|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 14, 2018 21:15:32 GMT
Pacino not mentioned here, and I'd prefer not to talk about him much if I can avoid it actually (That's the reason for my pet "Actors across TV/FILM/STAGE" thread where I've avoided him almost entirely over a bunch of pages and instead have brought up like 30+ other actors and that pretty much gets ignored - whatever!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 14, 2018 21:29:16 GMT
Stephen: One thing I have to disagree about (though you made many good points) is how much DDL played down his looks over his career. He hasn't done it anywhere as much as you suggest. He obviously did it for My Left Foot. But after that, he was literally handsome Daniel in everything up till Gangs Of New York (and I suspect he started getting a stronger young male following with this role than he ever had before, because not only was he playing a nutcase, but he wasn't a handsome nutcase). I didn't realise the blackened teeth thing for The Crucible.But it made no difference to him looking pretty good. The guy still looked like a Byronic hero in that movie, with his long Vidal Sassoon hair, and carefully coifed beard. I guess that's supposed to be 'Hollywood ugly', but it wasn't even that. He was his usual handsome self in The Boxer. It's only really My Left Foot, Gangs Of New York, There Will Be Blood and Lincoln where DDL has really downplayed his looks. Well, Day-Lewis is a naturally good-looking dude, and it's really hard to ignore that or cover that up. But let's look at post- Last of the Mohicans, which is where that Byronic hero image really came to the fore and made him a sex symbol. By the time that Mohicans came out, he'd already shot or was in the process of shooting his 1993 double-feature, so it's hard to really judge either of those performances in terms of a reaction to his image from Mohicans. In The Crucible, he's pretty grunged up. He isn't ugly or anything in it, but he's pretty filthy (and I believe that he had forgone bathing for some time during the film's latter sequences). He's still Daniel Day-Lewis, but he's what DDL would actually look like in that era. If people are into that, that's cool, but I don't think DDL decided to blacken his teeth and think, "Yeah, the ladies are gonna go gaga for poor dental hygiene." In The Boxer, he's still good-looking, but he's got that doofy-ass haircut and he takes quite a few wallops in it to bloody him up, but I'll concede this one. But it's a film that hinges on a romantic angle, so I guess it wouldn't do to have him beaten up like Ryan Gosling in a Bangkok dojo. Then you have his sabbatical, and when he returns for Gangs, gone is the smoldering romance-novel torridity of his Hawkeye or even the stately charm of his Newland Archer. Bill the Butcher is a brute, a gaudily-gussied dandy with oily hair and a big honkin' handlebar mustache. He positively oozes charisma (and even a bit of sex appeal, enough to be convincing that this guy would draw ladies and gentlemen alike), but there is nothing traditional about his portrayal. The Ballad of Jack and Rose is probably the one time Daniel Day-Lewis didn't put up much of a facade after his hiatus, but there is nothing sexual about Jack (at least, not in the way that we would want it). There's zero sexuality to Daniel Plainview and Abraham Lincoln (unless you're into that, I guess?). He cops a lot of flak for Nine, but I actually think he had fantastic chemistry with Cotillard. I found him believable as a lothario, but his best chemistry was with the spouse he was cheating on, and I guess your mileage may vary on his accent choice/singing ability. Phantom Thread doesn't really try to downplay his age, and even though he's still a handsome chap in his sixties, Reynolds's fussiness overshadows that. Compare Washington's roles of late. I saw you mention Fences and Taking of Pelham 123. In Fences, I'm just seeing Denzel as he is: some gray at the temples, a few extra pounds, but the guy still looks damn good for his age. If you told me he was forty-two instead of sixty-two, I'd believe it. And even though he plays a tough bastard/philanderer in it, his natural charm and swagger might obscure those issues to the average cinemagoer as opposed to if someone like James Earl Jones had played it. He tries to "average it up" a bit in Pelham but his gravitas does a lot to undercut that somewhat; it doesn't help that Travolta's ridiculous gangster get-up makes Denzel's look seem downright badass in comparison. Roman J. Israel, Esq. has the same problem. I think that Washington wanted very much to steer from his typical image, and for much of the film he does that quite well, but I think Gilroy couldn't resist bringing that Denzel-ness to the character. I don't think this is any knock on Washington or that DDL's attempts to escape the label make him better or anything like that. This isn't Brando getting fat in the 1960s. I think Washington has worked for years to cultivate a brand, whereas DDL's brand is to completely obscure the real image of himself. Both have done very well at this. To be fair, I think you could say very much the same thing about Washington. That he's so handsome/photogenic, that unless you start covering him in prosthetic scars or pancake make-up (ie Johnny Depp' s usual schtick), it's hard to really