|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on May 27, 2020 16:18:26 GMT
If he was as good at picking prestige projects as he is at mainstream would he be considered in the same tier as DiCaprio? He certainly has a lot of talent, I think his lack of taking risks has really held him back.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 27, 2020 17:37:29 GMT
His run from Fresh Prince through the mid-2000s was solid, but his 2010s were abysmal and pretty much tanked his legacy. He needs to course correct in a big way and start doing some memorable movies again.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on May 27, 2020 18:03:52 GMT
I always liken Will Smith and Angelina Jolie. Powerful dramatic actors with massive star appeal to boot, but they will both likely end up with forgettable careers because they were more interested in their images and box-office/paychecks than they were with putting together a memorable body of work.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on May 28, 2020 4:57:50 GMT
I always liken Will Smith and Angelina Jolie. Powerful dramatic actors with massive star appeal to boot, but they will both likely end up with forgettable careers because they were more interested in their images and box-office/paychecks than they were with putting together a memorable body of work. I can definitely see that. I think Smith will still be remembered for the heights he was able to hit in music, television, and film unlike Jolie who will likely be more remembered for her personal life unless she starts to really turn things around with her filmography. I also feel like maybe Smith might be trying to turn things around with King Richard whereas I don’t think Jolie particularly cares that much.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on May 28, 2020 15:08:46 GMT
I also feel that Smith can still get back on track add another nice chapter to his film career.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on May 28, 2020 16:18:48 GMT
I always liken Will Smith and Angelina Jolie. Powerful dramatic actors with massive star appeal to boot, but they will both likely end up with forgettable careers because they were more interested in their images and box-office/paychecks than they were with putting together a memorable body of work. I can definitely see that. I think Smith will still be remembered for the heights he was able to hit in music, television, and film unlike Jolie who will likely be more remembered for her personal life unless she starts to really turn things around with her filmography. I also feel like maybe Smith might be trying to turn things around with King Richard whereas I don’t think Jolie particularly cares that much. Jolie seems to be in the zone where she wants to just direct, and do things to help people, which is great and all, but it also means that her filmography will suffer as a result. I'm 90% sure she only did that Maleficient sequel for money, or for maybe contractually obligated reasons. Smith also wants an Oscar, and thus is chasing more "dramatic projects". I have high hopes for King Richard, but if it's anything like his last few swings at prestigey pictures ( Collateral Beauty, eech!!!), then forget about it as far as Oscars are concerned. Personally I'll always remember Smith as one of the last true movie stars. Dude dominated the summer like nobody before or after has. From Men in Black II to Hancock, he did seven straight blockbusters, and I loved watching everyone of them growing-up, yes even MIBII. I think he did a good job of recapturing that "movie star charisma", that had been missing for years, with Bad Boys For Life, which is a huge reason why that movie was such a pleasant surprise.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on May 28, 2020 16:24:06 GMT
An insanely charismatic performer and personality who just happens to pick unworthy material a lot of the time.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on May 28, 2020 21:09:43 GMT
Megawatt charisma and I have a lot of love for the guy since I grew up at the dawn of the Willenium. I think for a lot of his career he was pretty brand-conscious and that affected his choice in projects - hell, he himself in interviews goes on about how much his box office failures hurt him. For instance, he initially said he turned down Django Unchained because he felt Django wasn't the hero and later said he and Quentin didn't see eye to eye in that Will wanted it to be more focused on the love story than the revenge plot. That may not be solely brand-consciousness and simply reflective of his individual beliefs as a creative, but it does show that he as a star is not as willing to lend himself to a project and filmmaker as someone like DiCaprio but more prefers to be himself a driving creative force in what he makes and what he makes is more down-the-middle mainstream fare that can be fun (I had a blast with Bad Boys for Life) but isn't going to garner him awards.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 28, 2020 22:59:47 GMT
