comment #1

actionman says ...

How the FUCK did Eddie Murphy make ANY money off of Meet Dave? $40 million?!

comment #2

Ryansi51 says ...

damn, i shouldve been an actor.

comment #3

hawthorne says ...

Actually kind of nice to see Robert Downey on this list. I remember reading after he made Wonder Boys that he was broke and homeless from paying lawyer fees etc and the director Curtis Hanson was nice enough to let him sleep on his sofa for awhile. I think Downey can buy his own sofas now!

comment #4

Mowkeka says ...

Ahhhhh, now I get why they made the fourth installment. And this whole time, I thought Harrison Ford had lost his touch. Turns out, he knew what he was doing all along.

Silly me.

comment #5

DavidF says ...

I also found the Murphy thing the most disturbing thing.
Indy was a big disappointment but it at least brought people in that first time...who went to see MEET DAVE?

Christian Bale should get a new agent; lead role in Batman and Terminator and he gets about 1/3 of what Adam Sandler gets?

It's reassuring to know that even if I didn't spend a cent between now my retirement I won't accumulate what Will Ferrell made in what I imagine is a bit of an off-year.

comment #6

Movie Watcher says ...

The only way for the Indiana franchise to move forward is to kill or retire Ford. Establish Shia as the new Indy and have someone other that Lucas to write and direct. How about a list of female actors? Who made the most?

comment #7

Rich S. says ...

It doesn't matter if A-Rod hits .175 with 0 HR and 15 RBI and the Yankees are in last place, as long as he puts butts in the seats. Same principle applies here (except, apparently, for Eddie Murphy).

comment #8

Steven Kar says ...

The Actresses:

Angelina Jolie made $27MM
Sarah Jessica Parker 27
Aniston 25
Streep 24
Cameron Diaz 20
Katherone Heigl 18
Bullock 17
Reese 15
Drew Barrymore 12
Nicole Kidman 9
Eva Longoria 9
Mariska Hargitay 8
Anna Hathaway 7
Tina Fey 7
Jennifer Love Hewitt 6

comment #9

Chase Kahn says ...

"That awful film has grossed $786 million worldwide."

No argument here that "Indy 4" was awful -- but I seem to remember a certain someone a tad on the fence but mostly enthused by what he saw at Cannes last year.

comment #10

Jeffrey Wells says ...

I admit it. I have no excuse. I thought if was half-okay if a little thin and silly when I first saw it...but still half-okay.

comment #11

Movie Watcher says ...

Kar, thanks for the list.

comment #12

Chicago48 says ...

Christian Bale is the real workhorse and should have higher earnings. He had the most successful movies in the past 2 years; he needs a new agent.

As for Eddie Murphy, he owns a lot of his product. And I saw his latest, Imagine that -- not a bad movie. Very cutesy. Will it make money? Who knows? If Nickleodeon publicizes it enough it should do well in the long run.

comment #13

Ryansi51 says ...

Rich S. says

"It doesn't matter if A-Rod hits .175 with 0 HR and 15 RBI and the Yankees are in last place, as long as he puts butts in the seats."

that quote makes absolutely no sense.

comment #14

iamjoe says ...

It's appropriate how the bottom half of this list has all the still relavant working talent, eh?

Clooney, Bale, Downey Jr, even Seth Rogan whose Observe & Report I can't wait to own.

comment #15

Rod32303 says ...

Whatever...doesn't Ford have a grown son from his first marriage, a couple kids with second wife Melissa Mathison (of whom he still pays alimony and child support), and now little Liam with Calista Flockhart? good for him for setting aa nest egg. Plus, I doubt he got paid shit for Kramer's film. He's allowed one big grossing piece of shit...he's actually allowed as many as he wants.

comment #16

COCO says ...

The agents REALLY work their asses off.
Pat anyone?

comment #17

COCO says ...

Pate anyone?

comment #18

Emmanuel_Goldstein says ...

iamjoe - Holy shit observe and report was terrible... Just burn that cash and be thankful you can save an hour and a half of your life

comment #19

/3rtfu11 says ...

How can anyone find it shocking Eddie Murphy is high on this list? He's an established name brand in foreign territories.

comment #20

lazespud says ...

Didn't Spielberg, Lucas, and Ford all have the same exact deal? Meaning each of them, got an equal share of the profits? Haven't read the Forbes article, but maybe it was just an actors list...

