|
Post by quetee on Sept 24, 2019 1:59:56 GMT
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 24, 2019 2:43:45 GMT
Pattinson has done a very similar sort of thing. Riding his early box office success in to getting himself clout to do all kinds of more 'serious', and left field stuff. The difference is he's gone way more indie, sort of like more what Winslet did after Titanic rather than going the star route that DiCaprio did. Shia has done similarly. It's like none of these guys want to be uber movie stars, what gives?How exactly did DiCaprio take "the star route"? He followed up Titanic with a cameo in a Woody Allen movie, an R-rated drama/thriller with a then-indie director, and leading roles with Scorsese and Spielberg. It's not like he followed up Titanic by playing a bunch of cookie-cutter romantic leads and collected easy paychecks. Pattinson and LaBeouf may not have wanted to take the same route, but the fact is that they couldn't. They were never as well-regarded as DiCaprio was, even post-Titanic. Can you really imagine Pattinson or LaBeouf headlining a Scorsese movie and a Spielberg movie in the same year with Daniel Day-Lewis and Tom Hanks being billed below him? That just was not happening. DiCaprio already had the reputation of being the best young actor around, and that managed to shine through despite all the backlash he was getting from the media and certain sections of the general public. Titanic also made him a bigger star than Pattinson and LaBeouf ever were. The closest thing to a post-Titanic DiCaprio was the post-Top Gun Tom Cruise. But even Cruise hadn't built up his acting bona fides like DiCaprio already had, even though he went on to become a much bigger movie star.
|
|
|
Post by bob-coppola on Sept 24, 2019 17:19:30 GMT
I think people tend to forget that, despite Titanic being super taken seriously by the industry, it was still viewed as a melodrama by the dudebro male-oriented audiences. They rejected DiCaprio, who was seen as a girly heartrob, and then revamped his career. To me, that's what Leo's about: a young actor who was beloved by young girls, and maligned for that by male audiences, and then switched his focus to more masculine projects and became the most revered actor. To me, the only one who fits the most the initial stage of this mold is Chalamet and I don't understand why that's controversial.
The other guy who I see some resemblance with this is... ugh... Ansel Elgort. Of course there are other teen heartrobs who girls love, but other than Chalamet, Elgort is the one trying more interesting things than Netflix rom-coms (Spielberg, Edgar Wright, John Crowley, Reitman). I know he's despised in his board and I'm not trying to argue he's shown immense talent. I'm indifferent, leaning towards mild positive regarding him. I just think that, with a lesser degree of talent and hipster-pandering, he's the only other Cute Boy I can see turning his career into a new direction like DiCaprio did.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 24, 2019 17:31:08 GMT
I think people tend to forget that, despite Titanic being super taken seriously by the industry, it was still viewed as a melodrama by the dudebro male-oriented audiences. They rejected DiCaprio, who was seen as a girly heartrob, and then revamped his career. To me, that's what Leo's about: a young actor who was beloved by young girls, and maligned for that by male audiences, and then switched his focus to more masculine projects and became the most revered actor. To me, the only one who fits the most the initial stage of this mold is Chalamet and I don't understand why that's controversial. The other guy who I see some resemblance with this is... ugh... Ansel Elgort. Of course there are other teen heartrobs who girls love, but other than Chalamet, Elgort is the one trying more interesting things than Netflix rom-coms (Spielberg, Edgar Wright, John Crowley, Reitman). I know he's despised in his board and I'm not trying to argue he's shown immense talent. I'm indifferent, leaning towards mild positive regarding him. I just think that, with a lesser degree of talent and hipster-pandering, he's the only other Cute Boy I can see turning his career into a new direction like DiCaprio did. I agree that Chalamet is following a closer trajectory to DiCaprio's than anybody else (and definitely more than Pattinson and LaBeouf who didn't have the early acclaim that DiCaprio did). There is a reason he was dubbed the new DiCaprio by the media post-CMBYN. The real question is if he can attain the same level of stardom (almost impossible) and if he can make the successful transition to more adult roles (difficult). I think he's a very talented actor and I'm interested in seeing how his career goes.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Sept 24, 2019 17:37:00 GMT
