I’d say Jennifer Lawrence is about as A-list as you can get.
Couldn’t someone with access to Ulmer’s Hot List give us a factual answer to the OP? Isn’t that the canonical list defining A-list versus B, C, and D?
I guess we need to decide if this thread is about the canonical list or our personal opinions. I think the Ulmer Scale does indeed rate Chastain as A-list, at least as of a couple years ago, but that’s just my impression from search engine results. I’m not going to pay for access to his list.
I think part of it is that the movie is promoted based on your name.
Here are actors and actresses 40 and under on Forbes most powerful celebrities for 2014.
- Jennifer Lawrence 24
- Bradley Cooper 40
- Leonardo DiCaprio 40
- Ashton Kutcher 36
- Angelina Jolie 39
- Scarlett Johansson 30
- Amy Adams 40
- Kerry Washington 37
- Zooey Deschanel 35
- Lena Dunham 28
- Kaley Cuoco 29
- Natalie Portman 33
There are several who were listed in 2013 (Emma Stone, Mila Kunis, Kevin Hart, Charlize Theron, Kristen Stewart, and Channing Tatum, who dropped from #23 to nothing).
She’s definitely had huge success from the Hunger Games movies, but how much other success has she had? I’m a little reluctant to declare someone A-list just based on one franchise, no matter how successful (this is also why I was unsure about Chris Evans).
Aside from two Golden Globe awards and an Academy Award? That sounds like success.
She does have a Best Actress Oscar, another Best Actress nomination, and a Best Supporting Actress nomination. She’s 24.
Plus the rebooted X-Men franchise and lead/supporting roles in two best picture nominees.
Edit: Make that 3 best picture nominees
Scarlet and Lawrence are definitely A-List. Huge salaries, box office performance, and critical acclaim. Someone like Chris Evans isn’t a draw and has no salary requirements. I think he made a couple hundred grand for Captain America. A lot of these younger action guys are somewhat interchangeable.
I agree. A movie like Lucy or Under the Skin is marketed as a Scarlett Johansson movie. She’s the draw.
Christian Bale has one whole week left.
Have to wonder if/how he must be celebrating…
Probably in a restaurant in Europe with Anne Hathaway.
Chloe Grace Moretz (Hit Girl) isn’t there yet, but will be shortly. She’s been the best, most watchable thing in every movie she’s ever been in, kind of like Jim Carrey was before Ace Ventura. Emma Watson, apart from the Harry Potter gravy train, has made at least three movies that would never have been green-lit if she weren’t starring in them. Anyone who saw The Bling Ring, The Perks of Being a Wallflower or This Is the End did so because she was in them. They weren’t huge hits, but they didn’t lose money either. If she wasn’t A-list last year, she sure will be this year.
Okay, the first two I’ll grant you. But you thought This Is The End was an Emma Watson vehicle?
It was a piece of crap I only watched because she was in it. Did you see it for some other reason?
I’m pretty sure most people (including myself) saw it for the Rogan/Franco film. Watson was a fun add along.
Okay. I, a former longtime resident of South Korea, skipped The Interview. If she’d been in it, maybe I’d have made the effort.
Also the other issue with Watson is that The Bling Ring and Perks of Being a Wallflower really didn’t make that much money ($20mil for Bling Ring, $33mil for Perks). While they made money, that’s hardly the level that A-list actors can bring in for a movie.
The movies where she’s a supporting role recently (the aforementioned This is the End and Noah) made tons more - End making $126mil and Noah making $362mil.
I think the defining elements of an A-lister are:
–$1million or more per picture
–Over-the-title billing
–Movies do or don’t get made largely on the actor’s involvement
–The actor’s phone calls to major directors and producers are taken or returned promptly
Which of these elements doesn’t apply to Emma Watson? Even DeNiro makes the occasional Stardust.