20
Says Forbes: Link: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=5885ddce-84e3-4df8-bc2b-6bd451113639&MatchID1=4924&TeamID1=4&TeamID2=2&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1244&PrimaryID=4924&Headline=Aishwarya+Rai+most+bankable+Indian+star+in+Hollywood
Forbes has listed Aishwarya Rai as India’s most bankable star in Hollywood, pushing down the Khans of Bollywood in the ratings of the best bet for a film’s financial success.
Aishwarya is among six Bollywood actors in the new Forbes list of Hollywood’s Most Valuable Actors. Other Indians on the list compiled by the American business magazine are Aamir Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, Salman Khan, Irrfan Khan and Hrithik Roshan.
Although at 387th position in the global list of as many as 1,411 actors from across the world, Aishwarya is ranked highest among all Indian actors and is the only female actor from the country who made it to this elite club.
The list also includes Indian American actor Kal Penn, whose films include “The Namesake”. At 476th position, he is ranked higher than all the Bollywood actors, except Aishwarya Rai, who stars in the new Hollywood venture “The Pink Panther 2″.
Among the male Bollywood actors, Aamir is ranked highest at 540th in the global list, followed by Shah Rukh (735), Salman (753), Irrfan (825) and Hrithik (1,059).
The global list, topped by Hollywood actor Will Smith, is based on the bankability of actors around the world as voted by members of the global entertainment industry, Forbes said.
Smith is the only actor to get a ten-on-ten score and is followed by four Hollywood stars – Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio and Angelina Jolie – sharing the second position.
These are followed by Tom Hanks, George Clooney, Denzel Washington, Matt Damon and Jack Nicholson in the top 10.
There Are 20 Responses So Far. »
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Tough Luck Shetty! 
Ali ji, Aapke 'V LINGO' mere ko badi musibat main daldiya
I downloaded V Lingo for my iPhone today. When ...
Thanks Sandy. Always a pleasure to read your thoughts. 
Raj I know what you mean. But I am in no way saying that only who appeal to elite shud ...
Its very good excuse to say that ""Art is not judged by popularity"" to cover some loosers in life...How is ...
Ghajini is not an ATBB.A film has to make 3 times the selling price to be an ATBB. 
Amitabh's Performance in Main Azad Hoon(89) was MESMERIZING and COMMENDABLE . 
utkal 19 February 2009
04:33:54 am
So amir is ahead of sharukh in the global bnakable stars list. That’s interesting.
Link for Full List: http://www.forbes.com/lists/20....._Rank.html
Kaveetaa Kaul 19 February 2009
04:46:40 am
Hi guys..have been away for a while..vacationing without any connection to the developed world..no mobiles, tv, newspaper, internet. Just Nature and us.It was as close to heaven as possible.
Anyways..this is a rather unbelievable list. For many reasons. Wonder what their criteria could be. BO figures? Not quite. Adam sandler above Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson and Paccino.. Ah thats sad! Dont agree with most of the list. George Clooney yes but given a choice I’d watch Russels movie any day.
No Amitabh as well. Aamirs presence post Lagaan and TZP is expected. If Oscars be the basis then Irrfan ought to have been higher. SRK and Salman have not made a presence there. Wonder if they really care to .How credible is this list I wonder. Studios paly a large role in media projections of the kind. There are millions riding on their stars. Games .games
utkal 19 February 2009
04:49:24 am
It is quite credible. After all it is Forbes. And yes, Box Office is the criteria.
utkal 19 February 2009
04:52:28 am
And eat your hearts out, Khans! Jackie Chan , an Asian is at No 35. That should should Bollywood apologists where they stand in in the global scene.
utkal 19 February 2009
05:03:56 am
As to those who want to know what was the methodology, hee it is:
Forbes Star Currency: Survey Objective
The project’s primary goal is to gain insight from the global entertainment industry regarding 1,400-plus actors in today’s worldwide marketplace from a financial perspective. Many elements contribute to the financing of a film as well as its ultimate theatrical box-office performance and post-theatrical life–the actor’s involvement being one of the central components. This confidential survey, while subjective, seeks to evaluate the actor’s impact in a number of areas.