I think people tend to forget that, despite Titanic being super taken seriously by the industry, it was still viewed as a melodrama by the dudebro male-oriented audiences. They rejected DiCaprio, who was seen as a girly heartrob, and then revamped his career. To me, that's what Leo's about: a young actor who was beloved by young girls, and maligned for that by male audiences, and then switched his focus to more masculine projects and became the most revered actor. To me, the only one who fits the most the initial stage of this mold is Chalamet and I don't understand why that's controversial. You know, this is a very good point. I remember a time when people would make fun of "DiCrapio" because he was the Titanic guy who all the girls adored. These are the same people who, years later, would fall over themselves when he won because, at last, the Academy had stopped snubbing "their boy." I guess being in a couple of Martin Scorsese movies really does wonders for one's image.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 24, 2019 22:43:59 GMT
I remember being in 5th grade on the playground during recess, and all of us dudes were talking about how stupid the Titanic hype was and cursing DiCaprio, while all of the female students were talking about going to see it. That hostility from dudes continued until 2006, where the one-two punch of The Departed and Blood Diamond shattered the bro Leo hate. Chalamet has to do something testosterony and commercially successful in the next few years. Gosling actively clung to indie stuff too long to fully register as a huge star (though he's raised his profile more than anyone else ever has using that approach), and Chalamet needs to understand that if nobody goes to see your movies, you're not going to get the best roles, as the top directors won't accept you fully. Someone like Joaquin Phoenix still benefits from having been a memorable part of something as culturally big as Gladiator.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Sept 24, 2019 23:21:35 GMT
His career trajectory is nearly impossible. Be a teen heartthrob and simultaneously one of the most critically respected young actors in the industry, star in the biggest film ever made (bonus points if it's an awards sweeper), become a muse for the most respected director in Hollywood, and spend a decade flexing on everyone with career best performances and unmatched box office carrying power. It's insane. Hell, just being both highly profitable and highly respected these days is tough, let alone being at or near the peak in both for two decades before you even reach 45.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 25, 2019 18:58:01 GMT
His career trajectory is nearly impossible. Be a teen heartthrob and simultaneously one of the most critically respected young actors in the industry, star in the biggest film ever made (bonus points if it's an awards sweeper), become a muse for the most respected director in Hollywood, and spend a decade flexing on everyone with career best performances and unmatched box office carrying power. It's insane. Hell, just being both highly profitable and highly respected these days is tough, let alone being at or near the peak in both for two decades before you even reach 45. It's insane but not uncommon, in the 30s and 40s you had money makers like Mickey Rooney, John Garfield, Van Hefflin, Tyrone Power etc. In the 50s Brando, James Dean, Sal Mineo. Mickey Rooney was nominated 4 times!!! 2 before 25. Mineo 2 at 22.- Things started to change in the 60s with the decline of the American Cinema, the Vietnam War etc. An actor started in the mid 20s and early 30s, and fery few actors that started as children or in their teens get critically praise and box office success since a young age. Jeff Bridges was maybe the exception, he started as a baby in his parent film, then he worked on TV in his teen and was oscar nominated at 22. At 27 had 3 box office success and 2 Oscar nom, but the rest of his films flopped badly at box office. He continues working. His career peek was in his late 50s early 60s between 2008-2011.- Timothy Hutton was the next Bridges, he even won an Oscar at a very young age, he was a critic darling, but his films flopped at box office.- In the 80s also were young actors that were succesful at box office, or critical darlings. Tom Cruise was first succesful at box office and then he was also succesful with the critics too. Specially when he started to produce his own movies. He work hard for it, he earn it.- In the 90s film change when the iron curtain fell and young actors started to be valorated again. Now they also could have a large and intermitent film career. Di Caprio was the youngest and most talented actor from the X Generation. He had no rivals since River Phoenix died in 1993. -
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 26, 2019 1:01:37 GMT
It's insane but not uncommon, in the 30s and 40s you had money makers like Mickey Rooney, John Garfield, Van Hefflin, Tyrone Power etc. In the 50s Brando, James Dean, Sal Mineo. Mickey Rooney was nominated 4 times!!! 2 before 25. Mineo 2 at 22. Most of those actors were lacking in either acclaim or true stardom. Mineo had the acclaim but not the stardom. Power had the stardom but not the acclaim. Only two of those actors stand out... 1. Marlon Brando had more acclaim than DiCaprio (at pretty much every stage of their careers once Streetcar opened), even though he never quite achieved the heights of DiCaprio as a star. Regardless, their career trajectories were very different. 2. Mickey Rooney had an incredible start, with more acclaim and more stardom than a young DiCaprio. 2 Lead Actor nominations and 6 appearances on the Quigley Poll at the age of 23 is beyond astonishing. He, however, couldn't sustain that into adulthood and fizzled out. DiCaprio, even with a more modest start compared to Rooney's, really took his career from strength to strength.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Sept 26, 2019 19:10:35 GMT