downplay his looks. He has to go full on Roman. He looked pretty raggedy, dirty and grungy in The Book Of Eli....But it's still Denzel. Even when he's trying to look like shit, he's still cool as fuck. But he sometimes manages something incredible. He downplays his looks through his performance. The Manchurian Candidate is a prime example of that. He looks the same. Great skin, nice hair. But his performance is so jittery and paranoid, that he almost starts to seem physically mediocre....like one of those nutcases you'd ignore on the street. He wasn't supposed to be handsome in 2 Guns. The grey hair, pork pie hat, chin fluff and gold tooth cap just made him look like a creepy pimp or something. But again, it's Denzel, so even when he's working against his looks, it doesn't always feel like an obvious Deglam.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 3:56:44 GMT
Also, like he did in Roman Israel, Washington had the caps in his teeth removed for his role in Cry Freedom. So he had a big gap in his front teeth (To look like more like the real Biko and make himself look less attractive). That was equivalent to DDL making his teeth look a bit musty in The Crucible. Aside from their teeth not looking Hollywood perfect, they both looked like their regular handsome selves. DDL had a bit of dirt smeared on him to look suitably period, but I think that probably had the effect of making him look more rugged and attractive to female fans.
Washington has always looked a decade younger than he is. He can't be faulted for incredible genetics and not letting himself go. He can play his age, but he generally seems ageless or generally middle aged. He hasn't even seemed to lose his hairline or started recdeding like DDL. The adage 'black don't crack' holds true for him. Though their is a tiredness in his face now that's making him look older. But it's not like he's developed wrinkles or anything.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 4:47:17 GMT
That's because Jack was the all-time networker/schmoozer not Sean Penn ....... . I missed this bit.Yes Jack was a schmoozer and a complete Hollywood animal. The big difference between Nicholson and Penn, is that Jack never pretended otherwise. It was actually charming how upfront he was about being a Hollywood party animal, who hung around with everyone from Warren Beatty to Michael Douglas and there threw the best Hollywood parties. Penn on the other hand came off as a bit of a phony. He played up to this salt of the earth, 'rebel' image, like he was some protagonist out of a Jack Kerouac novel. Constantly dismissing Hollywood and his fellow stars as vulgar and shallow consumerists in the media, while being the ultimate Hollywood networker as soon as he didn't have to keep up his image for a fawning press profile. I mean, Penn is literally still at it now. He's started cozying up to DiCaprio and made him his new bestie (they co-hosted a 4th of July beach party the other week). That takes some skill....schmoozing through different generations like Penn does takes some talent. From Brando to Nicholson to DiCaprio, Penn really does schmooze some of the most important actors across eras. If I was being cynical, I'd say it's a good idea for Penn to cultivate that tight buddy-buddy relationship with DiCaprio is a good career move. DiCaprio is such a power player at the moment, and Penn's movie career has been in the dumps for awhile. I would not be shocked at all to hear Penn being attached to some sort of project with DiCaprio at some point, whether as an actor or director.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 15, 2018 6:52:48 GMT
That's because Jack was the all-time networker/schmoozer not Sean Penn ....... . I missed this bit.Yes Jack was a schmoozer and a complete Hollywood animal. The big difference between Nicholson and Penn, is that Jack never pretended otherwise. It was actually charming how upfront he was about being a Hollywood party animal, who hung around with everyone from Warren Beatty to Michael Douglas and there threw the best Hollywood parties. Penn on the other hand came off as a bit of a phony. He played up to this salt of the earth, 'rebel' image, like he was some protagonist out of a Jack Kerouac novel. Constantly dismissing Hollywood and his fellow stars as vulgar and shallow consumerists in the media, while being the ultimate Hollywood networker as soon as he didn't have to keep up his image for a fawning press profile. I mean, Penn is literally still at it now. He's started cozying up to DiCaprio and made him his new bestie (they co-hosted a 4th of July beach party the other week). That takes some skill....schmoozing through different generations like Penn does takes some talent. From Brando to Nicholson to DiCaprio, Penn really does schmooze some of the most important actors across eras. If I was being cynical, I'd say it's a good idea for Penn to cultivate that tight buddy-buddy relationship with DiCaprio is a good career move. DiCaprio is such a power player at the moment, and Penn's movie career has been in the dumps for awhile. I would not be shocked at all to hear Penn being attached to some sort of project with DiCaprio at some point, whether as an actor or director. Nicholson's schmoozing wasn't that charming to me - and I find it far more phony than Penn and with a higher and more cynical payoff - particularly his 3rd Oscar win. After winning his 2nd Oscar Penn has made just 4 films in 10 years (not counting his small negligible cameos) - of those 4 only 2 were lead roles : 2 were not so good (one lead), and 2 were good with good performances too (imo) - Fair Game and This Must Be The Place (lead). The latter was kinda greatish/fascinating to me. I don't think he needs to court DiCaprio for career moves (at almost 60?) he just needs to do good work, but if that helps him, sure why not.........in our "Best Actors" Poll and I placed Penn quite high, he is the best American film actor of that 80s generation, and I think he's more talented than where I placed him even (I dropped him down for other reasons but not his talent).