Megawatt charisma and I have a lot of love for the guy since I grew up at the dawn of the Willenium. I think for a lot of his career he was pretty brand-conscious and that affected his choice in projects - hell, he himself in interviews goes on about how much his box office failures hurt him. For instance, he initially said he turned down Django Unchained because he felt Django wasn't the hero and later said he and Quentin didn't see eye to eye in that Will wanted it to be more focused on the love story than the revenge plot. That may not be solely brand-consciousness and simply reflective of his individual beliefs as a creative, but it does show that he as a star is not as willing to lend himself to a project and filmmaker as someone like DiCaprio but more prefers to be himself a driving creative force in what he makes and what he makes is more down-the-middle mainstream fare that can be fun (I had a blast with Bad Boys for Life) but isn't going to garner him awards. Or it's possible he recognised the role of Django itself, though the lead, was actually less interesting than most of the supporting characters in the script (which proved to be true, as fine a job as Jamie Foxx did in the role) and made whatever excuses he needed to to Tarantino to politely show his lack of enthusiasm for an underwritten lead role. I know we are in a space where every actor is supposed to bow at the feet of any notable auteur that looks in their direction, but Smith probably saw the role for what it was, which was a somewhat thankless lead around a cast of much more fascinating supporting characters. Smith may be guilty of not making more interesting selections and choices, but I don't fully blame him for turning down Django. Every reaction once the film came out fully supported the belief that it was at best the 4th best role in the film. If he's out there turning down Tom Cruise's role in Collateral (or something like that), then it'd be frustrating, because it's a great role. Django was an OK role. Tarantino approached him with it because the pool of black star leading men wasn't that deep, not because he had written a fantastic role that only Smith could play. And maybe Smith sensed Quentin mainly wanted him for his clout. But if you want an A-lister the level of Smith, make sure the part you are offering him is at least one of the better written ones in the script.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 28, 2020 23:09:52 GMT
Megawatt charisma and I have a lot of love for the guy since I grew up at the dawn of the Willenium. I think for a lot of his career he was pretty brand-conscious and that affected his choice in projects - hell, he himself in interviews goes on about how much his box office failures hurt him. For instance, he initially said he turned down Django Unchained because he felt Django wasn't the hero and later said he and Quentin didn't see eye to eye in that Will wanted it to be more focused on the love story than the revenge plot. That may not be solely brand-consciousness and simply reflective of his individual beliefs as a creative, but it does show that he as a star is not as willing to lend himself to a project and filmmaker as someone like DiCaprio but more prefers to be himself a driving creative force in what he makes and what he makes is more down-the-middle mainstream fare that can be fun (I had a blast with Bad Boys for Life) but isn't going to garner him awards. Or it's possible he recognised the role of Django itself, though the lead, was actually less interesting than most of the supporting characters in the script (which proved to be true, as fine a job as Jamie Foxx did in the role) and made whatever excuses he needed to to Tarantino to politely show his lack of enthusiasm for an underwritten lead role. I know we are in a space where every actor is supposed to bow at the feet of any notable auteur that looks in their direction, but Smith probably saw the role for what it was, which was a somewhat thankless lead around a cast of much more fascinating supporting characters. Smith may be guilty of not making more interesting selections and choices, but I don't fully blaming him for turning down Django. Every reaction once the film came out fully supported the belief that it was at best the 4th best role in the film. I actually agree that the role was not strong, though Smith may have injected it with something more than Foxx did, or worked some compromises out with QT while filming. I just don't get how someone can be analytical one moment without deference to an established strong artistic record a director has, and then sign up for complete crap in the same period. How do you have reservations about a QT movie, but none about After Earth or Winter's Tale? That's insane. It's like turning down The Master (a movie I strongly dislike) with credible complaints about the script, and then signing up for Leprechaun 2.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 28, 2020 23:26:39 GMT
Or it's possible he recognised the role of Django itself, though the lead, was actually less interesting than most of the supporting characters in the script (which proved to be true, as fine a job as Jamie Foxx did in the role) and made whatever excuses he needed to to Tarantino to politely show his lack of enthusiasm for an underwritten lead role. I know we are in a space where every actor is supposed to bow at the feet of any notable auteur that looks in their direction, but Smith probably saw the role for what it was, which was a somewhat thankless lead around a cast of much more fascinating supporting characters. Smith may be guilty of not making more interesting selections and choices, but I don't fully blaming him for turning down Django. Every reaction once the film came out fully supported the belief that it was at best