156 thoughts on “Steve McQueen Movies”

1. PHIL

   1 Sorry I forgot to remind you that in his survey of the Top 25 stars of the period from just 1950-2010 Bruce ranks Newman 2nd and McQueen 7th overall. So they both do well and the period selected would comprise the heydays of their careers as neither made a movie before 1950 and both were dead by 2010. Bruce gives detailed reasons for his rankings.

   2 The Work Horse does though opine that Steve had “the least productive” career of the 25 actors listed but we can take that as an impartial view imparted to us in good faith because well below McQueen in the list is Bruce’s big favourite Sir Maurice Micklewhite at 17th whereas another of WH’s personal top faves Bruce Willis does not even make the list. Bruce is well aware that although the likeable screen Willis is not in my own Top 20 I would if I was being objective place him among the 25 most successful stars in the 1950-2000 period. On the women’s side I mainly disagreed with Bruce about his exclusion of Cameron Diaz from the female 25 and argued long and hard with him about that but that debate is one more example of my contention that the Work Horse usually wins out! Willis/Diaz aside I thought Bruce’s two 25s were for the most part spot on, and anyway somebody will always gripe about somebody being left out and as Rufus Ryker said to Shane “There’s just so many hands in a deck of cards.”

   Reply

   1. Hi Bob,
      Wow I’m amazed, and dare I say a little flattered, that my response to your initially ruthless attack on Steve McQueen’s admittedly over-sized ego has led you to develop such a well-researched and crafted rebuttal. Since you recognize that I have made salient points and valid arguments, and I recognize the same with respect to your 3-part (or is 4?) response, I see that we do not fundamentally disagree on the issue but are bringing different perspectives to bear on the subject. There is a lot to consider in what you put forth, and together with Bruce’s points, I need a bit of time to consider before responding fully. Not that I want to continue to push my point, but there are some interesting facts and ideas you raise that I would like to get back to. Also, I have to think about it, but I have some doubts about the method your propose to evaluate the success of the two actors. For now, I just want to make it clear (and this is for Bruce as well) that, in my opinion, there is no doubt that from a career perspective, Newman was greater than McQueen, whether it’s in terms of box office, critically acclaimed films or just sheer acting talent (though for whatever reason, I have a preference for the cooler king) – my main point was that by the early 70s, their perceived star power and popularity were more or less equal, possibly with McQueen having a slight edge as he was still ascending and generating a little bit more excitement. Probably, in 1969, McQueen was not quite ready to take billing over Newman in Butch Cassidy, but by 1974, after the big successes of The Getaway and Papillon, his claim for the top spot in Inferno was more legitimate. Of course, we do not know if McQueen would have continued to rival, or even overtake, Newman, had he not been struck with his illness. This could be seen as unlikely as Newman was a more versatile actor who could take on a wider variety of roles as he aged, whereas McQueen’s cool anti-hero persona may have become less appealing as he got older (as his last couple of films suggest). On the other hand, had McQueen developed more humility, he could have become a bit of an American Sean Connery, taking on the role of the experienced, past-his-prime, mentor sharing the glory with a younger, more exciting star at his side. But this is a digression, so I will stop here and return later. Thanks again for the discussion and your very interesting response.

      Reply

      1. 1 PHIL Thanks for your further comprehensive comments. I think that I’ve now got my “draw” and as I said to Bruce, in a dispute about another performer, and as you intimate yourself, you and I don’t disagree on substance but rather degree as I too like McQueen movies and regard him as a definite superstar and legend, and indeed as I’ve mentioned before on this site for a time his memorabilia outsold that of Elvis. Not many can lay claim to that distinction.

         2 Anyway the Russian politician Leon Trotsky who was no friend of the West may still have had a point when he said that one of the hang-ups of Western civilization is the strange belief that “He who gets in the last word has won the argument”!

         3 I should add that I also like the way that you come back with reasoned argument where you disagree and don’t take matters personally. [Bruce was worried that you might].