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 11:58:00 GMT
I missed this bit.Yes Jack was a schmoozer and a complete Hollywood animal. The big difference between Nicholson and Penn, is that Jack never pretended otherwise. It was actually charming how upfront he was about being a Hollywood party animal, who hung around with everyone from Warren Beatty to Michael Douglas and there threw the best Hollywood parties. Penn on the other hand came off as a bit of a phony. He played up to this salt of the earth, 'rebel' image, like he was some protagonist out of a Jack Kerouac novel. Constantly dismissing Hollywood and his fellow stars as vulgar and shallow consumerists in the media, while being the ultimate Hollywood networker as soon as he didn't have to keep up his image for a fawning press profile. I mean, Penn is literally still at it now. He's started cozying up to DiCaprio and made him his new bestie (they co-hosted a 4th of July beach party the other week). That takes some skill....schmoozing through different generations like Penn does takes some talent. From Brando to Nicholson to DiCaprio, Penn really does schmooze some of the most important actors across eras. If I was being cynical, I'd say it's a good idea for Penn to cultivate that tight buddy-buddy relationship with DiCaprio is a good career move. DiCaprio is such a power player at the moment, and Penn's movie career has been in the dumps for awhile. I would not be shocked at all to hear Penn being attached to some sort of project with DiCaprio at some point, whether as an actor or director. Nicholson's schmoozing wasn't that charming to me - and I find it far more phony than Penn and with a higher and more cynical payoff - particularly his 3rd Oscar win. After winning his 2nd Oscar Penn has made just 4 films in 10 years (not counting his small negligible cameos) - of those 4 only 2 were lead roles : 2 were not so good (one lead), and 2 were good with good performances too (imo) - Fair Game and This Must Be The Place (lead). The latter was kinda greatish/fascinating to me. I don't think he needs to court DiCaprio for career moves (at almost 60?) he just needs to do good work, but if that helps him, sure why not.........in our "Best Actors" Poll and I placed Penn quite high, he is the best American film actor of that 80s generation, and I think he's more talented than where I placed him even (I dropped him down for other reasons but not his talent). Your maths is off again Pac.lol! After his 2nd Oscar, not including cameo roles, Penn acted in 6 films, not 4. Fair Game, Tree Of Life, The Gunman, This Must Be The Place, Gangster Squad and The Professor And The Madman (shot and completed, but still in litigation, so may never see the light if day. But it obviously counts as a full feature he did). Combine that with the fact the he directed a feature film (which takes time and prep) that was a bit of a disaster in The Last Face, and he's shot an entire season of TV series this year (The First), Then yeah, I'd say Penn has had a fairly active career since his Oscar win. He'd not churning movies out like Nic Cage or Sam Jackson, but he's not DDL either. Penn still tried to stay active in the game, it's just that hardly anything worked. Hopefully his TV show gives him a bit of a boost in what's been a fairly catastrophic decade. Not sure where this notion that people stop caring about career moves as they near 60. Sure, maybe if you work in a post office. A guy like Penn cares about his legacy in his field, and he knows right now it isn't looking that great. He's a sanctimonious guy. He loved being able to lecture other actors on the 'craft', particularly when critics were sucking him off. Now his place on the Hollywood totem poll is diminished, as is his level of acclaim, schmoozing the younger generation of players might be what gets him back in the game. Penn did the whole, 'I don't love acting no more and am practically retired' schtick on his book tour and was met with a collective shrug from the world, of 'we don't care'. When Penn made those type of statements 20 years ago, you'd get critics writing articles begging him not to quit, extolling his brilliance. Or other actors saying, 'don't leave acting Sean. Acting needs you'. Literally this time, nobody gave a shit. He's become irrelevant at his main job. Penn stays social networking in Hollywood for a reason. I'd be beyond shocked if he wasn't planning a 'comeback' as an actor or director (or both) to try and salvage some of his fading legacy.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 15, 2018 12:34:10 GMT
No.
