Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 0:18:43 GMT
Yeah, I'm not sure I buy that DiCaprio turned down PTA, or even Inarritu. He's been talking about being a fan of those two guys since the mid-2000s. And while Del Toro mentioned wanting to work with DiCaprio a few years ago, I've never heard DiCaprio mention wanting to work with him in particular. If it is even true that PTA offered him a part, I think that will happen at some point. PTA is the kind of guy that waits for the actors he wants and DiCaprio is the kind of guy directors wait for.
As for DiCaprio not being taken seriously as an actor around the time of Titanic, by frat boys and no-name bloggers who only knew him from Titanic, maybe. He was still being considered the best actor of his generation (perhaps briefly exceeded by Norton) with folks in the industry calling him one of the best actors ever or likening him with some of the best actors ever before he even hit 25.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 25, 2019 0:24:27 GMT
It should also be noted that DiCaprio is enough of a box-office draw on his own merits that he doesn't need the directors he works with to be draws outside of him, and he knows it. I'm not sure how true that is. Yes, The Revenant was a big hit buyoued by awards season and the "Give Leo his Oscar" movement, but it general he works with filmmakers that have their own level of starpower (Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese). It's a forumula that has paid dividends. Leo is undoubtedly a draw, but he packages himself strongly most of the time. Awards Season release + Brand Name Director is his usual formula. I don't think DiCaprio is like The Rock and can release any old piece of shit by some nobody and it's a guaranteed hit. His "brand" is about quality. You know he works with top notch filmmakers and he does films that get award nominations. It's the Tom Hanks methodology as well. But look at Scorsese outside of DiCaprio collaborations -- they generally don't do well at the box-office in comparison. DiCaprio is the draw, with Scorsese the benefactor. Scorsese knows that as long as he keeps making movies with Leo, he can do things like Hugo and Silence to balance it out. Tarantino and Nolan stand on their own without him, but he surely gave each of their collaborations with him a welcome boost. And it could be argued that Inception could've collapsed under its own weight without DiCaprio's star power; Nolan didn't become Nolan until after Inception consecrated what The Dark Knight set up. DiCaprio, meanwhile, is proven B.O. gold. The closest thing he's had to a flop in the last twenty years is Body of Lies, which on the scale of box-office disasters isn't exactly that high on the list. He can do just about anything at this point and people will see it.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 0:44:40 GMT
I'm not sure how true that is. Yes, The Revenant was a big hit buyoued by awards season and the "Give Leo his Oscar" movement, but it general he works with filmmakers that have their own level of starpower (Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese). It's a forumula that has paid dividends. Leo is undoubtedly a draw, but he packages himself strongly most of the time. Awards Season release + Brand Name Director is his usual formula. I don't think DiCaprio is like The Rock and can release any old piece of shit by some nobody and it's a guaranteed hit. His "brand" is about quality. You know he works with top notch filmmakers and he does films that get award nominations. It's the Tom Hanks methodology as well. But look at Scorsese outside of DiCaprio collaborations -- they generally don't do well at the box-office in comparison. DiCaprio is the draw, with Scorsese the benefactor. Scorsese knows that as long as he keeps making movies with Leo, he can do things like Hugo and Silence to balance it out. Tarantino and Nolan stand on their own without him, but he surely gave each of their collaborations with him a welcome boost. And it could be argued that Inception could've collapsed under its own weight without DiCaprio's star power; Nolan didn't become Nolan until after Inception consecrated what The Dark Knight set up. DiCaprio, meanwhile, is proven B.O. gold. The closest thing he's had to a flop in the last twenty years is Body of Lies, which on the scale of box-office disasters isn't exactly that high on the list. He can do just about anything at this point and people will see it. Scorsese does atypical or uncommercial projects when he works away from Leo. Hugo...Scorsese's fan base aren't here for a family film. Silence might as well have been Kundun or The Last Temptation Of Christ in it's obvious esoteric nature (You even have gangsters on The Sopranos talking about their love of Scorsese films, but not watching Kundun). Scorsese dims his own starpower away from Leo by getting experimental. Scorsese making a certain type of masculine mainstream movie has a definite built in audience. You think Scorsese couldn't find someone like Bale and do gangster movies like The Departed or The Wolf Of Wall Street and all the dude-bros who worship at the altar of Goodfellas wouldnt show up for that Scorsese? Leo is a big draw, but he's always tended to have a lot of help. Scorsese has always been a big help, because the nature of most of their films together attracts Scorsese's built in audience
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 25, 2019 2:39:50 GMT
It should also be noted that DiCaprio is enough of a box-office draw on his own merits that he doesn't need the directors he works with to be draws outside of him, and he knows it. I'm not sure how true that is. Yes, The Revenant was a big hit buyoued by awards season and the "Give Leo his Oscar" movement, but it general he works with filmmakers that have their own level of starpower (Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese). It's a forumula that has paid dividends. Leo is undoubtedly a draw, but he packages himself strongly most of the time. Awards Season release + Brand Name Director is his usual formula. I don't think DiCaprio is like The Rock and can release any old piece of shit by some nobody and it's a guaranteed hit. His "brand" is about quality. You know he works with top notch filmmakers and he does films that get award nominations. It's the Tom Hanks methodology as well. The Rock's branding is infinitely more of a crutch, and just watered down 90s Will Smith or watered down late stage Tom Cruise. How much does a Dwayne Johnson outright drama gross right now? The Rock and Vanessa Redgrave in a period piece. How much does that gross?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 2:58:13 GMT
You know you're in bizarro world when R-rated adult dramas are supposedly easier sells than sequels and action blockbusters. If we're going to poke holes in DiCaprio's Box Office track record over the past decade, I wonder what we'd have to make of the Box Office track records of other actors, who've all had multiple Box Office failures.