         4 Your healthy attitude is not always the case however as unfortunately for example a month or so ago one viewer became abusive and used swear words to Bruce because the Work Horse’s ratings of movies annoyed the viewer. Sensibly Bruce did not react like Stonewall Torrey in Shane.

         5 Also sadly one person whom I admire took personal offence at, and fell out with me over, isolated criticism that I made of long-dead idols of that person even though it would be clear from many comments that I made elsewhere that I too admired those idols in most other respects.

         6 “You deserve to die not because you are having an affair with my wife but because you sneered at my [fictional] detective Singen Lord Merridew,” or words to that effect said Larry Oliver to Sir Maurice Micklewhite in the 1972 classic Sleuth.

         7 Conversely I have always liked the advice of tennis star Boris Becker which is now widely quoted within sporting circles. He had just lost a major tennis match that he had been expected to win and when he returned to his dressing room his team had all assembled there with glum looks. “Why the long faces?” he asked. “It was just a tennis match. Nobody got shot!”

         Reply

         1. 1 PHIL. We have been discussing degrees of our idolatry in movies so I thought I should say that as you may have noticed in my posts I use Brando examples a lot and to a lesser extent those involving John Wayne. This seems to have led people like the Work Horse and Steve to conclude that Brando is my favourite movie star which is not the case.

            2 There are horses for courses [no pun intended Bruce] and whilst Marlon is the male performer whom I most admire for ACTING SKILLS [with the possible exceptions of England’s Sir Maurice Micklewhite and Sir Dirk Bogarde] actors whom I find more entertaining [and that’s what it’s all about] are 1/Richard Widmark 2/Gregory Peck 3/James Stewart 4/Morgan Freeman 5/Alan Ladd. These therefore could be said to be my top favourites with Brando, the Duke and Glenn Ford a bit further down and requiring a toss of a coin to split them

            3 I grew up with 4 brothers who were Brando/Wayne fanatics and they provided and still provide me with many books, magazines and stories about those two in particular so that they are the actors about whom I have the most anecdotes and information and as Bruce has highlighted when you have a story about one actor it can normally be used as an example that links up Dan-like with matters relating many other actors across the site – see 6 & 7 below. Since joining this site Bruce has kindly given me additional Brando stories and links to excellent videos about Mr Mumbles and the Duke.

            4 McQueen, Redford and Newman would be somewhere in the bottom 10 of my Top 30 and if I had to toss a coin to split them it would probably come down “Robert” If all that we have been told is reasonably accurate [and I always like to apply that caveat since noe of us was ever actually THERE] there is no doubt Steve seems to have been the worst behaved of the 3 in private though locals of a town where Redford once filmed were quite unflattering about the problems they claim he left behind for the community.

            5. However my main concern is with screen image and indeed I have often wondered whether as a result of childhood and youth experiences Steve could be excused to an extent in that he had some kind of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder affliction whereby he targeted tokens perceived to be important and had to challenge them in the way that a person if asked why he/she wanted to climb a massive mountain might well answer “Because it’s there!”

            6 Steve certainly seemed to have an obsession about besting Newman. Also in 1976 it was announced that Brando had secured a massive fee and profit sharing arrangement for Superman [released in 1978] that got into the famous Guinness Book of Records and although Steve didn’t make many movies after 1974 his agents were in constant negotiations on his behalf and those agents when putting a project to him for consideration apparently had to assure him that the deal was as good as or better than Brando’s

            7 For example in the late 1970s McQueen had reportedly agreed to star in Tai-Pan for a reported fee of $10 million [about $35 million today] but for some reason withdrew and it was made in 1986 with Australian actor Bryan Brown. It’s hard to compare that fee with the Brando arrangement which was just for 10 days work on a virtual cameo and entailed a $3.7 million flat fee plus a hefty % which ultimately earned Mr Mumbles a sum which reports varied at between $15 and 18 million [said to beworth in today’s dollars about $45-55 million from when he eventually got it all in his hand.]

