By Colin Covert
Will Ferrell tops Forbes' annual list of Hollywood's Most Overpaid Stars, ranking performers by the ratio between the salaries they command and the boxoffice returns of their films. The article fingers "Land of the Lost" for his dubious distinction, calling it "one of those epic Hollywood disasters that makes outsiders question why anyone is in the movie business." (Full disclosure. I was one of the only critics who liked it, a moment of questionable judgment now immortalized by a blurb on the cover of the DVD.) Overcompensation is a relative thing. Forbes' number-crunching concludes that for every dollar Ferrell was paid, his films in the last 12 months earned back $3.29. To most investors that would sound pretty good. But putting your money on Shia LaBeouf is like getting in on Google's initial stock offering. Put LaBeouf in your movie and you get a 160-to-1 return on his salary. Ferrell's fellow losers include Ewan McGregor, Ice Cube, Billy Bob Thornton, Eddie Murphy, Tom Cruise, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L. Jackson and Jim Carrey. Drew Barrymore was the only actress to make the list. I'm not convinced by the logic of the list. Ferrell is undoubtedly the main boxoffice draw for most of his films, while LaBoeuf is hardly the engine that drives Indiana Jones or Transformers movies. I'm not sure where second-place earner James McAvoy ("Wanted," "Atonement") belongs on that continuum. How do you calculate the value of a fine performance in a movie that's mismarketed? Still, the Forbes piece poses a valid question. "District 9" and "Precious" didn't need A-list stars. The leads in the "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" movies started out as unknowns. Is it still sensible to pay someone $15 million to play make believe for a few weeks? My biggest fear is that spme producer will skim this list and order up a LaBeouf/McAvoy buddy cops movie. http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/17/hollywoods-most-overpaid-stars-business-entertainment-overpaid-stars.html