Dwayne Johnson has got an argument for being the biggest draw right now, but he's the only one that does besides DiCaprio, and he hasn't been tested in any dramas yet. If DiCaprio can't bring commercial success to a PTA movie, nobody can.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 5:48:01 GMT
I'm not sure how true that is. Yes, The Revenant was a big hit buyoued by awards season and the "Give Leo his Oscar" movement, but it general he works with filmmakers that have their own level of starpower (Nolan, Tarantino, Scorsese). It's a forumula that has paid dividends. Leo is undoubtedly a draw, but he packages himself strongly most of the time. Awards Season release + Brand Name Director is his usual formula. I don't think DiCaprio is like The Rock and can release any old piece of shit by some nobody and it's a guaranteed hit. His "brand" is about quality. You know he works with top notch filmmakers and he does films that get award nominations. It's the Tom Hanks methodology as well. The Rock's branding is infinitely more of a crutch, and just watered down 90s Will Smith or watered down late stage Tom Cruise. How much does a Dwayne Johnson outright drama gross right now? The Rock and Vanessa Redgrave in a period piece. How much does that gross? Depends on the period piece. If he's sitting in a room talking and little else, probably not much. If it's a clearly action based/ marketed period piece like The Revenant (which had DiCaprio blasting a rifle in every other scene in the trailer), probably a lot. If it's a violent period piece directed by Quentin Tarantino like Django Unchained, a lot. The Rock could probably sell far more of DiCaprio's movies than he's being credited for. Also, if Kevin Hart could sell something like The Upside, I'm pretty sure The Rock could as well. The poorly reviewed J. Edgar is a period piece,and it's one of Clint Eastwood's lower grossing directing efforts in the last few years (making nothing close to American Sniper, The Mule or Sully, which all had "stars" in the lead). DiCaprio is not some infallible draw that can turn water into wine or make people show up to a Lars Von Trier movie in blockbuster numbers. That's why I said he's never working with someome like Jarmusch, who has no commercial sensibility or visual style at all. Pointing out that DiCaprio very often gets a lot of help to sell his films (star-powered directors with built in audiences, positive reviews, Award season & Oscar marketing etc) is not a knock on DiCaprio as a draw. He obviously is a major draw. One of the biggest current. It's just pointing out the obvious. His drawing power has been maintained by seeking a lot of help and maintaining the quality of his output.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 6:33:04 GMT
Depends on the period piece. If he's sitting in a room talking and little else, probably not much. If it's a clearly action based/ marketed period piece like The Revenant (which had DiCaprio blasting a rifle in every other scene in the trailer), probably a lot. If it's a violent period piece directed by Quentin Tarantino like Django Unchained, a lot. The Rock could probably sell far more of DiCaprio's movies than he's being credited for. Also, if Kevin Hart could sell something like The Upside, I'm pretty sure The Rock could as well. Dwayne Johnson has never successfully sold a drama on his name. His one or two attempts failed at the Box Office. DiCaprio has sold a truckload of them. Even a poorly reviewed one released in the Summer directed by a non-draw (The Great Gatsby). Dwayne Johnson has only ever sold action movies and comedies, and DiCaprio has sold those too (Inception and The Wolf of Wall Street). DiCaprio is more proven. The poorly reviewed J. Edgar is DiCaprio's lowest grossing movie in the last 10 years and even that wasn't a Box Office failure. It made more money than Fences, which you made out to be a big hit. Funny how you have to pick out the worst performer of the bunch and even that doesn't help make your point. Nobody outside of peak Tom Cruise was ever an infallible draw, but DiCaprio is the closest we have to an infallible draw right now. He hasn't had a Box Office flop since 2008. No other actor can say that. You're basically holding DiCaprio to an impossible standard that nobody can stand up to. He doesn't have to produce blockbuster numbers with Lars Von Trier or Jim Jarmusch. Nobody can. You can keep making straw man arguments all day long, but it's beyond argument that nobody today sells dramas like DiCaprio does, and it's not even close.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 6:49:26 GMT
Yes, Baz Lurhmann is obviously such a non-draw that in the trailer for The Great Gatsby it says in big bold letters, "From Baz Lurhmann, director of Moulin Rouge and Romeo & Juliet".
