It is an interesting exercise, but any best male actor list that does not include Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando is certifiable. I am not sure what you do to give equal balance to women, but can an acting list without the presence of Kathryn Hepburn or Barbra Stanwyck be taken seriously? No, it cannot. I saw in the comments that the box office figures were adjusted for inflation - I am genuinely surprised that significant Golden Age stars did not fare better.
I think that's probably because of cinematic advancements. Movies today have more challenges then they did back then, roles are more complex, actors can take more chances in terms of what's accepted by the FCC and the Motion Picture Association, which are much more lenient today.
Thank you for including that pic of Philip Seymour Hoffman. What an incredible talent whose career was cut way too short. Makes me wonder how high he might have climbed this list if he had been alive the last 10 years. Yes, he died in 2014!
Online Rating and Box Office $ are both going to be slanted towards more recent actors. So older actors from the 1940's thru the 1970's will not get as many ratings (so not as many higher ratings) and their box office $ will be lower. Even the omission of Tom Hanks I think shows the obvious flaw in this process....
I enjoyed this very much. I was wondering if cost of living and average household income was considered when assessing blockbuster category. A movie breaking 2 million in the 1940s may be considered a higher bankable actor than a 220 million blockbuster of the 1990s. I noticed the blockbuster list did not include actors from before 1970.
Um, nope. If you changed the title to "most popular" or "audience favorite" or something mercenary, then you'd have something. But "greatest" implies some kind of artistic merit. Don't confuse financial success with artistic.
Agree 100%. Tom Hanks is hands down one of the most versatile and artistically talented actors ever to have graced the silver screen. Peter O'Toole (Troy - incredible performance), Al Pacino from his early career through the Godfather and more; great talent. Others: Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey, Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, Jon Voight, Ian McKellen, Heath Ledger, and others for their versatility
Two bookends that seems oddly missing from the box office are John Wayne and Dwayne The Rock Johnson. Two actors who could be counted on to fill seats. The other perhaps unquantifiable (which is all this exercise was) quality is versatility. Pacino is a one dimensional actor, while De Niro, is shamefully not on the final top 10 despite his range.
I'm trying to work through why I'm sad that DiCaprio came out on top. I guess I think he's boring? I haven't seen any of his films in the last decade because I feel like I can predict every plot beat. But maybe I'm lying to myself because I already decided I don't like him?
He deserves recognition for his long career of good work, but I don't get excited for a DiCaprio event. I prefer someone like Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, or heck, Nicolas Cage, when he works with the right director. I know their films are likely to be interesting, even if they're not always great.
And maybe that's what brings DiCaprio success: choosing movies with challenging roles that will still appeal to a wide audience 🤔🤷🏼♀️
Agree. Something about D that bothers me as far as his acting, although Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and Wolves of Wallstreet were pretty well acted, just not great.
I agree with your take 100%. Leo’s performances and his character choices just don’t move me like so many other actor’s parts do. Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Brad Pitt, Sidney Poitier, and even Nicholas Cage all perform in much more important roles in my opinion. I think what is really lacking in this statistically wonderful article is the highly subjective and debatable “important” factor. I think that Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side are very important roles that inspire the viewer to real life changing and world changing virtues that Leo has never done for me.
Including 13 on the list you shared so Mark Ruffalo snuck in there is pretty funny. While he's much-loved, including by me, it seems a little silly that he's on there ahead of so many actors that are household names and regarded as greats. And you've caveated away all of this plenty in the article, I just wonder if you've done some thinking about how these categories might be better weighted/normalized.
Dan Pal has already commented on whether the box office figures are inflation-adjusted. Ruffalo is buoyed by having been in some blockbusters in a relatively minor roles, so maybe just having a bit part in an Avengers movie shouldn't count as much as being the actor around which an entire film is built (as is often the case with DiCaprio's work). Similarly, not all Oscar consideration is equal, and I think you're counting nominations, if I understand correctly? It would seem that a win should be worth more than a nomination, and a starring role worth more than a supporting role. I fully recognize that all of this is arbitrary and subjective, but it feels right, and again would support the people who are more well-regarded and more "carried" their respective films.
As for online ratings, there's drift, right? I feel like you've discussed that before. I'll leave it to others to discuss what impact that might have here, though I certainly like having the category.
All box office figures are inflation adjusted (as noted in the box office graphic). And all figures are counted for actors who are the #1 or #2 star of a film. Ruffalo’s casting as the fifth lead doesn’t count here.
Personally, I think Ruffalo is a good fit given his balanced resume of blockbusters and prestige films. His filmography is surprisingly deep.
At the same time, you’re right: this methodology primarily rewards balance, and punishes deficiencies in a single category which leads to Ruffalo beating out, say, Meryl Streep.
There’s no perfect approach, which is why I deconstructed these rankings (showing each category) and optimized for transparency.
RE leading v supporting actors: There's one I can think of that breaks the rule: Brad Pitt won Best Supporting for Once Upon a Time... He was supporting but the role was more like a lead.
It is an interesting exercise, but any best male actor list that does not include Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando is certifiable. I am not sure what you do to give equal balance to women, but can an acting list without the presence of Kathryn Hepburn or Barbra Stanwyck be taken seriously? No, it cannot. I saw in the comments that the box office figures were adjusted for inflation - I am genuinely surprised that significant Golden Age stars did not fare better.
I think that's probably because of cinematic advancements. Movies today have more challenges then they did back then, roles are more complex, actors can take more chances in terms of what's accepted by the FCC and the Motion Picture Association, which are much more lenient today.