the 4th best role in the film. I actually agree that the role was not strong, though Smith may have injected it with something more than Foxx did, or worked some compromises out with QT while filming. I just don't get how someone can be analytical one moment without deference to an established strong artistic record a director has, and then sign up for complete crap in the same period. How do you have reservations about a QT movie, but none about After Earth or Winter's Tale? That's insane. It's like turning down The Master (a movie I strongly dislike) with credible complaints about the script, and then signing up for Leprechaun 2. I disagree about After Earth and Winter's Tale being bad choices (before the fact, that is).They turned out to be bad films, but nobody sets out to make a bad movie, and he had specific reasons to be involved in them. After Earth was a project he produced to act in with his son (which already gives him far more of a personal connection to the film than Tarantino's project). It was directed by M Night Shamalyan, who may have a hit or miss track record, but is still widely respected in the industry and can still make quality movies. They thought they were making something good. It sucked. Shit happens. Winter's Tale seems more like Smith doing a favor for a friend/colleague. It was the directorial debut of Oscar-winning screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, who had written two huge hitsfor Smith ( I Am Legend and I Robot). It was a supporting role that was barely used in the marketing . So not really a bad choice. Just helping out a friend who had written two of his biggest movies, which isn't unusual. It wasn't a vehicle for Smith at all.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on May 29, 2020 0:17:06 GMT
1. Django Unchained would have been, by far, the best reviewed movie of Will Smith's career. 2. Django Unchained would have been the first and only Best Picture nominated movie of Will Smith's career. 3. Django Unchained would have been the highest grossing R-rated movie of Will Smith's career.
For all this talk about how bland his role was, Jamie Foxx's performance is more critically acclaimed than any Will Smith performance outside of Concussion since 2006. But yeah, maybe it was a good decision to turn down Django Unchained... in Bizarro World.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on May 29, 2020 0:27:44 GMT
At his peak, he was one of the most charismatic and electric screen presences of all time, and was definitely one of the formative actors of my childhood. But then Men in Black II happened. And I don't think he was ever able to recover from that (yes, I know he got an Oscar nomination after that, but my point still stands).
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on May 29, 2020 0:35:05 GMT
At his peak, he was one of the most charismatic and electric screen presences of all time, and was definitely one of the formative actors of my childhood. But then Men in Black II happened. And I don't think he was ever able to recover from that (yes, I know he got an Oscar nomination after that, but my point still stands). Well turning down The Matrix to make Wild Wild West certainly didn’t help.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 29, 2020 0:56:09 GMT
At his peak, he was one of the most charismatic and electric screen presences of all time, and was definitely one of the formative actors of my childhood. But then Men in Black II happened. And I don't think he was ever able to recover from that (yes, I know he got an Oscar nomination after that, but my point still stands). "Recover" I don't quite get this attitude towards Smith's career. He's never really had to recover from anything.The man has been an A-list megastar on his own terms for approaching 25 years, which is pretty rare. He's had a few bumps and made a few poor films, but he's got a fun and watchable filmography, audiences love him and he is still a huge draw ( Aladdin and the latest installment of Bad Boys means he's still at the very top of the tree of box office draws, though less consistent than at his peak). I think Smith has the career he wanted and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Not everyone cares about being in GOAT actor debates or having X amount of Best Picture nominations. Smith wanted to be a big fat movie star who made entertaining movies that audiences enjoyed, and he is still succeeding at that. The guy is out there being one of the biggest stars on YouTube and Tik-Tok, while being one of the world's biggest movie stars, so his priorities have never been about impressing cinephiles (even with his occasional Oscar grabs). If Tom Cruise wants to do nothing but make action films and Mission Impossible sequels for the rest of his days, instead of of still making awardsbait films with Cameron Crowe, and is mostly praised for it now (pumping out the same franchise film every 3 years), people should probably just let Smith live. I'm not even a massive fan of Smith, but I give him credit for crafting the career he wanted and maintaining longevity at the top.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 29, 2020 1:54:44 GMT
