so emiliio made 10x, fuck me i cant get my thought together, do you sorta see what i mean and am i right lol
 
EEEEEEEEEEMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
 
shadow_priest_x said:
I'm trying to think of some mysteries that have strong budget-to-gross ratios. I'd like to hear some examples.

And Emilio Estevez. Huh. Weird.

It's strange how he just fell off the map in the 90s. I actually wish he'd direct more. He made one of my favorite movies of all time in this charming little gem:


Click to expand...

Great movie. I own it.
 
No Guttenberg? What?

Anyhow nice study and very surprising. I wish he had taken more odd roles like he did with Repoman
 
1420.gif

47034d932e563b0682a5759624510138.gif

d6ce5e60-b5f0-0132-46be-0e9062a7590a.gif

gcbzdhd.gif

SpanishEagerHake.gif
 
just rewatched both Young Guns recently (on Showtime on Demand fyi), Estevez is pretty legit

I just assumed he was too short to keep playing leading men, like Christian Slater I never understood why he fell off
 
MarloStanfield said:
does it mean eg. he starred in a $1 mill that made $10 mill, whereas eg, tom cruise in a $200 mill but only made 800 mill, so emiliio made 10x, fuck me i cant get my thought together, do you sorta see what i mean and am i right lol
Click to expand...

I think so. Essentially, he's the most economical actor since the 80's.
 
MarloStanfield said:
does it mean eg. he starred in a $1 mill that made $10 mill, whereas eg, tom cruise in a $200 mill but only made 800 mill, so emiliio made 10x, fuck me i cant get my thought together, do you sorta see what i mean and am i right lol
Click to expand...
Yes that is generally correct.

If I make a movie for $1 and it makes $20 that is a 20:1 return and that is what this focuses on.

And while a studio and any business love to have such good gross margins the question is, 'is it scale-able'?

A studio like Disney would enjoy spending $1 million to make $20MM but they have to deploy billions over a year and therefore if they can spend $200MM and make back $1B that is $800MM profit in their bank account which is only 4:1.

So while 20:1 looks far better they would argue making $800MM is better for them then making $20MM even if they erode margins.

the big margins ensure a project has a far easier path to profitable but in the end the gross dollar amount of the profit is what rules.
 
Good old Emilio Estevez

"Hey Peppin. I see you got Charlie Crawford with ya." (fires gun)
"Hey Peppin. Charlie Crawford ain't with ya anymore."

"Hello, Bob!" (fires gun) "Bye, Bob! Best dollar eighty I ever spent!"

"Yes sir, Mr. Ducksworth! Thank you very much, Mr. Ducksworth! Quack Quack Quack Quack Quack, Mr. Ducksworth!"
 
Is it because he'll work for 10 bucks or a can of soup?
 
jeicex said:
Van Damme was a minor voice in a couple Kung Fu Pandas, but yeah, otherwise nothing but Expendables 2 as far as big hits go. Most of his pictures were straight to video or limited releases/VODs. After Universal Soldier 2, he was off wide release until Expendables 2.

Those straight to DVD or VOD or limited releases can make a surprising amount of money if they only put a million bucks in the budget.
Click to expand...

Van damme was in kung fu panda??
 
As a 90s kid that played hockey I can accept coach Bombay being the GOAT. Will buy a pair of rollerblades and look like a :eek::eek::eek: in his honor.

QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK
 
Well.. That's it. JCVD > Depp, in acting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,062
Messages
55,464,370
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top