It's insane but not uncommon, in the 30s and 40s you had money makers like Mickey Rooney, John Garfield, Van Hefflin, Tyrone Power etc. In the 50s Brando, James Dean, Sal Mineo. Mickey Rooney was nominated 4 times!!! 2 before 25. Mineo 2 at 22. Most of those actors were lacking in either acclaim or true stardom. Mineo had the acclaim but not the stardom. Power had the stardom but not the acclaim. Only two of those actors stand out... 1. Marlon Brando had more acclaim than DiCaprio (at pretty much every stage of their careers once Streetcar opened), even though he never quite achieved the heights of DiCaprio as a star. Regardless, their career trajectories were very different. 2. Mickey Rooney had an incredible start, with more acclaim and more stardom than a young DiCaprio. 2 Lead Actor nominations and 6 appearances on the Quigley Poll at the age of 23 is beyond astonishing. He, however, couldn't sustain that into adulthood and fizzled out. DiCaprio, even with a more modest start compared to Rooney's, really took his career from strength to strength. Yep I know. But today receive more acclaim than in the past.- Garfield received 2 Oscar nom, then he was blacklisted because his wife was a communist, and died young.- Mineo had for a short period of time the same fame and career that Di Caprio had around Titanic, the other thing in common is that both started very young, while Brando or Dean started a little later. Also both had italian ancestors.- Mickey Rooney was more like Micheal J. Fox, but like Di Caprio, he started very young.- He just wasn't tall enough for a lead actor.- Genetics helps Di Caprio. Di Caprio was the first teen idol, that exactly knew how to do, for having a lucrative, large and stellar career. After worldwide II, producers had no clue, what to do with teen heartrobes. Some with the years, become Oscar nominated or winner actors, after a long career in TV or Films in supporting roles.- Cruise was the first teen idol, who became a megastar by his own, in his mid twenties.- More praised actors need more times for being box office success and critical darling at the same time.- Di Caprio don't. His first big Hit as lead was Romeo and Juliet at 21.-
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 28, 2019 22:53:06 GMT
I have a hunch DiCaprio's going to transition into the occasional stage production when his collaboration with Marty inevitably ends (hopefully not for a few more decades) and the other living major directors slow down, as most young directors in Hollywood seem decidedly minor compared to the previous generations, so hopping from legend to legend won't be an option and the better material will be on stage or in television. It seems like he's been a regular audience member at NYC theater productions since the early 2000s. Apparently in 2007 he was almost in a revival of The Basic Training of Pavlo Hummel that Pacino won a Tony for in the 70s, and almost did This is Our Youth alongside Tobey Maguire in 2002.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 29, 2019 2:19:33 GMT
I have a hunch DiCaprio's going to transition into the occasional stage production when his collaboration with Marty inevitably ends (hopefully not for a few more decades) LOL, you hope Scorsese and DiCaprio to keep making movies for 20-30 more years? Scorsese is 77 years old. I'd say they've got 10 more years, at best, before Scorsese retires from making movies. I can see him working in Television eventually, when he's in his 60s or something, but I don't really see the point in doing Theater. It doesn't have the same lasting power as Film (or Television) and that's basically what he is (and should be) concerned about. I think he'll only really do Theater if his film opportunities dry up, and I don't really see that happening given his stature.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
Member is Online
|
Post by chris3 on Sept 29, 2019 17:53:09 GMT
Pattinson. He seems to be getting the itch to ascend back to movie stardom, and Tenet and The Batman are going to totally reinvent how the mainstream public sees him in a way similar to DiCaprio's turn in The Departed.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 2, 2019 18:09:03 GMT
Pattinson. He seems to be getting the itch to ascend back to movie stardom, and Tenet and The Batman are going to totally reinvent how the mainstream public sees him in a way similar to DiCaprio's turn in The Departed. Not at all. Di Caprio was the critic young darling until Titanic, even then, the reviewers were mixed until the Departed.- Pattinson never was a critic Darling, in fact for many years he was hated by the press, so clearly he is no Leo Di Caprio. His work until now was consider between awful to average, and never trully impresse anyone, until this year.- He is more like a mix of Christian Bale, Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.-