At his peak, he was one of the most charismatic and electric screen presences of all time, and was definitely one of the formative actors of my childhood. But then Men in Black II happened. And I don't think he was ever able to recover from that (yes, I know he got an Oscar nomination after that, but my point still stands). "Recover" I don't quite get this attitude towards Smith's career. He's never really had to recover from anything.The man has been an A-list megastar on his own terms for approaching 25 years, which is pretty rare. He's had a few bumps and made a few poor films, but he's got a fun and watchable filmography, audiences love him and he is still a huge draw ( Aladdin and the latest installment of Bad Boys means he's still at the very top of the tree of box office draws, though less consistent than at his peak). I think Smith has the career he wanted and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Not everyone cares about being in GOAT actor debates or having X amount of Best Picture nominations. Smith wanted to be a big fat movie star who made entertaining movies that audiences enjoyed, and he is still succeeding at that. The guy is out there being one of the biggest stars on YouTube and Tik-Tok, while being one of the world's biggest movie stars, so his priorities have never been about impressing cinephiles (even with his occasional Oscar grabs). If Tom Cruise wants to do nothing but make action films and Mission Impossible sequels for the rest of his days, instead of of still making awardsbait films with Cameron Crowe, and is mostly praised for it now (pumping out the same franchise film every 3 years), people should probably just let Smith live. I'm not even a massive fan of Smith, but I give him credit for crafting the career he wanted and maintaining longevity at the top. I get what you're saying, but Will Smith movies used to be major pop-cultural events. In the mid and late 90s, he was authentically a post-racial figure in pop-culture, like Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan. Everything he does these days is just riding on the coattails of his earlier achievements. He used to be charming...in good movies, as opposed to the mostly dreck he does these days. Even this recent Bad Boys film wasn't bad (despite being vastly inferior to the first two), but it was more of a showcase for how funny Martin Lawrence still is than an exhibition of Will Smith's talents (IMO). Tom Cruise is slumming it too, but not to the extent as Smith.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 29, 2020 2:07:37 GMT
"Recover" I don't quite get this attitude towards Smith's career. He's never really had to recover from anything.The man has been an A-list megastar on his own terms for approaching 25 years, which is pretty rare. He's had a few bumps and made a few poor films, but he's got a fun and watchable filmography, audiences love him and he is still a huge draw ( Aladdin and the latest installment of Bad Boys means he's still at the very top of the tree of box office draws, though less consistent than at his peak). I think Smith has the career he wanted and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Not everyone cares about being in GOAT actor debates or having X amount of Best Picture nominations. Smith wanted to be a big fat movie star who made entertaining movies that audiences enjoyed, and he is still succeeding at that. The guy is out there being one of the biggest stars on YouTube and Tik-Tok, while being one of the world's biggest movie stars, so his priorities have never been about impressing cinephiles (even with his occasional Oscar grabs). If Tom Cruise wants to do nothing but make action films and Mission Impossible sequels for the rest of his days, instead of of still making awardsbait films with Cameron Crowe, and is mostly praised for it now (pumping out the same franchise film every 3 years), people should probably just let Smith live. I'm not even a massive fan of Smith, but I give him credit for crafting the career he wanted and maintaining longevity at the top. I get what you're saying, but Will Smith movies used to be major pop-cultural events. In the mid and late 90s, he was authentically a post-racial figure in pop-culture, like Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan. Everything he does these days is just riding on the coattails of his earlier achievements. He used to be charming...in good movies, as opposed to the mostly dreck he does these days. Even this recent Bad Boys film wasn't bad (despite being vastly inferior to the first two), but it was more of a showcase for how funny Martin Lawrence still is than an exhibition of Will Smith's talents (IMO). Tom Cruise is slumming it too, but not to the extent as Smith. It's impossible to maintain that kind of aura that Smith had, where like you said, everything he did was a cultural event, and he was the King Of July 4th weekend. But the fact that he is still A-list and one of the biggest draws in the business after so long says a lot for him. There have been guys in his position (like Burt Reynolds, who was the biggest movie star in the world for close to a decade) who just completely flamed out, and never came close to what they used to be. Smith is still there or thereabouts, and people don't credit how hard it is to sustain that. Will Smith movies for the most part, aren't often my cup of tea. But you can't deny people are still flocking to see him in Aladdin and the latest Bad Boys (maybe Martin Lawrence does shine, but that movie cannot do the numbers it did without Smith. Smith is permanent A-list. He may have fallow periods, but audiences will never fully abandon him).