Tree of Life is a cameo appearance to me - that's one of the great movies of this decade to a whole lot of people - but I didn't count it as a performance per se and Professor and the Madman is unreleased so I don't count it and neither should you - not yet.
After I see it, I will say whether it's good or not, or whether he's good or not but until then it's............ 4 roles in 10 years, 2 leads, 2 good performances, 1 fascinating/sort of greatish one.
Best American film actor of his generation - the 80s generation, not sure if he'll ever do anything else, but........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 12:54:42 GMT
Tree Of Life was a supporting role, not a cameo. Penn actually thought it was a lead role when he signed on for it, but as everyone knows, Terrence Malick goes crazy in the editing room and does what he wants, regardless of the script or what you actually thought you were doing. It's why Penn came out against the film. Malick had neutered his lead role. But no way in hell was it a cameo.
Penn got equal above the title billing on all the posters and promotional material as Brad Pitt. He signed on the movie as a lead, got Malicked, but was still billed as a lead. And at worst, in actual content, he was supporting. And he wasn't particularly good in it either, so I can see why you'd prefer to write it off as a cameo.
I'm counting all the work Penn has physically shot as evidence that he's been working to keep his career going, and not trying to paint him as some DDL type who just doesnt want to work. I don't care if The Professor And The Madman never gets released, I still count it as a film he made. As far as I'm concerned, Penn has had major roles in 6 films and 1 TV series since his Oscar. And directed 1 movie. A solid work schedule.
I think you'll probably be the last person left still claiming Penn as the best American film actor of his generation, but I admire your holding on to his sinking ship.lol! He's had a disastrous, career ruining run since his Oscar, but you almost make it sound palatable
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 15, 2018 13:10:34 GMT
If you want to say "major roles in 6 films" ok, do what you want, that's fine .............for you.
But anyone who saw Tree of Life knows that it is an odd duck, billing or not, and you can't rate his performance there as an actor per se. No one can rate The Professor and The Madman at all yet - so for me, it's just 4 right now.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 13:20:34 GMT
Several people have won Oscars in the supporting category with less screen time than Penn had in TTOL.
You don't get to reverse engineer it into a 'cameo' because he didn't manage to make any noticable impact with that screen time. It was a supporting role. Just not a very good one, as far as perfotmance goes.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 15, 2018 13:33:01 GMT
Preposterous post sorry but "several people have won Oscars", oh I see now, so different actors in different roles in different projects being asked to deliver completely different things now get reduced as equal by "screen time" He's not reverse engineering it talk to Malick about it - it is what it is - and as for "not a very good as far as a performance goes" - whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? he is asked to do nothing in the film but walk randomly to do a voice-over. On the other hand he did that better than any American film actor from his generation would have. Hmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 20:05:08 GMT
Preposterous post sorry but "several people have won Oscars", oh I see now, so different actors in different roles in different projects being asked to deliver completely different things now get reduced as equal by "screen time" He's not reverse engineering it talk to Malick about it - it is what it is - and as for "not a very good as far as a performance goes" - whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? he is asked to do nothing in the film but walk randomly to do a voice-over. On the other hand he did that better than any American film actor from his generation would have. Hmmmmmmmmmmm Oh Pac...throwing hands and throwin' shade. I love it!!!! I thought me and Stephen were meant to be the sensitive ones this weekend. Your unquestioned devotion to Penn is baffling as hell (Pacino, I sorta get), but let's face it....Denzel Washington would probably have been Oscar nominated for Penn's role in TTOL. Hehe.Just playing with ya bro. I wasn't actually blaming Penn for giving a fairly listless and opaque performance. That's the risk you take working with Terry Malick. I was saying the role itself didn't lend to Penn giving much of a peformance. You can blame Penn or Malick, but whomever you blame, it wasn't a cameo. That's all I'm saying.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 15, 2018 22:49:54 GMT
Denzel Washington would probably have been Oscar nominated for Penn's role in TTOL.
