|
Post by stephen on Apr 26, 2019 21:10:06 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. Well, two of those are really good choices. Have no interest in a PTA/Franco collaboration (and I consider it a well-dodged bullet that he wasn't cast as Freddie Quell). Have we heard anything about the AGI project?
Regardless, we have a possibility of a new PTA and Del Toro and maybe AGI in 2020?!
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 26, 2019 21:31:55 GMT
PTA is supposedly shooting this fall too. Likely Downey Jr., James Franco, or Gosling as the lead. Well, two of those are really good choices. Have no interest in a PTA/Franco collaboration (and I consider it a well-dodged bullet that he wasn't cast as Freddie Quell). Have we heard anything about the AGI project?
Regardless, we have a possibility of a new PTA and Del Toro and maybe AGI in 2020?!
Only that it might be this: www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1901-Winter-2019/DGA-Interview-Alejandro-Gonzalez-Inarritu.aspx
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Apr 26, 2019 23:06:46 GMT
Doesn't sound that interesting but we'll see. Curious to hear what PTA is doing (though I haven't "liked" a film he's done since the 90s).
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Apr 26, 2019 23:10:57 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. Fall shoot likely means fall/winter 2020 release. Does GDT take a long time? If Killers of the Flower Moon shoots next summer, it should be out be 2021.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Apr 27, 2019 2:32:55 GMT
Just a few thoughts/questions:
- I also saw it on another board, but where does this info regarding PTA and Franco, Gosling etc. come from?
- DiCaprio is easily the most bankable movie star at the moment, which means someone who isn't bound by genre expectations.
- Though it must be said his recent hits, while adult oriented films, had the advantage that they could be sold a certain way that maybe wasn't/wouldn't be possible for a DiCaprio fronted Phantom Thread.
- I like Inarritu, but that stupid people project, I don't know, sounds like what the Coens have been doing for 30 years.
- I don't think DiCaprio would say no to Anderson because of PT's box office appeal or even the commercial viability of the project. Anderson is probably closest to The Scorsese Status, which means "whatever it is, I'm in". He's no box office king, but he's adored within the industry, so I think DiCaprio would work for PTA in a second despite knowing it probably won't be a big box office sensation. He could also balance it out with other, more easily marketable projects. He would work with him IF the circumstances are right: subject matter, role, scheduling.
- Fences was a real triumph for Washington and not really comparable to DiCaprio's recent work. Different things imo.
- I think Jim Jarmush does have a visual style. Is that a minority opinion?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 27, 2019 7:43:48 GMT
- I don't think DiCaprio would say no to Anderson because of PT's box office appeal or even the commercial viability of the project. Anderson is probably closest to The Scorsese Status, which means "whatever it is, I'm in". He's no box office king, but he's adored within the industry, so I think DiCaprio would work for PTA in a second despite knowing it probably won't be a big box office sensation. He could also balance it out with other, more easily marketable projects. He would work with him IF the circumstances are right: subject matter, role, scheduling. Isn't this a contradictory statement? You are basically saying what I'm saying...that DiCaprio would work with PTA, but it's conditional. It's not, "whatever it is I'm in". Because he just apparently turned the man down to do a Del Toro film (must be nice to have that option though). Scorsese is different. He has that industry reverence, but also penetrated pop culture in a way PTA hasn't come close to. I'd say Tarantino is probably closer to Scorsese in that regard than PTA. "Whatever it is I'm in" isn't conditional. It means you just want to work with the guy, sometimes if there isn't even a script, as long as schedule allows. Very few A-listers at the peak of their powers and bankability who could command top dollar had that attitude. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Nicole Kidman at the very height of her movie bankability in the early to mid 2000's. And honestly, while I admire PTA a lot, I do think there are others stars who would turn him down, particularly those who are not overtly motivated by critical kudos. Will Smith for example (who ultimately considered then turned down Tarantino for Django). Smith would likely take one look at PTA's box office numbers and probably say, "I'm good bro". People might judge him for it, but as I said, stars as big and powerful as Smith at his peak (and DiCaprio) think about things like commercial viability of the project. Also, Jennifer Lawrence, who apparently could only watch 5 minutes of Phantom Thread before losing interest. Stars of Lawrence's calibre don't make statements like that in public about the most recent film of a director they are desperate to work with. PTA is a heavily respected director, but he is not Scorsese. I feel why few actors would say no to Scorsese isn't just down to critics/industry respect (though that obviously helps), but because you also get kudos from regular movie fans for whom things like Goodfellas are all-time classics. PTA doesn't have that connection with audiences. Also makes me wonder about some of the projects PTA did with Joaquin Phoenix. Was Phoenix first choice, or is it possible DiCaprio passed on them. Like I said, I could easily see DiCaprio reading the script to Inherent Vice and saying, "I'm good bro".