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on May 29, 2020 2:47:16 GMT
Undeniably talented, probably more naturally gifted than a lot of his contemporaries. But man, a lot of those contemporaries have just been smarter than him. If you're not in films that have a shelf life, you're not going to be remembered. It's really that simple.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 29, 2020 2:53:26 GMT
Undeniably talented, probably more naturally gifted than a lot of his contemporaries. But man, a lot of those contemporaries have just been smarter than him. If you're not in films that have a shelf life, you're not going to be remembered. It's really that simple. Who is more remembered today.... Jerry Lewis with his lightweight comedies, or Frederic March and his two Oscars and multiple Best Picture nominees? For me, Smith will probably end up better remembered than say George Clooney, one of those so-called "smarter" contemporaries.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on May 29, 2020 3:02:37 GMT
"Recover" I don't quite get this attitude towards Smith's career. He's never really had to recover from anything.The man has been an A-list megastar on his own terms for approaching 25 years, which is pretty rare. He's had a few bumps and made a few poor films, but he's got a fun and watchable filmography, audiences love him and he is still a huge draw ( Aladdin and the latest installment of Bad Boys means he's still at the very top of the tree of box office draws, though less consistent than at his peak). I think Smith has the career he wanted and it's nothing to be ashamed of. Not everyone cares about being in GOAT actor debates or having X amount of Best Picture nominations. Smith wanted to be a big fat movie star who made entertaining movies that audiences enjoyed, and he is still succeeding at that. The guy is out there being one of the biggest stars on YouTube and Tik-Tok, while being one of the world's biggest movie stars, so his priorities have never been about impressing cinephiles (even with his occasional Oscar grabs). If Tom Cruise wants to do nothing but make action films and Mission Impossible sequels for the rest of his days, instead of of still making awardsbait films with Cameron Crowe, and is mostly praised for it now (pumping out the same franchise film every 3 years), people should probably just let Smith live. I'm not even a massive fan of Smith, but I give him credit for crafting the career he wanted and maintaining longevity at the top. I get what you're saying, but Will Smith movies used to be major pop-cultural events. In the mid and late 90s, he was authentically a post-racial figure in pop-culture, like Michael Jackson or Michael Jordan. Everything he does these days is just riding on the coattails of his earlier achievements. He used to be charming...in good movies, as opposed to the mostly dreck he does these days. Even this recent Bad Boys film wasn't bad (despite being vastly inferior to the first two), but it was more of a showcase for how funny Martin Lawrence still is than an exhibition of Will Smith's talents (IMO). Tom Cruise is slumming it too, but not to the extent as Smith. Tom Cruise's batting average is still extremely high. He's just been working in variations of the same mode for a decade plus now while working with the same three of four highly competent, but completely unremarkable and undistinguishable directors. Whether that's as interesting as what he was doing in the 90s to mid 00s is a fair question. I'd argue it certainly isn't. I mean, it's easy to "never phone in a performance" as he's often given credit for on here if you know the character like the back of your hand. It's harder to actually take swings and risk things like he was doing while working with the PTA's and the Kubrick's. But opinions aside, it's still undeniably more successful than Will's extreme mixed bag last decade plus. Cruise has basically standardized his brand to the point where you know exactly what you're going to get out of one of his movies. Which is great as a business model and imo, antithetical to the artist he once was.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 29, 2020 3:09:49 GMT
The problem is too many people here view Everything through the prism of critics/awards success or cinephile appeal.
They forget there is a whole wide world of average joes who see Men In Black and Independence Day as bigger classics than every Best Picture Oscar winner of the last decade.