Probably, I mean if they nominated him for Roman Israel I could totally see them nominating him for a cameo or something he's not even in.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 22:59:22 GMT
Denzel Washington would probably have been Oscar nominated for Penn's role in TTOL.Probably, I mean if they nominated him for Roman Israel I could totally see them nominating him for a cameo or something he's not even in. Hey...I think Roman J Israel was an incredible performance. A truly memorable character. Now if you were talking about ....And Justice For All... Roman J Israel Esq> And Justice For All> I Am Sam See, even in a battle for 5th slot Oscar nominations, Denzel still wins. What a legend! Get that Nicholson record. Oops..sorry, no Pacino talk allowed. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jul 15, 2018 23:04:20 GMT
Well if we were talking about your "bad" - I think you've crossed that line a long long time ago, for me personally it was when you went into talking about an actor's incredible genetics and dreamy hairline or whatever that was. I'm sure you chased everyone else away long before that even.......
But, that's ok, you do you. Lord knows the last thing you want to talk about is Joaquin Phoenix in a Joaquin Phoenix thread .........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 15, 2018 23:11:10 GMT
Whatever Pac. You don't dicatate anything to me. And we started getting into "testy" territory when you made up ridiculous lies about certain Washington's movies not being seen by anyone, compared to certain Day-Lewis movies, which I disproved with a few basic box office figures. Then you went on to claim me and Stephen were being sensitive instead of just owning up to your own errors, which you rarely ever actually do. Hubris my friend. It's a thing, and not always a good thing. And I'm not one of those people that kowtow to your hubris. And weren't you the one who actually took this conversation (for some reason) into talk about actors appeal to women/sex appeal etc, how much of a hunky dreamboat DDL was supposed to be and how that affected his appeal? I only got to hairlines and incredible genetics because of YOUR conversational detour, yet I'm at fault somehow for going there!?! That's some Gaslighting 101. Feeling like a battered wife right now
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Jul 16, 2018 0:38:14 GMT
Whatever Pac. You don't dicatate anything to me. And we started getting into "testy" territory when you made up ridiculous lies about certain Washington's movies not being seen by anyone, compared to certain Day-Lewis movies, which I disproved with a few basic box office figures. Then you went on to claim me and Stephen were being sensitive instead of just owning up to your own errors, which you rarely ever actually do. Hubris my friend. It's a thing, and not always a good thing. And I'm not one of those people that kowtow to your hubris. And weren't you the one who actually took this conversation (for some reason) into talk about actors appeal to women/sex appeal etc, how dreamy DDL was supposed to be and how that affected his appeal? I only got to hairlines and incredible genetics because of YOUR conversational detour, yet I'm at fault somehow for going there!?! That's some Gaslighting 101. Feeling like a battered wife right now I'm going to have to intervene here. While it may be true that Washington's romantic movies made more money, that doesn't mean very much for viewership when the movies came out 25 years ago. There are other ways to watch movies than at the cinemas and 25 years is more than enough time for people to do that. I'd argue Day-Lewis's romantic movies have been watched by more people. Either way, how the movies performed relative to each other is not what's important. What is important is how central those movies were to the actors' careers. And romantic movies were more central to Day-Lewis's early career than they were for Washington. For instance, just because Hitch made more money doesn't mean Will Smith becomes more of a romantic comedy actor than Matthew McConaughey or whoever. And I agree with pacinoyes that Day-Lewis was once seen as a romantic leading man, which I don't think Washington ever was. Anyway, here are some facts to back up my claim. The Unbearable Lightness of Being: 30,000 IMDb ratings and 20,000 Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Mo' Better Blues: 10,000 IMDb ratings and 10,000 Rotten Tomatoes ratings. The Age of Innocence: 40,000 IMDb ratings and 24,000 Rotten Tomatoes ratings. The Preacher's Wife: 10,000 IMDb ratings and 30,000 Rotten Tomatoes ratings. Not going to do the Much Ado About Nothing comparison with Phantom Thread because of the recency bias that online ratings will obviously have, but I'll grant that it's more seen than something like My Beautiful Laundrette. But let me just repeat that viewership is kind of irrelevant here.