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Apr 27, 2019 13:16:49 GMT
Yeah, it probably sounded a little contradictory because I didn't phrase it accurately enough. I think there never was something like a true "Scorsese Status" ever in film history, not even for Scorsese himself, but he was close to it, like some other directors are/were close to it. Scorsese wanted De Niro to do Last Temptation, Bob didn't want to. He wanted Harrison Ford for Cape Fear, didn't happen. He talked about how he struggled to find the right actors for Silence and how a lot of the young guns kind of turned him down, weren't interested. But I would also say it isn't mainly GoodFellas or Scorsese's other more popular hits and their notoriety among movie folks that makes Scorsese such a sought after filmmaker. It's certainly part of it, but to reduce Scorsese and his desirability among actors to those movies, or to what the regular public thinks what a Scorsese movie is going to be like, is too simplifying. It has more to do with Marty being a main part of a highly influential period of american cinema, a period that was looked at as being legendary even before it was over. And of course also that he, in contrast to some other directors of that era, survived its downfall and the changing landscape of the industry. But I guess we agree there.
As for "The Scorsese Status", what I mean is: This is a director, who, because of a different set of attributes, is considered to be at the top of the pyramid. Maybe they say he's an artistic genius, or even believe he has his finger on the pulse of the time when it comes to popular culture, or a mix of both of them. So yes, it's debatable to what degree Scorsese, Anderson, Tarantino, Hitchcock, Spielberg and others fit this description, but I think PTA is pretty comfortably part of the discussion. He has achieved a certain reputation that makes it highly interesting for almost every major actor to be part of his projects, but only as far as this "Scorsese Status" goes. There are many more conditions that have to be right for any collaboration to work out, like what's the story, how big/interesting is my part, do the shooting dates fit, is it the right chemistry between us personally, and, as you've mentioned, and you're right about that, how is the commercial viability of this undertaking.
Now we can talk for hours if DiCaprio turned Anderson down, and if so, why? But we'll never know. My point is, and I guess the point of some other posters, that he wouldn't turn him down mainly because he thinks Anderson isn't the top dog when it comes to the box office or that PT hasn't achieved the overreaching reputation with the general public like Scorsese or Tarantino have.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 27, 2019 14:38:02 GMT
- I don't think DiCaprio would say no to Anderson because of PT's box office appeal or even the commercial viability of the project. Anderson is probably closest to The Scorsese Status, which means "whatever it is, I'm in". He's no box office king, but he's adored within the industry, so I think DiCaprio would work for PTA in a second despite knowing it probably won't be a big box office sensation. He could also balance it out with other, more easily marketable projects. He would work with him IF the circumstances are right: subject matter, role, scheduling. Isn't this a contradictory statement? You are basically saying what I'm saying...that DiCaprio would work with PTA, but it's conditional. It's not, "whatever it is I'm in". Because he just apparently turned the man down to do a Del Toro film (must be nice to have that option though). Scorsese is different. He has that industry reverence, but also penetrated pop culture in a way PTA hasn't come close to. I'd say Tarantino is probably closer to Scorsese in that regard than PTA. "Whatever it is I'm in" isn't conditional. It means you just want to work with the guy, sometimes if there isn't even a script, as long as schedule allows. Very few A-listers at the peak of their powers and bankability who could command top dollar had that attitude. Off the top of my head, I can only think of Nicole Kidman at the very height of her movie bankability in the early to mid 2000's. And honestly, while I admire PTA a lot, I do think there are others stars who would turn him down, particularly those who are not overtly motivated by critical kudos. Will Smith for example (who ultimately considered then turned down Tarantino for Django). Smith would likely take one look at PTA's box office numbers and probably