Thank you for including that pic of Philip Seymour Hoffman. What an incredible talent whose career was cut way too short. Makes me wonder how high he might have climbed this list if he had been alive the last 10 years. Yes, he died in 2014!
Mark Ruffalo?
What a joke.
Online Rating and Box Office $ are both going to be slanted towards more recent actors. So older actors from the 1940's thru the 1970's will not get as many ratings (so not as many higher ratings) and their box office $ will be lower. Even the omission of Tom Hanks I think shows the obvious flaw in this process....
I think this article verifies that we are all ready for some change. Let’s see some women at the top of these list and more people of color.
Hahahaha! OMG. Stop.
This was so interesting! Would it work if you made this same ranking system but focused it solely on women?
A shame that Gary Oldman didn't make the cut. That guy is a chameleon.
Katharine Hepburn.
Leaving Gregory Peck off this list speaks volumes of the insignificance of the authors.
Good God he was selected as the Greatest Hero in cinema for his role as Atticus Finch.
And he NAILED the NINE minute Courtroom Monologue in ONE take. CUT Print That’s lunch. See you all tomorrow. Up yours ‘Nard
I enjoyed this very much. I was wondering if cost of living and average household income was considered when assessing blockbuster category. A movie breaking 2 million in the 1940s may be considered a higher bankable actor than a 220 million blockbuster of the 1990s. I noticed the blockbuster list did not include actors from before 1970.
Just something to consider.
How would the rankings change if time-dependent items like Box Office revenues were updated to put them in constant dollars?
Daniel Day Lewis gets no mention on any of these criteria ?
Um, nope. If you changed the title to "most popular" or "audience favorite" or something mercenary, then you'd have something. But "greatest" implies some kind of artistic merit. Don't confuse financial success with artistic.
Similarly, Rotten Tomatoes is garbage.
Agree 100%. Tom Hanks is hands down one of the most versatile and artistically talented actors ever to have graced the silver screen. Peter O'Toole (Troy - incredible performance), Al Pacino from his early career through the Godfather and more; great talent. Others: Gene Hackman, Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey, Gregory Peck, Henry Fonda, Jon Voight, Ian McKellen, Heath Ledger, and others for their versatility
Two bookends that seems oddly missing from the box office are John Wayne and Dwayne The Rock Johnson. Two actors who could be counted on to fill seats. The other perhaps unquantifiable (which is all this exercise was) quality is versatility. Pacino is a one dimensional actor, while De Niro, is shamefully not on the final top 10 despite his range.
I'm trying to work through why I'm sad that DiCaprio came out on top. I guess I think he's boring? I haven't seen any of his films in the last decade because I feel like I can predict every plot beat. But maybe I'm lying to myself because I already decided I don't like him?
He deserves recognition for his long career of good work, but I don't get excited for a DiCaprio event. I prefer someone like Christian Bale, Colin Farrell, or heck, Nicolas Cage, when he works with the right director. I know their films are likely to be interesting, even if they're not always great.
And maybe that's what brings DiCaprio success: choosing movies with challenging roles that will still appeal to a wide audience 🤔🤷🏼♀️
Agree. Something about D that bothers me as far as his acting, although Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and Wolves of Wallstreet were pretty well acted, just not great.
I agree with your take 100%. Leo’s performances and his character choices just don’t move me like so many other actor’s parts do. Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Brad Pitt, Sidney Poitier, and even Nicholas Cage all perform in much more important roles in my opinion. I think what is really lacking in this statistically wonderful article is the highly subjective and debatable “important” factor. I think that Tom Hanks in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side are very important roles that inspire the viewer to real life changing and world changing virtues that Leo has never done for me.
Including 13 on the list you shared so Mark Ruffalo snuck in there is pretty funny. While he's much-loved, including by me, it seems a little silly that he's on there ahead of so many actors that are household names and regarded as greats. And you've caveated away all of this plenty in the article, I just wonder if you've done some thinking about how these categories might be better weighted/normalized.
Dan Pal has already commented on whether the box office figures are inflation-adjusted. Ruffalo is buoyed by having been in some blockbusters in a relatively minor roles, so maybe just having a bit part in an Avengers movie shouldn't count as much as being the actor around which an entire film is built (as is often the case with DiCaprio's work). Similarly, not all Oscar consideration is equal, and I think you're counting nominations, if I understand correctly? It would seem that a win should be worth more than a nomination, and a starring role worth more than a supporting role. I fully recognize that all of this is arbitrary and subjective, but it feels right, and again would support the people who are more well-regarded and more "carried" their respective films.
As for online ratings, there's drift, right? I feel like you've discussed that before. I'll leave it to others to discuss what impact that might have here, though I certainly like having the category.
All box office figures are inflation adjusted (as noted in the box office graphic). And all figures are counted for actors who are the #1 or #2 star of a film. Ruffalo’s casting as the fifth lead doesn’t count here.
Personally, I think Ruffalo is a good fit given his balanced resume of blockbusters and prestige films. His filmography is surprisingly deep.
At the same time, you’re right: this methodology primarily rewards balance, and punishes deficiencies in a single category which leads to Ruffalo beating out, say, Meryl Streep.
There’s no perfect approach, which is why I deconstructed these rankings (showing each category) and optimized for transparency.
RE leading v supporting actors: There's one I can think of that breaks the rule: Brad Pitt won Best Supporting for Once Upon a Time... He was supporting but the role was more like a lead.