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 16, 2018 0:42:27 GMT
I'm so confused. I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Joker project.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 16, 2018 1:31:50 GMT
That's a reasonable post. But remember, back on IMDB, I was always completely dismissive of IMDB ratings when it pertained to films with black themes or predominantly black casts. The racial bias and frequent low scores of so many of these movies is undeniable and makes it a fairly useless metric in judging how well liked or popular many films with black themes or casts may truly be. I'm not certain Rotten Tomatoes user rating isn't similarly flawed. But defintely, IMDB is next to useless as a metric for me.
Here's a very recent example. Girls Trip was one of the highest grossing comedies of the year in 2017. As it's so recent, it's popularity cannot be questioned. It grossed 140 million dollars worldwide. It has a IMDB rating of 24,000. Not particularly high voting numbers considering the huge amount of money it made. Maybe the target audience for such a massively popular film don't really vote on IMDB (which makes sense to me). Call Me By Your Name, also a 2017 release. Worldwide box-office was 41 million. IMDB ratings....115,000. So Girls Trip, which grossed over a 100 million dollars more at the box office last year, has almost 100,000 less ratings on IMDB than Call Me By Your Name. The flaws in the system is obvious. The demographics fueling the huge popularity of films like Girls Trip aren't running to give ratings on IMDB....they are just paying to watch their movie. Those same demographics back in the day would be watching films like Mo Better Blues or The Preacher's Wife, and may be still enjoying them now.
I'd say Washington was (among other things) also a romantic leading man for a period in the 90's, and it secured him a major part of his fanbase. He's even said many times, his most loyal fanbase over his career have been black women. He got them on board and cultivated their loyalty with a few carefully tailored romantic roles as he was breaking out (The Mighty Quinn, Mo Better Blues, Much Ado About Nothing, Devil In A Blue Dress, The Preacher's Wife etc), and they never really left him, even if he strayed away from more overtly romantic parts. Washington's basically been everything at some point but an out and out slapstick comedian. Action star, romantic leading man, thriller actor, historical lead, biopics etc. All the hats he's worn as an actor have been central to his career, for different reasons.
But I'd say Washington's romantic leading man films or roles have been very central to his career, even if they haven't neccsarily been his biggest or most acclaimed films. They are the bedrock and foundation of a black female audience sticking with him through thick and thin.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jul 16, 2018 8:24:33 GMT
I'm so confused. I thought this thread was supposed to be about the Joker project. Somebody has turned it into Denzel Washington Fanpage I didn't even bring up Washington first. I just came on this thread to talk about Phoenix and the Joker, and tangents were taken. But I had plenty of help. If anything, it got turned into a Daniel Day-Lewis fan page first, as this "let's talk about actors in general" tangent really got kicked off when Phoenix was described as the heir to DDL, then DiCaprio as well etc. Then it went where it did. Heard no complaints when Phoenix's Joker thread suddenly became about how every great young actor was DDL's heir (No disrespect at all to Stephen who started that conversation flow. I went along with it and enjoyed it) Takes more than one person to alter a threads conversation for this long. Plenty of others were taking it in different tangents and doing so gladly. I personally feel like it was a team effort to get this thread so far off track.LOL!But thanks for the individual blame and shame. Appreciate it
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jul 18, 2018 21:47:07 GMT
Mark Bridges has joined as costume designer.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jul 18, 2018 22:25:22 GMT
It seems this thread is talking about everything but Joaquin and the Joker.
I think it sounds promising. I have little to no faith in WB, but this sounds like a cool one-off.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Jul 18, 2018 23:09:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Jul 18, 2018 23:56:56 GMT
The first Oscar-bait Superflick?
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Jul 19, 2018 2:15:47 GMT
The first Oscar-bait Superflick?
|
|