Lurhmann is a brand name director, with a hugely distinctive visual approach and an audience who remembers those films promoted on the Gatsby trailer as classics. Oh, and from a book everyone was forced to have on their reading list in High school growing up. Oh and being the remake of a Robert Redford film that was a massive box office hit in the 1970's. Oh the struggle to sell this film for poor Leo!
What's Fences got to do with anything? Was Denzel Washington a superstar director with the track record and box office capability of Clint Eastwood as a director? Denzel had no help. Was J. Edgar a filmed play with basically only one set/location, and clearly a far more uncommercial proposition? No to both questions.
If you aren't fond of straw man arguments, you might want to take your own advice. I made the J.Edgar comparison to other recent Eastwood films with starpower in front of the camera for a reason. Those are actually valid comparisons that make sense. Turning it to Fences is the definition of straw man
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 7:25:20 GMT
Yes, Baz Lurhmann is obviously such a non-draw that in the trailer for The Great Gatsby it says in big bold letters, "From Baz Lurhmann, director of Moulin Rouge and Romeo & Juliet". Lurhmann is a brand name director, with a hugely distinctive visual approach and an audience who remembers those films promoted on the Gatsby trailer as classics LOL, Luhrmann is such a big draw that Australia bombed even with the combined star power of Luhrmann, Jackman, and Kidman. He has literally one hit after his first movie without Leonardo DiCaprio as the lead, and you could hardly say he was a draw for his first movie. Doesn't matter. The point is that DiCaprio successfully sold a poorly reviewed drama that came out in the Summer. Something Johnson has never done. Oh, as for the Redford movie that was a massive Box Office hit, weirdly enough, DiCaprio's movie made more money, adjusted for inflation, at the domestic Box Office than that massive hit. Let's not even go into the overseas gross. It's a point of reference. You kept saying Fences was a big hit when it didn't even make as much money as J. Edgar did, so it's weird to see you trying to paint J. Edgar as some kind of flop. You don't seem to know what a straw man is, but I'm not really surprised. Look it up. Comparing J. Edgar with American Sniper and Sully isn't comparing like for like. But if you really want to compare the 3 stars, let's go all the way and compare DiCaprio with Cooper and Hanks instead of comparing DiCaprio's lowest grossing movie with some of their highest. Bradley Cooper has had 3 Box Office megabombs in the last 5 years. Tom Hanks has had 2 Box Office megabombs in the last 5 years. DiCaprio has had 0 Box Office flops in the last 10 years. Like I said, compare DiCaprio with anybody else in recent years, and he comes out favorably. But I think I've had enough with your peekaboo games. Answer a direct question for me. Who do you think the 3 biggest draws right now are, and in what order?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 7:52:02 GMT
Fences is the highest grossing adaptation of a straight dramatic play at the US box office in the 21st century.
You have to compare like for like. At the US box office, Doubt and Closer, which are like for like comparisons (straight drama play adaptations) that had as much, if not more combined starpower as Fences, didn't make as much money as Fences. These films have a clear box office ceiling. For what it was, Fences was a succes.
Revolutionary Road wasn't a play adaptation, but as a period domestic drama, it's somewhat comparable to Fences. With the combined starpower of DiCaprio and Winslet, it made 22 million dollars at the US box office. And this was after he'd had some big hits like The Aviator and The Departed. Denzel getting Fences to nearly 60 million at the US box office is not to be sniffed at. A film like that is a hard, hard sell.