If I remember right, the deal also meant they're compensation was entirely based on profit participation; no salary. And, if I remember right, their shares didn't kick in until the movie made a fairly high amount at the box office. So in theory, they could have made no money on indy 4. Of course that would have never happened, but the reason that would have never happened is because of the previous success of the first indy movies. To me it's sort of like how when people get all pissed off that Alex Rodriquez is getting 25 million dollars a year; but no one seems upset that the owners are realizing many orders of magnitude more than that, and any reduction in player salaries just means those owners make even more obscene amounts of money.

If a star, producer, and director, are essentially going to guarantee your studio some money (which is an extremely rare thing), then they have every right to share in the profits to a much higher degree than normal...

comment #21

Rich S. says ...

Ryansi51, Jeffrey's point was that Harrison Ford made a ton of money by sleepwalking through a bad movie. My point is that it doesn't matter how poorly an actor or athlete performs, they earn their money as long as people come to see them.

comment #22

actionman says ...

"How can anyone find it shocking Eddie Murphy is high on this list?"

Because Meet Dave BOMBED. It made $50 million worldwide (with $11 of that from domestic ticket sales). That's a misreable failure for a film with a reported $100 million budget.

So...I repeat...how the FUCK did Eddie Murphy make $40 million? Does that $40 mill include his salaries for Meet Dave and Imagine That? Did he get some Shrek the 3rd money and Norbit money in 2008?

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with Murphy making money if he agreed to at least make ONE REMOTELY WATCHABLE MOVIE this decade.

comment #23

actionman says ...

Oh, and A-Rod better start hitting the f'ing ball...

comment #24

nemo says ...

Well hell, I was feeling mighty satisfied with that 5 million bucks I raked in last year, but now I can see I've been settling for chump change.

comment #25

Chicago48 says ...

Actionman, IMO Imagine that is watchable.

comment #26

/3rtfu11 says ...

I guess I wouldn't have a problem with Murphy making money if he agreed to at least make ONE REMOTELY WATCHABLE MOVIE this decade.

Dreamgirls is watchable.

comment #27

Rich S. says ...

You know, after reading this list, you know who's primed for a career renaissance? Steve Guttenberg.

Remember how back during the Police Academy days, Guttenberg would appear near the top of these lists, and everyone would say "how the hell did that happen?" I smell a comeback.

comment #28

actionman says ...

I'll never see Imagine That so I'll have to take your word for it.

I never made it all the way thru Dreamgirls, can't stand Jennifer Hudson

comment #29

/3rtfu11 says ...

I never made it all the way thru Dreamgirls, can't stand Jennifer Hudson

Than Eddie has nothing for you this decade.

comment #30

rr3333 says ...

Murphy doesnt do back-end deals. he wants his money up-front (20 mil a picture ... still!). That adds up to 40 mil.

Sadly (for the movie going public) Spielberg holds his friendship with Lucas in higher regard than he does in making a good film. Indy 4 would have been much better if Lucas just stayed home.

BTW: Aniston made 25 mil? That's the biggest joke.

comment #31

DeeZee says ...

rr333: Aniston deserves that kind of money more than Kidman, anyway. Hell, I'm still wondering if Pitt will be worth it after Basterds bombs. 'Button didn't even make its money back here, and probably only did slightly better world-wide.

comment #32

bents75 says ...

I second Actionman's outrage at Eddie Murphy making any money let alone $40 million.

Few Hollywood careers leave me as bitter as Murphy's. He delivered the masterful run of 48 Hours, Trading Places, Beverly Hills Cop and Coming to America. You fast forward 12 years and several weak ass movies later and he's making Dr. Doolittle 2, Showtime (Showtime! What the hell is that?), The Adventures of Pluto Nash, I Spy, Daddy Day Care, and The Haunted Mansion.

George Lucas has absolutely nothing on this dude when it comes to selling out.

Satan himself wouldn't have greenlit Daddy Day Care.

comment #33

/3rtfu11 says ...

Aniston deserves that kind of money more than Kidman

For what? She's a TV personality without personality.

comment #34

nemo says ...

"... And this whole time, I thought Harrison Ford had lost his touch. Turns out, he knew what he was doing all along."