            Reply

            1. Bob,
               Thanks for your latest response and gracious attempt to put an end to the Newman/McQueen infernal debate. As usual, you have further enriched the discussion and taken it to the towering heights of argumentation. However, as both Newman and McQueen found out, once an inferno breaks out in a tower, it may take a few attempts to put it out!

               Actually, as you have declared this debate a draw, I really have no desire to continue trying to persuade you of my position, but as mentioned, some of your points triggered some more thinking on my part and I just want to come back to a few of them. In any case, I think you are certainly the winner of this discussion in terms of rapidity and extensiveness of argumentation, completeness of statistical information, and contribution of fascinating anecdotes. I was always interested in billing order but I used to innocently think decisions were pretty straightforward and logical. However, your extensive knowledge of this matter (not only in this conversation but in other posts you have contributed) has made me aware of the great power struggles behind billing decisions and the influence of the stars themselves in these decisions. By the way, I found interesting that William Holden had asked for top billing in the Towering Inferno.

               Now, in terms of the methodology you suggest to establish the box office strength of McQueen and Newman before Inferno, I have two main reservations:

               1. Since the question is who between McQueen and Newman deserved first billing in a 1974 movie, I think it is not very relevant to go back to the mid-50s, or even early 60s, to determine the relative box office power of these two stars. While you are more familiar with how studios and producers make this kind of decision, I imagine that they are more concerned with the question: “what you have you done lately?”, than box office hits dating 15 or 20 years, since unfortunately audiences are fickle and the popularity of stars can decline rapidly. I have observed that within 5 years of less, a major box office attraction can decline to the point of starring in second-rate material or taking second or third billing behind newer stars, if they have not been able to sustain box office success. The exception seems to be when stars have already attained legendary status, in which case they continue to command top billing perhaps more out of respect than box office popularity (such as Gable, Tracy or Cooper in the late 50s and early 60s).

               2. Since my argument was not that McQueen was more successful at the box office than Newman, but rather that his movies had been more “consistently” successful (at least since The Great Escape), counting only their hits does not quite address my point. Hence, since I know you are also interested in stats, I have looked at all their films from their first starring roles to 1973 (you did not count that I was on vacation time this week and could spend the time doing this!), and McQueen still has a higher percentage of hits (that is, films with over $80M adjusted gross), 65%, versus 54% for Newman. Newman still beats McQueen on average box office, $141.4 million vs $124.4 million. However, it’s interesting to note that without The Sting, Newman’s average goes down to $110.85 million (same as McQueen without Papillon). (In this case, I have not discounted box office totals if there was an important co-star in the film, as you did. It’s a defensible method but as I think you agree, it can get complicated).

               All this does not change the conclusion you made: they were both superstars, perhaps the greatest of their generation (assuming Brando was of the previous generation) – and I think both of their average box office numbers are impressive, especially when one considers declining box office attendance in the 60s and 70s.

               On another note, yes, I had thought that Marlon Brando was one of your top stars given your many comments about him and fiery defense of him from Joel’s criticism. For me, it’s clear that Brando was one of the greatest and most talented Hollywood stars of all times, but of course, there are always other opinions. My personal favourites are Burt Lancaster and James Garner, followed in no particular order by Henry Fonda, Kirk Douglas, Gregory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Cary Grant, Sean Connery, Sidney Poitier, Audrey Hepburn, Charles Bronson, Michael Caine…and Steve McQueen.

2. PHIL PART 3 – PAUL NEWMAN
   1 These are Paul Newman’s adjusted domestic grosses of $80 million or more for the period 1958-1973.