say, "I'm good bro". People might judge him for it, but as I said, stars as big and powerful as Smith at his peak (and DiCaprio) think about things like commercial viability of the project. Also, Jennifer Lawrence, who apparently could only watch 5 minutes of Phantom Thread before losing interest. Stars of Lawrence's calibre don't make statements like that in public about the most recent film of a director they are desperate to work with. PTA is a heavily respected director, but he is not Scorsese. I feel why few actors would say no to Scorsese isn't just down to critics/industry respect (though that obviously helps), but because you also get kudos from regular movie fans for whom things like Goodfellas are all-time classics. PTA doesn't have that connection with audiences. Also makes me wonder about some of the projects PTA did with Joaquin Phoenix. Was Phoenix first choice, or is it possible DiCaprio passed on them. Like I said, I could easily see DiCaprio reading the script to Inherent Vice and saying, "I'm good bro".Same, which makes me fear for this new PTA project. He wouldn't turn down something with the storytelling verve of Boogie Nights again.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 27, 2019 15:24:58 GMT
Now we can talk for hours if DiCaprio turned Anderson down, and if so, why? But we'll never know. My point is, and I guess the point of some other posters, that he wouldn't turn him down mainly because he thinks Anderson isn't the top dog when it comes to the box office or that PT hasn't achieved the overreaching reputation with the general public like Scorsese or Tarantino have. DiCaprio doesn't really make small movies anymore. In the last decade, the smallest budgeted film he made was J. Edgar. Everything else has been budgeted near the 100 million range. PTA is the opposite. All his films come with low-ish budgets, often times because the commercial potential is seen as limited. There's a mass difference in scale to what DiCaprio is used to. I'm not sure why people think it's some sinful, uncouth thing for DiCaprio to care about the size of his audience (which is just a more polite way to say "box office"). He makes big classy movies with big budgets because he wants lots of people to see his films. If he see's this particular PTA script has a limited audience potential (even with him in it), why wouldn't that be a consideration for DiCaprio as to whether or not he accepts it? Saying that he's pragmatic in regards to wanting his films to reach a wide audience, doesn't make him some soulless flim-flam man.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 27, 2019 15:44:21 GMT
Now we can talk for hours if DiCaprio turned Anderson down, and if so, why? But we'll never know. My point is, and I guess the point of some other posters, that he wouldn't turn him down mainly because he thinks Anderson isn't the top dog when it comes to the box office or that PT hasn't achieved the overreaching reputation with the general public like Scorsese or Tarantino have. DiCaprio doesn't really make small movies anymore. In the last decade, the smallest budgeted film he made was J. Edgar. Everything else has been budgeted near the 100 million range. PTA is the opposite. All his films come with low-ish budgets, often times because the commercial potential is seen as limited. There's a mass difference in scale to what DiCaprio is used to. I'm not sure why people think it's some sinful, uncouth thing for DiCaprio to care about the size of his audience (which is just a more polite way to say "box office"). He makes big classy movies with big budgets because he wants lots of people to see his films. If he see's this particular PTA script has a limited audience potential (even with him in it), why wouldn't that be a consideration for DiCaprio as to whether or not he accepts it? Saying that he's pragmatic in regards to wanting his films to reach a wide audience, doesn't make him some soulless flim-flam man. The problem with that though, is a film's commercial potential is instantly multiplied by Leo signing on (at least this decade), so him refracting his choices through perceived commercial viability would make no sense. The Revenant with Joaquin or Gyllenhaal in that lead role might gross as low as $25-30 million worldwide, which is an insane difference. The Master following up Inception might have grossed $100 million worldwide with Leo as the lead. Does Sisters Brothers gross $3 million domestic with Leo in Joaquin's part, using the exact same script and all of the other elements identical?