Australia is actually Lurhmann's second highest grossing film worldwide. It was a disappointment relative to the budget, but it still drew 211 million worldwide with shitty reviews. I maintain that Lurhmann is a brand director with an international audience.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 7:54:45 GMT
But yeah, I'm out....I can see this going into never-ending paragraphs and quotes to try and win something or point score, and I can't keep that up indefinitely. But it was fun while it lasted
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 8:02:18 GMT
Fences is the highest grossing adaptation of a straight dramatic play at the US box office in the 21st century. You have to compare like for like. Says the guy that compared J. Edgar with American Sniper. If we're going to do that, we can compare J. Edgar with Fences and Roman J. Israel, Esq. Doubt didn't have much star power. Nobody in it is a huge draw. Closer, on the other hand, made almost twice as much money as Fences internationally. Funny how overseas grosses count when comparing Babel with PTA movies but they don't count now. Revolutionary Road was 11 years ago, when DiCaprio wasn't the draw he is now. And Kate Winslet was never really much of a draw. Also, The Aviator wasn't a hit. You're getting a lot of things wrong. You can maintain whatever you want, it still wouldn't be true. And the fact remains that Johnson has never successfully sold a drama.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 8:03:51 GMT
But yeah, I'm out....I can see this going into never-ending paragraphs and quotes to try and win something or point score, and I can't keep that up indefinitely. But it was fun while it lasted Of course you'd weasel out without answering my direct question about who the 3 biggest draws are Because you know that would expose the game you're trying to play.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 8:15:20 GMT
But yeah, I'm out....I can see this going into never-ending paragraphs and quotes to try and win something or point score, and I can't keep that up indefinitely. But it was fun while it lasted Of course you'd weasel out without answering my direct question about who the 3 biggest draws are Because you know that would expose the game you're trying to play. No...I stopped because you always turn what should be a lighthearted back and forth into an aggressive battle that must be won at all costs. It might be interesting for you, but it's boring for me. I'm always going to check out on you when you get like this, because as I've said before....It just goes on and on and on. When I engage you, it's often against my better judgement, because you never seem to change. Which is a shame, because you aren't completely unintelligent.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 8:23:04 GMT
Look in the mirror. You spend most of your time with your agenda-driven and hypocritical nonsense, dissing other actors to prop up Denzel and his dreamy hairline. If you're going to post agenda-driven BS, I'm going to call you out on it. Bottomline.
And, no, you stopped because your noncommittal BS isn't flying anymore. You know that the moment you give out your ordered list of who you think the 3 biggest draws are, your entire argument is going to fall apart.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 8:33:04 GMT
Lol!
I just won't engage you anymore. Good luck talking to yourself.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Apr 25, 2019 8:39:21 GMT
Lol! I just won't engage you anymore. Good luck talking to yourself. LOL, I'm sorry I owned you so bad you have to whimper away with your tail tucked between your legs. And if you think "not engaging me" is going to make me stop exposing your nonsense, you've got another think coming.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 8:45:08 GMT
Viced: Any chance we can get an ignore feature going. It was a useful function to ignore Trolls on IMDB, and it might prove useful here.
|
|
|
Post by iheartamyadams on Apr 25, 2019 15:06:52 GMT
I think this is a bit of a reach. Babel numbers are solid, but really not much more than that when you consider that it starred Brad Pitt, the only presitge star who is even close to Leo’s commercial viability. PTA hit 80 million with no box office draws, and that film actually outgrossed Babel domestically. That’s more impressive to me considering the lack of draw power. There’s was nothing on Inarritu’s resume that suggested he had any sort of commercial appeal, and certainly not on the scale of a 135 million dollar production. Leo was well aware that if the film were to recoup it’s cost, it would mainly be on the potential acclaim of the film and his box office pull. I agree with the poster above that at this point, he’s the draw and audiences trust his choices. Whilst he probably does consider commercial appeal, I don’t think he would turn down someone he’s stated he’d like to work because of it. 135 million is nearly 50 million more than 76 million, which is the highest ever grossing PTA movie. Inarritu might not be Nolan or Spielberg in box office, but compared to PTA, even at 135 million, he might as well have been. It's not a reach. Hollywood is a business. DiCaprio is a businessman. He'll have read the script for The Revenant, seen it's expansive locations and "wildlife epic" potential, and taken a calculated gamble on Inaurritu being able to deliver a visually enough appealing film to be commercial. 