   1973/The Sting – $565 million – half total gross of $1.130 billion
   1969/Butch Cassidy -390 – half of $780 million
   1958/Cat on Hot Tin Roof – 177 – half of 354
   1960/Eodus-291
   1960/From the Terrace-182
   1964/What a Way to Go- 157
   1958/Long Hot Summer-141
   1963/Hud-140
   1958/Rally Round the Flag-137
   1967/Cool Hand Luke-128
   1966/Torn Curtain-63-half of $126 million
   1961/The Hustler-124
   1972/Judge Roy Bean-122
   1966/Harper/115
   1968/Winning-114
   1959/The Young Philadelphians-109
   1967/Hombre-98
   1963/The Prize-97
   1962/Sweet Bird of Youth-87
   GRAND TOTAL $3.235 billion / Average per movie $171 million

   2 Bruce’s comprehensive list of the 100 Top Movie Stars ranks Newman at 10th, Redford at 22nd and McQueen at 72nd. Moreover as can be seen from the following summary and the preceding Part 2, in the 1958-73 period Steve had 9 movies that crashed Bruce’s 100 million dollar barrier in adjusted domestic grosses and Paul had 16. Over their entire careers Steve had 12 and Paul 25 movies in the 100 million category.

   3 However there are many salient points in your excellent post with which I agree and even where that I not the case I have to concede that for the most part you have advanced valid arguments in support of your own case. Also the good news all round is that viewings of Steve’s new videos on Newman/McQueen [and Redford] are powering ahead despite having just come out.

   Reply

   1. PHIL-CORRECTION TO MY PREVIOUS

      Steve McQueen had just 10 movies that crashed Bruce’s 100 million barrier and not 12 as I originally stated. Apologies

      Reply

      1. Nobody’s Perfekt. That was a Gabe Kaplan movie….does anybody even remember Gabe “Welcome Back Kotter” Kaplar? That show launched John Travolta….and even let Kaplan star in a few movies…the most famous being The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh.

         Reply

   2. Good comment.

      Reply

3. Hey Bob….not sure if Phil will enjoy this comment….but I did. Funny first part of the comment. Not thinking I normally win….but the stats always win….lol. Thanks for the feedback to Phil’s also equally impressive comment.

   Reply

   1. BRUCE

      1 I totally agree that Phil’s comments were impressive and my stance is just one aspect of the equation. Box office as your UMR scores recognise is just one aspect of Legend . Other things to be taken into account are for example Astaire’s magical feet and Olivier/Brando’s acting and influence on acting. Indeed if just Marlon’s box office was taken into account his legend would be diluted as his grosses whilst stunning in patches and his average gross excellent they were not vertiginous and McQueen was in the same boat. .

      2. What’s the old saying ? “Possession is nine points of the law” and as you control the site whilst you do not abuse that position in a debate nevertheless gives you a slight advantage in a debate. But who cares? I come here to learn , not to teach!

      Reply

      1. Hey Bob…I agree with you 100%. That is why I think my UMR formula is at least going down the right path…..as it takes into account both box office and reviews…not to mention Oscar glory. Yes Brando is more than box office glory. Nice old saying.

         Reply

         1. HI BRUCE

            1 Thanks for the backchat. I will only add that I am content with your method of giving full box office credit to all the stars of a movie although I would draw the line at the Walter Brennan’s. However it would be chaotic to try to do splits across the board among the big stars and even then how do you arrive at a fair method of apportionment? For example if Gable and Lana Turner are in a movie it’s probably a safe bet that Clark has been the bigger audience magnet – but to what extent? It’s impossible to tell certainly on a movie to movie basis because if Clark’s perceived box office contribution to every film was exactly the same all of his films would have made the precise same amount of money and that’s so with every other star as well.

            2 I arbitrarily apportioned among McQueen/Redford/Newman etc because Phil seemed to object to Paul being given all the credit for Sting and Butch and I wanted to establish a “bottom line” for Paul that was acceptable to Phil. A I say I wish I could get Lensman sucked into these grosses debates – I’d even be prepared to let him win in the end all the time!

            Reply

4. AFTERNOON STEVE 1 The Work Horse’s 100 Greatest Stars page and his ready reckoners on each performer’s page give us all the information we need about the box office performance of all the Greats and many others besides. In fact he has provided the information within such a wide variety of contexts across his site that the latter is what we would have called “All singing/all dancing” in my days in the Civil Service

   2 Indeed he has put so much effort into his stats that I have expressed my worry about his potential burnout and have hinted that he should take a break and like the Scholar Gipsy join the travelling people for a time and “roam the world with that wild brotherhood,” as Matthew Arnold expressed it in the poem. I am sure THEY would love to sit around their campfires at night learning about for example what wonderful professionals Joel and Myrna were.