Smith will be remembered just fine.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on May 29, 2020 3:12:28 GMT
Undeniably talented, probably more naturally gifted than a lot of his contemporaries. But man, a lot of those contemporaries have just been smarter than him. If you're not in films that have a shelf life, you're not going to be remembered. It's really that simple. Who is more remembered today.... Jerry Lewis with his lightweight comedies, or Frederic March and his two Oscars and multiple Best Picture nominees? For me, Smith will probably end up better remembered than say George Clooney, one of those so-called "smarter" contemporaries. Well, I've written before that Clooney's filmography is pretty weak and a lot of them aren't holding up, so I don't necessarily disagree. Of the 60s born A-listers, Pitt and Cruise are in a virtual dead heat for having the best legacy. Cruise is unequivocally a bigger star than Pitt, but I'd argue Pitt is on track to have the more interesting and varied range of films with more prestige attached to him by already having an Oscar. Especially if Cruise keeps working in his standardized action mode while Pitt keeps doing films with more variance, ambition and prestige, even if he strikes out more times than Cruise does on average. He's also aided by a production company that has won three Best Picture Oscars, two of them for landmark Best Picture winners in terms of diversity/inclusion. If we rope in Damon, he's probably a relatively close, but still distant 3rd. DiCaprio is first in any discussion unless we range all the way back to Hanks/Denzel. Depp needs a comeback before I try and situate him in this decision.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on May 29, 2020 3:16:17 GMT
The problem here is people view Everything through the prism of critics/awards success or cinephile appeal. They forget there is a whole wide world of average joes who see Men In Black and Independence Day as bigger classics than every Best Picture Oscar winner of the last decade. Smith will be remembered just fine. Oh, I'd agree with them, too. I'm saying that that's increasingly so far removed in time from what he offers now that it won't matter. Nobody's arguing that Collateral Beauty is better than Green Book.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on May 29, 2020 3:21:28 GMT
Who is more remembered today.... Jerry Lewis with his lightweight comedies, or Frederic March and his two Oscars and multiple Best Picture nominees? For me, Smith will probably end up better remembered than say George Clooney, one of those so-called "smarter" contemporaries. Well, I've written before that Clooney's filmography is pretty weak and a lot of them aren't holding up, so I don't necessarily disagree. Of the 60s born A-listers, Pitt and Cruise are in a virtual dead heat for having the best legacy. Cruise is unequivocally a bigger star than Pitt, but I'd argue Pitt is on track to have the more interesting and varied range of films with more prestige attached to him by already having an Oscar. Especially if Cruise keeps working in his standardized action mode while Pitt keeps doing films with more variance, ambition and prestige, even if he strikes out more times than Cruise does on average. He's also aided by a production company that has won three Best Picture Oscars, two of them for landmark Best Picture winners in terms of diversity/inclusion. If we rope in Damon, he's probably a relatively close, but still distant 3rd. DiCaprio is first in any discussion unless we range all the way back to Hanks/Denzel. Depp needs a comeback before I try and situate him in this decision. As I said, a lot of people in the world who will never frequent boards like this, view things like Men In Black and Independence Day (fuck, even I Am Legend and Hancock) as bigger classics than many Best Picture Oscar winners. These films don't make Best Ever Movie Lists or whatever, but people still watch them and introduce their kids to them. We don't take that into account enough (though I try to) and dismiss those people as tasteless and unimportant. Which is myopic. But that is how someone like Jerry Lewis stays far more remembered than Frederic March.
|
|
|
Post by mattfincher on May 29, 2020 3:26:22 GMT
Well, I've written before that Clooney's filmography is pretty weak and a lot of them aren't holding up, so I don't necessarily disagree. Of the 60s born A-listers, Pitt and Cruise are in a virtual dead heat for having the best legacy. Cruise is unequivocally a bigger star than Pitt, but I'd argue Pitt is on track to have the more interesting and varied range of films with more prestige attached to him by already having an Oscar. Especially if Cruise keeps working in his standardized action mode while Pitt keeps doing films with more variance, ambition and prestige, even if he strikes out more times than Cruise does on average. He's also aided by a production company that has won three Best Picture Oscars, two of them for landmark Best Picture winners in terms of diversity/inclusion. If we rope in Damon, he's probably a relatively close, but still distant 3rd. DiCaprio is first in any discussion unless we range all the way back to Hanks/Denzel. Depp needs a comeback before I try and situate him in this decision. As I said, a lot of people in the world who will never frequent boards like this, view things like Men In Black and Independence Day (fuck, even I Am Legend and Hancock) as bigger classics than many Best Picture Oscar winners. These films don't make Best Ever Movie Lists or whatever, but people still watch them and introduce their kids to them. We don't take that into account enough (though I try to) and dismiss those people as tasteless and unimportant. Which is myopic. But that is how someone like Jerry Lewis stays far more remembered than Frederic March.
But isn't the fact your main point of reference are two films from over 20 years ago part of the issue here? He turned down The Matrix and Django Unchained to do Wild Wild West and After Earth. I won't blame him as much for the former because a lot of people don't turned that down. But Django Unchained simply because he didn't get to shoot Leo or whatever his dumb reason was... just an indefensible error in judgment. That's a film that has both populist and auteur appeal... something not a single film in his filmography has.
|
|