Turns out Meryl Streep knew what she was doing starring in Mamma Mia. Number 4 on the actress list, making money that nearly matches Jim Carrey, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, and George Clooney. All she had to do was hold her nose, put on some dumpy overalls, and jump up and down on a bed like a 5-year-old while lip-synching some old ABBA songs.

comment #35

shermy says ...

The sad thing isn't that bona-fide movie stars actually made money last year. This has been going on for decades.

What's sad is that none of the current "stars" are able to do the same. Will someone like Christian Bale be pulling in $65 million twenty years from now? Doubtful, seeing as how he can't even accomplish the feat in 2009 (see: Terminator 4).

comment #36

nemo says ...

And what on earth are Mariska Hargitay and Jennifer Love Hewitt doing in the top 15 on the actress list? I haven't had cable TV in over 10 years, so maybe I'm out of touch, but who the hell are they? Are they famous? Wasn't JLH's heyday over with 6 or 7 years ago?

comment #37

raygo says ...

Re: Hargitay and Hewitt ... respectively have Law & Order SVU and Ghost Whisperer on TV ... I think at least Hewitt is a producer ($). It's not great TV, but after work on Friday it goes very nicely with beer and pizza.

comment #38

raygo says ...

I would have thought Ben Stiller would be way up on the list. I mean, how many over $100 million movies does he make? Seriously, he needs the new agent.

comment #39

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Stiller/Bale need Murphy/Cruise's agents to even things out...

comment #40

DeeZee says ...

3rt: "For what? She's a TV personality without personality."

Compared to Kidman's performances, Aniston's an MIT graduate.

comment #41

/3rtfu11 says ...

Compared to Kidman's performances, Aniston's an MIT graduate.

My favorite Kidman performance and film is Fur. Which I'm almost certain you haven't seen.

comment #42

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

If this DeeZee is anything like the original (not really), he hasn't seen any of the movies he talks about here.

Except City on Fire.

Maybe.

comment #43

Jake says ...

Why the hate for Harrison Ford? It sounds like he got a helluva deal for that ace he'd been holding up his sleeve. Good for him.

He's also a 65-year-old man that just delivered a surprisingly physical performance in an action-adventure film. I'd say both his viability in the role and the franchise itself is relatively secure.

The Thin Man Goes Home may lack the wit of its predecessors, but it's still regarded as a welcome entry in the franchise. The same could be said of Tarzan's New York Adventure.

History will judge the Indiana Jones series the same way- as a single body of work. Audiences 70 years from now are not going to cry foul because- gasp- a fridge is nuked in the opening sequence. Or- oh my God- a bunch of cgi monkeys run amok. If anything, those parts will be viewed in the same light as the franchise's earlier fantastic elements.

comment #44

Ms. M says ...

I've never understood some folks' outrage over celebs and athletes who make huge salaries (and I'm a teacher, a group which often whines over this). If someone is a key part of an enterprise which makes a lot of profit, they deserve a fair portion of that, regardless of its quality. Pure capitalism.

And I agree with Jake that the series as whole won't suffer for this. A lot of people complained about Temple of Doom and now many look back on it fondly as part of the overall series.

comment #45

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"He's also a 65-year-old man that just delivered a surprisingly physical performance in an action-adventure film."

What, Firewall?

"Audiences 70 years from now are not going to cry foul because- gasp- a fridge is nuked in the opening sequence. If anything, those parts will be viewed in the same light as the franchise's earlier fantastic elements."

Don't be ridiculous. 70 years from now, nobody will be watching KotCS -- let alone Last Crusade or Temple of Doom. We'll be lucky if Raiders lasts that long. You're probably scoffing, but that will be nearly 100 years since its original release. It's still a bit early to say how many popular films are going to prove to have that kind of cultural staying power.

comment #46

Jake says ...

What, Firewall?

It's simply not very common to see a 65-year-old actor getting banged around the way Ford does in KOTCS. (Seriously, what's the precedent here?) For anyone hoping it's just stuntmen and cgi, the dvd includes plenty of behind the scenes footage to settle the argument.

that will be nearly 100 years since its original release. It's still a bit early to say how many popular films are going to prove to have that kind of cultural staying power.

I chose 70 years, because that's roughly how long it's been since the Thin Man and Tarzan series. I could've also cited franchises like Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes or Charlie Chan.