   3 Anyway for your instant reference here are Bruce’s latest adjusted domestic grosses for the entire careers of the Big 3 whom we have been discussing.
   NEWMAN 59 movies Total Gross $7.43 billion Average gross $125.8 million
   REDFORD 48 movies Total Gross $6.76 billion Average Gross $140.85 million
   McQUEEN 26 movies Total Gross $3.2 billion Average Gross $123.3 million

   4 You will see that there is little between Paul and Robert with the former having the edge in Total Gross whilst Bob is slightly ahead in average gross but that both knock spots off Steve overall. It can be argued that he made less movies and he died prematurely but his heyday may well have been on the fade anyway whereas Robert whose best days are also probably behind him could nevertheless overtake Paul’s total albeit marginally if he got a few more outings like Capt America.

   5 Those are of course imponderables for us and we can judge by just actual career achievements and the Work Horse gives us our best shot at doing that. He’s used to me rambling on and waxing lyrical about his stats but I am sure he will be pleased that YOU have deigned to ask questions about his figures.

   Reply

   1. Hey Bob….glad my stats help you make your points…proud day I tell ya….proud day. Yep…every once in awhile Steve will make a comment that mentions box office grosses. I thought the words “box office grosses” on his keypad were dosed in acid…lol.

      Reply

5. STEVE 1. I know that you’re not usually too interested in detailed historical stats but as McQueen made a big issue of status and you have put much hard work into giving us the excellent McQueen/Newman/Redford video trilogy I thought that you might like to see a summary of the Work Horse’s box office take in the matter

   2 As the hotly-contested billing issue first arose in relation to Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid in 1969 only the earnings of their films up to roughly that point are relevant and Bruce’s tables show that the total adjusted domestic grosses for the two stars at the end of 1968 were:

   NEWMAN Total gross figure $3.03 billion – average per movie $108.2 million
   McQUEEN Total gross figure $1.7 billion – average $100.5 million per movie

   2 In terms of box office it was therefore really no contest at that point and the 2nd time the billing quarrel broke out was when Towering Inferno was being made in 1974 and the total Cogerson adjusted domestic grosses at the end of 1973 were:

   NEWMAN Total Gross figure $5.35 billion – average per movie $144.5 million.
   McQUEEN Total Gross figure $2.56 billion – average per movie $116.4 million.

   3 Thus by end 1973 Newman’s adjusted total grosses had Increased to more than twice those of McQueen so that whether one has regard to total gross or average gross Steve’s apparent belief that he had some absolute right to be billed over Paul could be regarded as an inflated sense of self-entitlement. I should add that I find Bruce’s stats invaluable in helping movie industry ‘outsiders’ like me to be aware of at least at the statistical weight of evidence in disputes of the kind mentioned. Indeed when I look at the Work Horse’s comprehensive figures I find it harder to understand why Paul didn’t just tell McQueen much as I like Steve to ” **** off ! ”

   4 Actually what I see as even more amazing was that in 1965 McQueen seemed to think he should be billed above Cary Grant and Steve and Cary did not get to make The Cincinnati Kid together because of the billing issue. Yet Steve was a relative newcomer and Grant had enjoyed one of the greatest careers in movie history which had already lasted over 30 years and had garnered an adjusted domestic gross of over $8 billion according to WH. What’s more Cary was no “has been” but still a vibrant box office star up to his retirement in 1966 and had been in a ongoing string of box office hits in even the years immediately preceding 1965 [North by Northwest, Operation Petticoat, That Touch of Mink, Charade and Father Goose] .

   5 For the record whilst Bob Redford never seemed to get involved in the McQueen/Newman-type power struggles WH’s stats show that by the time Towering Inferno in 1974 had come around Bob too had out-performed Steve in terms of both total grosses and average grosses and Bob’s average gross per movie was in fact almost twice that of Steve’s. So all in all who did that guy McQueen think he actually was – Spencer Tracy?