When ranking each actor, voters were asked to consider a number of elements regarding the actor’s participation in a film as they applied in the market at the time of the survey. Criteria used were:
–The amount of financing that flows to a project is significantly determined by the individual actor’s presence in a film.
–The individual actor’s presence in a film guarantees theatrical distribution.
–The individual actor’s presence significantly drives the film’s theatrical box-office performance.
If the individual actor’s involvement is essential in securing rights deals for revenue streams, including DVD, pay/free TV, video-on-demand and online/downloading/streaming (when applicable), as well as a project’s ultimate financial performance in those areas.
If the individual actor can attract audiences in any film genre.
–If the individual actor can attract other top-line talent based on his or her involvement in a film.
–If the individual actor is popular among most demographic groups.
–Whether media exposure the individual actor receives (positive or negative) enhances his or her ability to attract financing and audiences to a project.
Forbes conducted the survey in conjunction with Erdos & Morgan, a New York-based independent research firm that advised Forbes on the survey and also handled the tabulation and ranking of the results.
Forbes Star Currency: Participants/Voting Period
There were 157 participants who took part in the global survey.
The voters’ list was compiled by Forbes and consisted of members from the studio and independent sectors. Voters included members who work in acquisitions, development, distribution, production, finance or marketing; or work as consultants, creative executives, investors, market analysts, producers, producers’ representatives and sales agents. (Voters were able to check multiple job titles when applicable.)
The survey was conducted from Sept. 3, 2008, through Nov. 16, 2008. Voters were mailed a package that included a cover letter, paper ballot, return envelope and an access code to complete the ballot online, if preferred.
Kaveetaa Kaul 19 February 2009
05:16:19 am
Going by the above criteria, even the very first Akshay Kumar should have definitely been part of the list and Hrithik much higher.
“There were 157 participants who took part in the global survey.”
157 for a global survey?
utkal 19 February 2009
05:33:49 am
‘The voters’ list was compiled by Forbes and consisted of members from the studio and independent sectors. Voters included members who work in acquisitions, development, distribution, production, finance or marketing; or work as consultants, creative executives, investors, market analysts, producers, producers’ representatives and sales agents.’
Obviously they don’t think Akshay or Hritik presence in a project will make that kind of impact to a project’s marketability ( and the other criteria). The context is obviously Hollywood studios and the industry bosses there. Maybe they aren’t yet familiar with Akshay or Hritik to that degree. Which of course means that their names wont add that much to a project.
I can believe this. Because Ash has been able to get multi-milion dollar projects like Bride and Prejudice greenlighted. She can get a Tajmahal by Ben Kingsley green lighted if she wishes. I am sure if Amir wants to do project with Danny Boyle or Shyamalan or XYZ he can raise tens of million dollars as budget. Nothing very unbelievable about it.
My name is Beld 19 February 2009
05:39:33 am
i think this is a very spurious way of determining saleability. Ash obviously will be high not because of box office pull but general awareness abroad (she is Miss world after all and endorses global brands). One has to just go by the roles she has played and the response she has got to determine that she has probably zero box office pull. If the criteria to rank is just overseas BO pull – i think we know who the winners are
utkal 19 February 2009
05:45:10 am
If she has zero box office pull how she could get projects like Bride and Prejuidice or The Last Legion financed? The list is meant to reflect on whose name studios are willing to put money, who makes a difference to a deal. Obviously the studio guys know that better than you. of course no list is perfec, but you should learn from the survey rather than question it.
RAJ 19 February 2009
11:19:05 am
Looking at the criteria given by Utkal I don’t see any criteria by which certain aishwrya rai.be placed ahead of the khans…This itself devoids the list of any credibilty….Yes I am ok with HW stars and their ranking…This again proves that HW and its media do not have an iota of knowledge about the Indian BO and its working.
One more reason to discount such surveys because India and US have a currency difference which puts indian movies at a disadvantave.If we purely go by “no of people watched the movue” then Indian actors would have better rankings..