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that Indiana Jones- by virtue of its close connection to Lucas, Spielberg, and Star Wars- will probably still be familiar to film enthusiasts in a similar span of time. This is especially true when you consider the larger role popular film now plays in our society. Barring some unforeseen factor, history actually supports the idea.

Are we really going to pretend that- in terms of his career- Ford's reprisal of Indy wasn't a step up from the likes of K19, Firewall, and Hollywood Homicide? Audiences obviously didn't think so, which is what allowed him to amass that sum in the first place.

If we're going to complain about Ford cashing a paycheck, how is doing it for a fourth time any worse than the last time? By comparison, Last Crusade occurred when his career was not only red hot, but on the heels of projects where he actually took risks: Witness, Mosquito Coast, Working Girl, and Frantic.

However, I'm sure if the internet culture had been around in 1989, there would've been complaining then too. My point with the whole Thin Man analogy was merely that Indy will outlast us and all the whiny fanboy criticisms.

comment #47

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

Raiders might, and I hope it does -- I love that film. But you're not actually implying the fourth film in the series will be watched and beloved the same way Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes is, are you?

Ford lost any chance for redemption in my eyes when he passed on the Michael Douglas role in Traffic about 10 years back.

comment #48

mrNo says ...

Ford should stand out in front of theatres and hand that $65 million back to moviegoers in $7 increments for Crystal Skull - a terrible, terrible movie.

comment #49

Jake says ...

But you're not actually implying the fourth film in the series will be watched and beloved the same way Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes is, are you?

That's exactly what I'm saying, because that's exactly how it works. The Weissmuller/Rathbone productions bear little resemblance to their literary counterparts, and are almost entirely cinematic creations. You think nostalgia for pop culture is just going to end with a certain year?

No one collects 24 of Edgar Rice Burroughs' 25 Tarzan novels, and no one complains when Song of the Thin Man is included in the boxset. Tarzan and the Mermaids is a long way from Weissmuller's prime, yet everyone would still scoff if it were omitted from a collection.

Does this mean Kingdom will be considered better than Raiders? Of course not, since originals usually tend to maintain their lofty pedastals. But even this is not a given, since everything changes with time. There's currently a lot of fans who actually prefer Last Crusade to Raiders- mainly because they have fonder memories of growing up with it.

The only certainly is that future generations will not have the same emotional baggage that is currently tied to the franchise. For example, I doubt they will care about the lack of character development in a film like Kingdom, given the lack of character development in the earlier sequels. To them, why should a nuclear fridge be any sillier than a centuries old knight in a cave?

Ford lost any chance for redemption in my eyes when he passed on the Michael Douglas role in Traffic about 10 years back.

So at least you admit to coming to the table with objectivity. :)

The topic is about an actor making a lot of money- a tradition that has been going on for decades. Hollywood has always been as much about making a buck as making art.

The great irony is that the Indy films all seek to pay homage to pulp fiction- a genre that was notorious for writers that were just trying to make a quick buck.

Lester Dent pretty much invented the modern superhero, with Doc Savage beating everyone from Batman to Superman to the Fantastic Four to the punch. Yet he was usually the first to admit he wasn't doing anything but churning out cheap "crap" for a quick dime.

Indy 4 grossed nearly a billion dollars- more than Iron Man and only $200 million less than Dark Knight. Harrison Ford was a huge reason the movie reached that number, and clearly worked harder than he had in decades to reprise the role. It was no small feat that he managed to silence years of old age jokes that had plagued the film since the late 90's.

Sorry, but I just don't see the problem with him being savvy enough to reap some of the profits. If anything, it's nice to know that there are still a few stars out there smart enough to eke out a good living.

Let's not forget, there's plenty of people that would shake their head at bloggers or people that get paid to run a movie rumor website. It's not like we're all just salt of the earth here.

comment #50

markj says ...

A quick viewing of the making of docs on the Skull DVD reveal Spielberg to be the main culprit behind Skull's flaws, not Lucas. But don't let the facts get in the way of the Lucas-bashing.

comment #51

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

"Harrison Ford was a huge reason the movie reached that number"

I have no doubt in my mind that this is true.

"clearly worked harder than he had in decades to reprise the role."