   Reply

   1. Interesting info Bob, thanks!

      How does Robert Redford’s box office total compare with buddy Paul Newman?

      I seem to remember Bruce producing a page of box office totals for all the major stars, or did I imagine it?

      Reply

   2. Hey Bob…no burnout currently….though spending 3 hours a day doing comments will be really hard when school starts back up.

      Reply

   3. Hey Bob,
      Interesting anecdotes on billing battles and statistical comparisons. I agree that the 1965 Cary Grant should easily have won first billing over the 1965 Steve McQueen (though I guess it would have been more difficult to center the story around the Cincinati Kid in this case!) .
      However, on the Newman-McQueen stand-off, I believe that in the early 70s, McQueen’s star power certainly rivaled Newman’s, no matter what the box office totals of their respective films may have been by that time. By the lat 60s, McQueen had become something of an icon with Bullitt and the off-screen attention he attracted with his racing hobby. This is supported by the fact that McQueen was very close behind Newman in the Quigley Poll’s top 10 ranking from 1969-1972 and then was placed ahead of him in 1973 (and I know about the critique of Quigley, but I’m just using it as one supporting point). As I think both of us have argued before, there is not necessarily a direct correlation between total grosses and star power – if it were that simple, it should have been William Holden would was first billed in The Towering Inferno as the total box office of his movies up to that time far outweighed that of both Newman and McQueen. I do agree box office success is an important factor of course, but to put things in a bit more context, it’s important to note that: (1) Newman’s slightly higher average gross you quote was in large part due to the humongous success of two films – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and The Sting, both co-starring another big box-office draw, Robert Redford, and (2) From The Great Escape to Papillon, most of McQueen’s films had been hits, with about 80% of his films taking in more than $80 million in adjusted gross (thanks Cogerson), whereas only about half of Newman’s films crossed that mark. Of course, Newman made more movies so this comparison has its limits, but I think it shows that McQueen’s films in the 10 years before Inferno, while fewer, were more consistently successful. Finally, the very fact that McQueen did get first billing suggests that his star power was at least as strong as Newman’s, though Newman was compensated by having his name a little higher and getting more screen time.
      So who did McQueen think he was? A damn big superstar….and he was 😉

      Reply

      1. Hey Phil.
         1. Good comment on McQueen vs Newman. It is hard to say who was the bigger star…as they both were superstars…..it would be like saying who is the bigger star right now Tom Hanks or Leonardo DiCaprio…they are both in the upper tier for sure…and that is an accomplishment for sure..
         2. Do not even think Holden as the top bill was even considered….at that point Holden was pretty much a high end supporting player…even Network could be considered a supporting role…I have always thought the billing for The Towering Inferno….should have been…Music by Joel Hirschhorn first…then Newman and then McQueen….lol.
         3. I have often thought…..this was the pinnacle of McQueen’s movie career….yes he only made a few more movies…but the rest of his life was filled with “movies he could have made” versus the limited ones he made. Think of McQueen’s legacy if he had ended his career with Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Apocalypse Now…versus The Hunter and Tom Horn.
         4. Excellent feedback as usual.

         Reply

      2. HI PHIL 1 I’m very pleased that you have given me a comprehensive reply to my post about the McQueen/Newman squabbles as I can never suck Lensman into a debate about stats and am usually left with just Bruce to argue with and he normally wins! Maybe I’ll get a draw from you.

         2 In relation to the McQueen/Newman box office v billing argument it seems to be that the most appropriate period to examine is the one from 1958 which is the first year in which BOTH Paul and Steve appeared in starring roles until 1973 the year before Towering Inferno I will try to illustrate my own take on the matter in further posts.

         3 I am glad we agree that Grant at least deserved top billing.It is not unusual for an actor in the title role to be billed below a more prestigious star or stars. For example Chris Reeve played Superman in the 1978 film of that name but was actually billed BELOW the title whereas Brando and Gene Hackman in cameo/supporting roles were named above it.