RAJ 19 February 2009
11:24:24 am
Everything from foreign need not have to be accepted blindly. If studois in HW believe an ash movie would fetch more money that that of khans then they are fools…Studios do blunders too ..Sawariya and CCTC are prime examples of it….
NyKavi 19 February 2009
11:53:00 am
This listing is of bankable stars for Hollywood movies. Obviously, since Ash is at least present in Hollywood, she will be ranked higher than those who have never ventured into Hwood, irrespective of how well they do in Bwood.
RAJ 19 February 2009
09:23:31 pm
Nykavi,
In that case they should have completely avoided the khans as they have never played any part in HW movies…Why the f…they enter their names in the list at the first place…??
utkal 19 February 2009
09:24:19 pm
People jump at any foreign judgment on Bollywood without even thinking of the context. If their is a currency discrepancy, tough luck. Even a flop Pink Panther makes 30 million USD which is 150 crores. So based on proven track recoed Ash can get into a project that cost 20 million dollar or 100 cr tpo make, while the Khans as of now havent demonstrated that they can do it. Jackie Chan has, and so his name is up there at 35.
Everything the West does out doesn’t have to be taken at face value, but how many Indian surveys or pronouncements from trade pundits spell out their methodology so transparently. The Western surveys ( and Awrds0 are respected fora reason.,
RAJ 19 February 2009
09:34:07 pm
Utkal,
Its equally become fashionable to trounce any Indian surveys…Its been a perennial colonial mindset at work…
When the khans havent ever worked in any HW movies then why should they be included in the survey???
HWs biggest hit contributes 600 Million USD that is INR 3000 Crore..Where as indian biggest hit contributes at best 250 cr…If the currency diff cant be factored in then no point including the khans in to list..period…
ON that count i doubt khans deserve to places 540 or 750 place as the survey shows…This is nothing but plain rubbish…
My name is Beld 19 February 2009
09:39:34 pm
utkal – i presume in the 2 classics that u mention – pink panther 2 and last legion – steve martin and colin firth has nothing to do with it – it was all ash
this is getting into the realms of the absurd to be honest – ash has just been candy floss in some very very bad movies. part of the miss world deal got her some international brand contracts/recognition – which she used to land a few movies. If she is a bankable star – well then i guess these are the boom years worldwide…
RAJ 19 February 2009
09:39:51 pm
This is like making a survey from BW point of view and placing Tom Cruise,will smith and Brad pitt at 1300,1500 and 1000 ranks respectively..
Laughable stuff..
RAJ 19 February 2009
09:40:10 pm
and pe barbara Mori at 35…
neelu 19 February 2009
09:43:12 pm
“I can believe this. Because Ash has been able to get multi-milion dollar projects like Bride and Prejudice greenlighted. She can get a Tajmahal by Ben Kingsley green lighted if she wishes. I am sure if Amir wants to do project with Danny Boyle or Shyamalan or XYZ he can raise tens of million dollars as budget. Nothing very unbelievable about it.”
ROFL! Bride and Prejudice was being directed by Gurinder Chaddha – who had just come of the stratospheric success of Bend it Like Beckham! Aishwarya has never green-lighted any HW project. Anyone who believes that is smoking illegal stuff. Let us wait and see if Aamir ever gets a project green-lighted. The only actor Shyamalan knew of was SRK!
S T R E E T 23 February 2009
11:00:54 am
No way is Will smith the most bankabke star in Hollywood.. not even close. .. maybe the Smith of 2000 not the Smith of 08 or 09… what was his last hit? All he’s had is one underperforing film after another…
And yes.. Jackie Chan is a much bigger star “globally” than the 35th position. In fact, one can make a serious case for him being the most recognizable star worldwide.
Anyways… forget Ash’s rank or the Khans.. also forget Smith’s #1 or Jackie’s #35… the number that stands out the most in this article is 157… a total of 157 people voted on the rankings of more than 1000 stars.. and they just happen to be people working in the industry, most of who probably know nothing beyond the mere spehere of their work. take for e.g.. You guys are all movie buffs.. and say you even work in movies someday.. but do yo really know the top star in Iranian movies? or who do you think is the most bankable Arab star, the biggest Italian star at present?