135 mill as your highest grossing film isn't much in Leo-land, but it's enough to take a gamble on with all the other factors in place. Like I said, Leo is never working with Jim Jarmusch (low grosses, no standout visual stylings). He might work with PTA if he thinks PTA has a script that can break him out of his usual struggle box office numbers. Yeah, idk. Put Pitt and any sizable TWBB role where he can be marketed in the advertising and I’d bet on that film doing just as well, if not better. There’s virtually no difference between the box office performances of their other earlier films outside of that. Acting like Iñárritu had so much more clout as far as box office because he was able to make 40 million more than PTA’s highest earner with one of Hollywood’s biggest stars is a little disingenuous to me. I’m not entirely disagreeing with what you’re saying, but I have to agree with Good God that it seems like you’re really twisting yourself into a pretzel and going out of your way to try and subtlety discredit his box office pull. It’s easy to re-write history and say refer to The Revenant as commercial, ect, but there’s a reason why so many of his detractors were giddy about the idea that it could have been his first outright box office bomb. The reality is that Iñárritu didn’t make many concessions to make it mainstream. Despite its success, it was still a three hour, deliberately slow paced film with long stretches of silence/no dialogue, and was helmed by someone who had almost no previous box office success and was completely untested for an large scale epic.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 15:44:03 GMT
135 million is nearly 50 million more than 76 million, which is the highest ever grossing PTA movie. Inarritu might not be Nolan or Spielberg in box office, but compared to PTA, even at 135 million, he might as well have been. It's not a reach. Hollywood is a business. DiCaprio is a businessman. He'll have read the script for The Revenant, seen it's expansive locations and "wildlife epic" potential, and taken a calculated gamble on Inaurritu being able to deliver a visually enough appealing film to be commercial. 135 mill as your highest grossing film isn't much in Leo-land, but it's enough to take a gamble on with all the other factors in place. Like I said, Leo is never working with Jim Jarmusch (low grosses, no standout visual stylings). He might work with PTA if he thinks PTA has a script that can break him out of his usual struggle box office numbers. Yeah, idk. Put Pitt and any sizable TWBB role where he can be marketed in the advertising and I’d bet on that film doing just as well, if not better. There’s virtually no difference between the box office performances of their other earlier films outside of that. Acting like Iñárritu had so much more clout as far as box office because he was able to make 40 million more than PTA’s highest earner with one of Hollywood’s biggest stars is a little disingenuous to me. I’m not entirely disagreeing with what you’re saying, but I have to agree with Good God that it seems like you’re really twisting yourself into a pretzel and going out of your way to try and subtlety discredit his box office pull. It’s easy to re-write history and say refer to The Revenant as commercial, ect, but there’s a reason why so many of his detractors were giddy about the idea that it could have been his first outright box office bomb. The reality is that Iñárritu didn’t make many concessions to make it mainstream. Despite its success, it was still a three hour, deliberately slow paced film with long stretches of silence/no dialogue, and was helmed by someone who had almost no previous box office success and was completely untested for an large scale epic. I basically said what I said. I respect everyone's right to an opinion, but nobody has made a strong enough counter-opinion to change my mind. That's how debates work. May the Lord go with you. I actually like DiCaprio and defend him a lot. Whatisface is just paranoid.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 25, 2019 16:44:05 GMT
DiCaprio on his own gives studios enough confidence to be more aggressive in their marketing strategies and distribute the film in 2,000+ theaters. He turns films that would otherwise have little to no commercial prospects and can make them smashes. How many "wildlife epics" have we seen perform like The Revenant?
|
|
|
Post by theycallmemrfish on Apr 25, 2019 16:48:08 GMT
DiCaprio on his own gives studios enough confidence to be more aggressive in their marketing strategies and distribute the film in 2,000+ theaters. He turns films that would otherwise have little to no commercial prospects and can make them smashes. How many "wildlife epics" have we seen perform like The Revenant? Obviously you've never heard of The Lion King or Madagascar!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 25, 2019 17:08:01 GMT
DiCaprio on his own gives studios enough confidence to be more aggressive in their marketing strategies and distribute the film in 2,000+ theaters. He turns films that would otherwise have little to no commercial prospects and can make them smashes. How many "wildlife epics" have we seen perform like The Revenant? The Revenant's actual genres are listed as action and period adventure. It was an action film with a 135 million dollar budget and you could see the money on the screen. Those films have made lots of money for many years. I guess it was less commercial because of the snow setting? The beards? I dunno. It was marketed as an action adventure film, looked expensive as hell,and did great buisnesss. DiCaprio deserves lots of credit for that. I've never said otherwise. He's a star...that's what stars are supposed to do. It could have failed with a lesser star. It also could have failed with poor reviews.I just don't think acting like The Revenant was some unmarketable arthouse film is the way to go, but your mileage may vary. But I agree that studios have confidenice in marketing spend because of DiCaprio
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 26, 2019 20:51:56 GMT
Looks like Guillermo's gearing up for a September shoot. I really do think that DiCaprio went with the project that looked like it was the nearest to actual production.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 26, 2019 21:07:46 GMT
Looks like Guillermo's gearing up for a September shoot. I really do think that DiCaprio went with the project that looked like it was the nearest to actual production. PTA is supposedly shooting this fall too. Likely Downey Jr., James Franco, or Gosling as the lead.
|
|