Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Hollywood's Most Overpaid Actors


Jangler

Recommended Posts

1. Will Ferrell

2. Eddie Murphy

3. Denzel Washington

4. Seth Rogan

5. Tom Cruise

6. Drew Barrymore

7. Matt Damon

8. Vince Vaughn

9. Adam Sandler

10. Jim Carrey

Washington and Damon are the only ones I'd argue with on that list.

Murphy's made some movies I've liked (Dr. Doolittle was good) but a lot of people don't like that he only does family movies these days.

Ferrell is awful. He's good for a short sketch like on SNL, but watching him for two hours is painful.

(ditto Seth Rogan and/or pretty much anyone from SNL these days)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will Ferrell sucks and is way over rated. tired of the TV apearances where he's supposed to be funny just because it's him.

Although I did like his brief appearance in Wedding Crashers.

Exactly! I don't find him funny in the least and I can't help but think that he's Hollywood's last ditch attempt to prove that someone funny has come from Saturday Night Live in the last 15 years. :toetap05:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't always about the box office money, DVD/Blu-Ray sales etc, have a large impact on things too. Most movies always make money because of this.

And Denzel is probably one of the best actors of the last 20 years. If you think he can only play one character, there are a lot of movies you need to watch that the posters already put up.

He always puts out good to great films, never a bad film. He's a safe bet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will Ferrell sucks and is way over rated. tired of the TV apearances where he's supposed to be funny just because it's him.

Although I did like his brief appearance in Wedding Crashers.

My friend raved about Ricky Bobbie. When I rented it, I could barely get through it! Land of the Lost was watchable only because of the other guy making fun of Ferrell all the time. I didn't even bother to rent the basketball movie. It looked way to stupid. I was afraid of losing IQ points. LOL

You're right. His 10-15 minuted in Wedding Crahsers were his best work.

When he's on a talk show, all he talks about is his on Magnum or Magnus. Will, who cares!

As far as Eddie Murphy goes. Beverly Hills Cop 1 was good. His family movies are at least watchable. Doctor Doolittle and Daddy Day Care. (Kind of ironic, that a guy how who was best known for RAW, would end up making family movies.)

Women love Denzel! One of my past GF's loved it everytime he took his shirt off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...