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 27, 2019 16:04:07 GMT
DiCaprio doesn't really make small movies anymore. In the last decade, the smallest budgeted film he made was J. Edgar. Everything else has been budgeted near the 100 million range. PTA is the opposite. All his films come with low-ish budgets, often times because the commercial potential is seen as limited. There's a mass difference in scale to what DiCaprio is used to. I'm not sure why people think it's some sinful, uncouth thing for DiCaprio to care about the size of his audience (which is just a more polite way to say "box office"). He makes big classy movies with big budgets because he wants lots of people to see his films. If he see's this particular PTA script has a limited audience potential (even with him in it), why wouldn't that be a consideration for DiCaprio as to whether or not he accepts it? Saying that he's pragmatic in regards to wanting his films to reach a wide audience, doesn't make him some soulless flim-flam man. The problem with that though, is a film's commercial potential is instantly multiplied by Leo signing on (at least this decade), so him refracting his choices through perceived commercial viability would make no sense. The Revenant with Joaquin or Gyllenhaal in that lead role might gross as low as $25-30 million worldwide, which is an insane difference. The Master following up Inception might have grossed $100 million worldwide with Leo as the lead. Does Sisters Brothers gross $3 million domestic with Leo in Joaquin's part, using the exact same script and all of the other elements identical? Phoenix and Gyllenhaal are poor comparisons. They literally have no box office pull at all (maybe Joker changes that for Joaquin), and get cast mainly for talent, prestige and the fact that Hollywood rarely gives up on handsome white guys that can act (see Farrell, Colin). The Revenant with Joaquin Phoneix would never get a 135 million budget in the first place, or anywhere near. It's not the same scale of movie and it probably isn't made by a major studio with Phoenix. A good comparison is Brad Pitt. At the height of his box office power, he was very similar to DiCaprio in terms of his overall box office upside. Put him in a classy studio movie with a big budget and big marketing dollars, and he'd usually have a hit. But even he couldn't sell Tree Of Life or Killing Them Softly or By The Sea...willfully uncommercial low budget indies, even if they starred the Ghost Of John Wayne. Just like peak Pitt couldn't make any low budget indie "commercial" or a hit just by starring in it, neither can DiCaprio. Which is why DiCaprio does not make low budget indies like Pitt often did (which PTA or a Joaquin Phoneix do all the time).It's an unecessary risk for him.His production and marketing budgets make a huge difference to DiCaprio's ability to sell a film.
|
|
|
Post by getclutch on May 2, 2019 15:09:59 GMT
Lord, noir indeed. There is so much in the book that the original film had to leave out. Now we have a chance for an adaptation that's really dark.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on May 29, 2019 11:40:18 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on May 29, 2019 13:00:06 GMT
Who should play the female psychiatrist?
|
|
Zeb31
Based
Bernardo is not believing que vous êtes come to bing bing avec nous
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 3,794
|
Post by Zeb31 on May 29, 2019 13:14:17 GMT
Who should play the female psychiatrist? Well, I don't know what age they're going for, but there is this one actress that he worked with once and liked so much that he ran to her to play the lead in his following project, and they seem to have got along very well in the time since.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on May 29, 2019 13:16:00 GMT
I'd recommend Michelle Williams because well, she's already the best actress of her generation (sorry, that's my equivalent of DeNiro saying anti-Trump stuff, I kinda have to do that ) You've got the box office covered with DiCaprio, there's no need to cast a hot young actress etc. - they've worked together well before (spectacularly in her case), no comparably aged American actress exudes intelligence more - you'd buy her as a psychiatrist - and reveals hidden layers underneath as well as she does. It practically casts itself......so, given the GdT's last film was Sex With Fishsticks/Grinding Nemo/Baked Salmonstrosity ..........where he lost all leave of his senses I look forward to him casting Natalie Portman, Jennifer Lawrence or that girl at the Mexico City swimming center.......
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on May 29, 2019 13:39:59 GMT
From the ones he's worked before I'd prefer Chastain, one of my beloved actresses. Or maybe Maribel Verdu.
But how about casting again Ivana Baquero (is she too young for the role? Probably...) or Mira Sorvino? I'd love to see these two again in a major project, esp. from GdT.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 13, 2019 22:38:14 GMT
Rachel McAdams would be a good choice, and would probably jump at the chance since they're filming in Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Leo_The_Last on Jun 14, 2019 6:13:46 GMT
Has anyone here seen the Tyrone Power version? I haven't but love that era in American cinema but wonder how well GDT will establish that particular tone of the noir tradition (if he even wants to go in that direction). He is a great stylist, and this particular story already screams for that magical del Toro touch. But honestly, I would probably prefer a more subdued approach to this, more low-budget Tourneur than fanciful DeMille so to speak.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Jun 14, 2019 18:19:46 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 18:29:56 GMT
Big sigh.
At least try for Oscar Isaac or something.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 14, 2019 18:41:07 GMT
DiCaprio bailed, huh? Interesting...
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Jun 14, 2019 18:59:39 GMT
DiCaprio must have finally watched The Shape of Water.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Jun 14, 2019 19:20:32 GMT
DiCaprio bailed, huh? Interesting... I wonder if this means Killers of the Flower Moon is starting production sooner? Article says talks fell through.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Jun 14, 2019 19:26:04 GMT
Shit!!!! I wonder if this means Killers of the Flower Moon is starting production sooner? That's the only reason for which I can accept he left the project!!!
|
|