         4 Apparently William Holden did actually request top billing in The Towering Inferno but was refused by Fox because it was considered that his box office heyday when he was known as “Golden Holden” ended in 1960 with the massive hit The World of Suzie Wong. Glenn Ford [Holden’s great friend and another of MY big faves] was given equal billing to Brando in the 1956 Teahouse of the August Moon because both were considered box-office powerhouses in the 1950s but by the time of the aforementioned 1978 Superman Glenn’s star had faded and he was billed below the title whilst Marlon was billed first and as said above it.

         5 When preparations for Butch Cassidy were underway a production pre-meeting was held to discuss and negotiate details and here is one observer’s recorded description of part of that meeting. “Everyone was gathered when McQueen entered the room and before he even took his seat at the negotiating table he said ‘I want top billing’. Paul although the longer-established star was quite a laid-back character and if matters had been handled more diplomatically he might well have obliged Steve but McQueen’s abruptness put him on the spot and he said ‘No.’ Of course as Paul was executive co-producer of Butch & Sundance McQueen lost the plumb part.”

         6 The movie proceeded with Redford & Newman to make more than twice the money that any McQueen solo flick ever made and indeed the next Newman/Redford pairing in The Sting earned more than double the gross of McQueen/Newman’s Towering Inferno so it might be argued that Paul ended up with the better partner in the Butch Cassidy and The Sting movies.
         7 It seems that Steve did sit round the negotiating table for Towering Inferno and again we have a partial report on the matter. “The producers’ agents suggested a standard compromise whereby one name would come first on the left and the other 2nd and to the right but raised above the 1st. Newman immediately said ‘I’ll take either card’ thus leaving the choice to Steve. Following the meeting McQueen put it around that he had “duped” Newman into 2nd billing.”

         8 Bogie and Tracy were great friends and mutual admirers and Humph once said in an interview “Only one name goes above mine, Spencer Tracy.” However a Bogart biographer wryly pointed out that when it came to putting signatures on a contract for a teaming in the 1955 The Desperate Hours neither man would sign as each wanted top billing. There was though none of the acrimony that surrounded the McQueen/Newman contests and both Bogie and Spence remained firm friends.

         Reply

         1. PHIL –PART 2 1. Below and in PART 3 are the detailed stats for the Newman McQueen movies from 1958 until 1973 that earned $80 million dollars*** or more in adjusted domestic grosses according to Bruce’s invaluable stats tables. It’s not the way the Work Horse does things but as YOU pushed out the boat about Redford’s contribution to his films with Paul I have credited the latter with just half of the grosses for Butch and The Sting, for Torn Curtain costarring Julie Andrews and for Cat on a Hot Tin Roof where Liz was the other massive star involved.
            ***$80 million is a reported rule of thumb in the current movie for a reasonable hit depending on production costs of course

            2 In corresponding fairness I have given Steve McQueen just half the gross for Papillon with Hoffman, Love with the proper Stranger with Natalie Wood for and one third of the gross for Never So Few where Sinatra and Gina Lollobrigida were the main stars. What a Way to Go and The Great Escape were multi-ensemble movies so I have not tried to apportion those two but they balance each other out more or less
            McQUEEN
            1968/Bullitt – $350 million
            1973/Papillon-163 – half total gross of $324 million
            1973/The Getaway-272
            1966/The Sand Pebbles-259
            1963/The Great Escape-155
            1969/The Reivers-145
            1959/Never so Few-40– one third total gross of $120 million
            1968/Thomas Crown Affair-115
            1966Nevada Smith-106
            1963/Love with the Proper Stranger-50 – half total gross of $100
            1971/Le Mans-86
            1958/The Blob-85
            1965/The Cincinnati Kid – 81
            GRAND TOTAL $1.92 billion Average per movie $148 million

            Reply

            1. Hey Bob…interesting stats….though I have to admit….not really agreeing with only giving half credit for some of the movies….BUT….this is YOUR list…..so I can only look at the numbers and voice my opinion. I now see how you feel sometimes….lol.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.