But really, that says more about his laziness and poor choice of scripts -- pretty much dating back to right after The Fugitive, IMHO -- doesn't it?

"It was no small feat that he managed to silence years of old age jokes that had plagued the film since the late 90's."

Did he, though? He wasn't looking all that limber, barely had any true action sequences, and his character was pretty inconsequential throughout the entire climax (all 40 drawn-out minutes of it). I'm certainly not saying he's unfit for a guy his age, but I'm not sure you'll find many people that would agree that making the film in 2008 was a better idea than, say, 1998.

"There's currently a lot of fans who actually prefer Last Crusade to Raiders- mainly because they have fonder memories of growing up with it."

I'm not even sure I agree with the central thesis here ("a lot of fans?" I've seen maybe one or two admit it over the thousands of Indy posts I read on movie message boards last summer), but assuming I did, it's still a specious argument because it completely ignores the Crystal Skull -- which is the film I thought we were discussing. But anyway. Are there "a lot of fans" who prefer the fourth film to EITHER Raiders and Crusade? I think we're talking a very small minority here, at most.

"Indy 4 grossed nearly a billion dollars- more than Iron Man and only $200 million less than Dark Knight."

I'm certainly not here to debate those numbers. (Although now that I'm double-checking, I will, anyway...$786 is not really almost a billion dollars, and boxofficemojo has The Dark Knight pegged at just over a billion worldwide -- that's some shady accounting on your part). But anyway, it made a helluva lot of dough -- I know I was there opening night to contribute mine.

Funny thing about numbers, though -- and this is why it's an awful judge of quality -- all the money counts the same amount, even if it was spent by disappointed, nostalgic, or let-down patrons opening weekend (I hear there were a few of those). If I wanted to make a counter-argument based on box-office, I would cite the drop-off between the first ($126 m) and second ($44 m) weekends. But I really don't, because it would feed into the vast misconception that box-office take is some sort of signifier of quality cinema.

I see Shrek the Third and Spider-man 3 also near the top of global B.O. champions. Are you at least going to be consistent and claim they will also be classics passed down for (at least) three generations?

You have your own reasons, which I can respect, and I have mine. All I can say is I'm about as interested in owning a boxset of 4 Indy films as I am in owning a boxset of 6 Star Wars films. I guess we'll have to wait 70 years to see if that's the prevailing sentiment or not.

comment #52

CitizenKanedforChewingGum says ...

And mark -- bless you for delving deep into the DVD bonus features of that rancid pit of a movie to unearth such pertinent information for all of us.

You're either realllly curious or realllly masochistic.

comment #53

Jake says ...

A quick viewing of the making of docs on the Skull DVD reveal Spielberg to be the main culprit behind Skull's flaws

I actually agree with this completely. Even the recently unearthed "Raiders" story conference reveals that Spielberg has always regarded Indy as a relatively lightweight franchise. Indy 4 was two 60-year-olds attempting to relive their 1950's youth. This was never going to work out well for modern audiences who crave a darker edge.

Did he, though?

I would say so. His performance drew favorable praise from the majority of critics- and even those that were disappointed by the rest of the film. It's easy to forget that the man was 65-years-old during filming. At that age, it's no small feat to have to be on set for virtually every day of an 80 day shooting schedule. (Let alone repeatedly filming scenes where you have to fall down, run, and mix it up in fight scenes.)

No, I'm not suggesting his performance required complex athletic feats. But when you're 65, even climbing a bunch of crates can quickly become a pain in the ass. I think Ford knew he had to be in excellent shape, which is why he underwent months of rigorous training.

Hey, Mick Jagger may no longer perform leaps and splits, but what he does manage at his age never fails to impress critics.

that's some shady accounting on your part

Most box office reports had no problem referring to Kingdom's haul as "nearly a billion". Personally, I have no problem rounding each film's take up a bit to make things easier. So let's put Indy at $787 and Batman at a billion and $200. It's roughly a difference of $215 million- a negligible amount from my $200 million comment.

We're still talking about a franchise that is nearly 30 years old with a senion citizen as its star. This is relatively unknown territory in the history of popular cinema. And yet it landed squarely in the same ballpark as 2008's heaviest hitters. It even topped the Dark Knight overseas to boot.

I'm not even sure I agree with the central thesis here ("a lot of fans?"