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
Member is Online
|
Post by chris3 on Oct 2, 2019 22:36:07 GMT
Pattinson never was a critic Darling, in fact for many years he was hated by the press, so clearly he is no Leo Di Caprio. His work until now was consider between awful to average, and never trully impresse anyone, until this year.- He is more like a mix of Christian Bale, Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.- Pattinson has been getting critical acclaim for his performances since The Rover in 2014, and he netted multiple noms for his work in Good Time, so I have no idea what you're talking about. And he's about to reenter the mainstream in major ways, just like The Departed altered DiCaprio's standing in the public eye. The only difference is that DiCaprio went indie critical darling ( Gilbert Grape, This Boy's Life, Basketball Diaries), then heartthrob ( Romeo + Juliet, Titanic), then respected leading actor/bonafide movie star ( The Departed onward). Pattinson went heartthrob first ( Twilight series), then indie critical darling ( Cosmopolis, The Rover, Good Time, Lost City of Z, High Life), and is hopefully about to enter Departed-era Leo mode with the upcoming Tenet and The Batman. Pattinson's career is clearly following the trajectory of DiCaprio's more than any contemporary actors in his age range.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 12, 2019 21:46:22 GMT
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Oct 12, 2019 22:00:43 GMT
PLAYBOY: How important is bankability? SCORSESE: It is interesting. When I tried to do The Last Temptation of Christ, it was suggested to me that certain actors who were bankable in Europe could get the money to make the movie. I didn't do it because the actors mentioned didn't feel right to me. Leo was different. I remembered what Bob had told me and my reaction to his performances. Bankability came after that. That's always been obvious to anybody that was listening to what Scorsese had said about DiCaprio (including calling him the actor of his generation), but a direct quote like this always helps. I'm going to use this to shut anybody up that claims Scorsese only works with DiCaprio for the production budget or Box Office. That's just a great bonus.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 12, 2019 22:19:52 GMT
Crowe in 97:
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Nov 5, 2019 23:08:49 GMT
Bumpin' this because I've given it some thought since my initial response and Pattinson really seems to be on this trajectory. His arc is shaping up to be similar to Leo's. Twilight wasn't anywhere near the phenomenon that Titanic was and wasn't taken seriously critically, but it still made him a generation of girls no. 1 teen crush and resulted in a backlash against him as with Leo after Titanic. The difference is that Pattinson has had to spend more time "in exile" so to speak. Catch Me if You Can, which is really what launched the "modern Leo" who is a classy romantic leading man, was just 5 years after Titanic. Twilight mania peaked in 2009 like ten years ago. Pattinson has had to work a lot harder to get credibility so that general audiences would give him a second chance. But with the Batman movie (which is starting to sound promising) and the Nolan movie basically back to back he seems to have himself set up nicely to finally make the transition into being a mainstream movie star like Leo did. Another thing is that his Batman movie won't be part of the DCEU, so he won't have to do Justice League crap or be in other characters sequels like Affleck did. So he can do a Batman movie every 3-4 years and do mid budget prestige dramas with top directors in between. If Batman and the Nolan movie are well received he'll be in a nice spot to do whatever he wants.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 31, 2020 0:06:57 GMT
I think it's a shame the industry currently shortchanges actresses, as I think someone like Florence Pugh would have had even more great opportunities in the 30s/40s/50s and would have worked with Hitchcock, Cukor, Preston Sturges, Wilder, Lubitsch etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2020 1:57:59 GMT
I don't think there will ever be another DiCaprio, honestly.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 31, 2020 7:37:14 GMT
He really is unique if you compare him in analysis in key metrics with ANY living actor and his career is historic in so many ways........the way I just did when I compared Denzel Washington to Pacino and Washington loses almost every career metric ....well you try that with DiCaprio and almost any actor and just sit back in awe and watch him beat just about everyone for film .......and I'm talking as an actor not as a star (which I don't even care about ). He beats guys who the rest of us would call legends right now........and as for peers? Whole other career level.....
|
|