Well, these are all just comments on a message board, so of course I'm only speaking from personal experience. But it's not a stretch to say that both Temple and Crusade have both been re-evaluated over time. As younger audiences grow up with something, there's a tendency to favor it. It's now quite common to visit a fansite and see Crusade ranked above Raiders, which is all I am referring to.

it's still a specious argument because it completely ignores the Crystal Skull -- which is the film I thought we were discussing

Actually, we were discussing the way history regards successful movie franchises. This was prompted by the suggestion that the series had lost some viability. Ultimately, it's just not going to matter.

I'm sure at the time, there were fans who were disappointed by The Thin Man Goes Home. Consider: Nick Charles doesn't drink (a HUGE character trademark), the witty banter is toned down, and the characters are completely thrown out of their element. Hell, the original director wasn't even back. But when the dvd boxset was released, every film was still viewed as a welcome addition.

You can even see this effect in modern films. It's not unusual to see sequels that were originally considered rote and lackluster 20 years ago (ie. Ghostbusters 2; The Dead Pool; etc.) take on a new appreciation in hindsight. The movies haven't actually improved, but they now have a time capsule effect which imbues them with nostalgic qualities.

If I wanted to make a counter-argument based on box-office, I would cite the drop-off between the first ($126 m) and second ($44 m) weekends.

The problem here is that Kingdom chugged along pretty respectably during its entire run. Pundits continually remarked that it was doing solid business. If I'm not mistaken, Jeff even did a piece on what a good run both Indy and Iron Man were having- something that is no longer as common as when Indy last rode across movie screens in 1989.

Are you at least going to be consistent and claim they will also be classics passed down for (at least) three generations?

Certainly. And both films will likely be bolstered by the (planned) addition of at least one or two more sequels. Anyone that happens to be charmed by the originals decades from now will probably warm to the sequels as well. I'm not suggesting that any of these will necessarily be regarded as "classics", though. (After all, I have been talking about films like Sherlock Holmes Faces Death and Tarzan Triumphs all along here.)

The bottom line is that I just find it interesting to look back and see how popular franchises tend to endure. It's even truer today, as the internet has essentially kept a decade like the 1980's relevant in popular culture. The biggest film this summer is expected to be Transformers 2. The biggest films last summer were Indiana Jones and Batman. (Sure, you could argue that Batman has been around much longer, but the whole dark knight aspect is still linked heavily to the 80's.)

I can't help that you didn't like the last Indy film, but that's also an opinion I'm not looking to change here. All I'm saying is that future generations are more than likely going to view the entire series as a single body of work. And in that context, all the little nitpicks people had in 2008 are probably not going to matter very much.

comment #54

DeeZee says ...

Jake: "That's exactly what I'm saying, because that's exactly how it works. The Weissmuller/Rathbone productions bear little resemblance to their literary counterparts, and are almost entirely cinematic creations."

But they're still *good* productions.

"For example, I doubt they will care about the lack of character development in a film like Kingdom, given the lack of character development in the earlier sequels. To them, why should a nuclear fridge be any sillier than a centuries old knight in a cave?"

Because the latter actually has something to do with the theme of the movie, while the former is some awful action scene?

"The great irony is that the Indy films all seek to pay homage to pulp fiction- a genre that was notorious for writers that were just trying to make a quick buck."

Yes, but they at least give the audience what it wanted in exchange for money.

"Harrison Ford was a huge reason the movie reached that number, and clearly worked harder than he had in decades to reprise the role."

Bullshit. He had nothing to do with its success. Kingdom made money for the same reason as TPM, which is that there's a lot of nostalgia for the first trilogy; and people wanted to see more of it, plain and simple.

"It's not unusual to see sequels that were originally considered rote and lackluster 20 years ago (ie. Ghostbusters 2; The Dead Pool; etc.) take on a new appreciation in hindsight."

Ghostbusters 2 was never going to be as big or as popular as the first one, though. And Dead Pool came out at the tail end of a dying genre of cop movies. Indy 4 was crap, and people still dislike the Fincher Alien movie.

"The problem here is that Kingdom chugged along pretty respectably during its entire run."

Though if you subtract its significantly higher costs than the other films, and factor the inflation-adjusted box office revenue of the other films, it doesn't do as spectacularly as it would seem on the surface.

mark: Did Spielberg fire Darabont?