|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 22, 2020 23:23:29 GMT
Is it too spotty and riddled with fails/never-seens? Has he worked with enough major directors? I feel like if you removed Gladiator, Walk the Line, and Two Lovers, it would be a net negative.
Also, why doesn't he get more offers from top-tier directors? For all of the film twitter hoopla over his work in The Master (largely attributable to one scene), you'd think since 2012 he'd have people like Spielberg, Lynch, Scorsese, Mann, Nolan, etc. kicking his door down.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Jun 22, 2020 23:53:51 GMT
I think this board is generally lenient on underseen films. My guess is that's because you never really know what will get a cult following or what director could become elevated over time. Plus, we on here watch that stuff so it doesn't bother us at least.
Anyway, I think his filmography is okay. Not especially great, but he played opposite Nicole Kidman's best performance in To Die For, got nominated in a blockbuster BP winner with Gladiator, and three other blockbusters shortly afterwards (Signs and The Village with Shyamalan who, like him or not, is a big name and Walk the Line which netted him the Oscar nom). Then he turned it up a notch this past decade with 2 PTAs, also Her which is an Original Screenplay winner and a seminal film in hipster culture, then finished off the decade with a billion dollar grosser that won him Best Actor in Joker. He's doing alright for himself.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 23, 2020 0:05:15 GMT
Well he's in a BP winner and another 2 nodded (so 3 total right?) which is weak sauce given his stature (best American actor under 70?)...... but what separates him from the other guys who you would think he is like - ie comparably under-performing - is The Master is a legit best of decade contender ......that gives him a leg up......he's only 45 and has time especially since he's been newly certified with the Gold......his rival is DiCap and he has Phoenix smoked in filmography and directors so he'd have to keep pace a bit more going forward.
DiCap will soon be in the most BP nominated films ever - I think he's close to it already (?)......and like I just rambled on recently, he's insane ahead of pace when you "measure the metrics" in that way vs other actors even guys in their 60s+.....Phoenix better worry about Bale first before he can catch DiCap here though.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 23, 2020 0:14:21 GMT
For all I seem like an insane Wock anti-stan, I'm really not (and I wish I had my early 2000s posts archived to prove it). I'm trying to understand why he's had this uptick in online reputation, just at the point where I feel like his career has become so uninteresting. Your mileage may vary on his work in Joker, but I found it a sporadically amusing performance that paled in comparison to Ledger's all-time worthy mind-boggling work. The Master I've talked about in depth, and only find the processing scene genius. Literally everything else he's done since Two Lovers is just negligible to me. Am I just a crazy Leo stan, or is some of my perception shared by top directors? I wonder.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 23, 2020 0:18:08 GMT
Also, why doesn't he get more offers from top-tier directors? For all of the film twitter hoopla over his work in The Master (largely attributable to one scene), you'd think since 2012 he'd have people like Spielberg, Lynch, Scorsese, Mann, Nolan, etc. kicking his door down. Bankability.Many of those directors love to work with exorbitant budgets. Look at Scorsese these days...demanding 200 million dollar. budgets for films he could make for 60 million. Marty would have had to learn how to be frugal if he wanted to cast Joaquin in a lead role before last year. Phoenix has never been a major box office draw, which is why he works with directors primarily at the arthouse level, where his presence can probably get a budget between 10-30 million dollars. Maybe more with well known co-stars. Joker and the fact that it made a billion dollars with him as the lead may change that going forward, but Phoenix might still feel comfortable sticking to directors who work at the Mike Mills and PTA budget level. If he ended up doing roles with the likes of Spielberg, it'd probably be a supporting role to a more bankable leading man (like he did in Signs and Gladiator) and he'd eventually get percieved as a supporting actor. He made the wise choice to be a big fish in a small pond as an arthouse leading man.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 23, 2020 0:29:05 GMT
Also, why doesn't he get more offers from top-tier directors? For all of the film twitter hoopla over his work in The Master (largely attributable to one scene), you'd think since 2012 he'd have people like Spielberg, Lynch, Scorsese, Mann, Nolan, etc. kicking his door down. Bankability.Many of those directors love to work with exorbitant budgets. Look at Scorsese these days...demanding 200 million dollar. budgets for films he could make for 60 million. Phoenix has never been a major box office draw, which is why he works with directors primarily at the arthouse level, where his presence can probably get a budget between 10-30 million dollars. Maybe more with well known co-stars. Joker and the fact that it made a billion dollars with him as the lead may change that going forward, but Phoenix might still feel comfortable sticking to directors who work at the Mike Mills and PTA budget level. But many of these figures have had leads no more bankable than Phoenix. Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ. DDL topped out as a lead at $75 million worldwide before GONY.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 23, 2020 0:29:24 GMT
For all I seem like an insane Wock anti-stan, I'm really not (and I wish I had my early 2000s posts archived to prove it). I'm trying to understand why he's had this uptick in online reputation, just at the point where I feel like his career has become so uninteresting. I think this is the benefit of being an "alternative" actor - no one can agree on his best work - and he's less dependent on the trappings of what makes a film work anyway - I don't think he's that great for example in You Were Never Really Here (though I admire his intensity certainly, I dig the movie even less than him - I don't get Lynne Ramsay's depression-fests ) which many people are like "Wtf" to me about .....on the other hand Don't Worry, He Won't Get Far on Foot i was surprised by him and thought it was human and rounded and at least in its best scenes at the start beautiful work. Everybody likes him but not everyone can agree on the particulars which is kind of fun/interesting.....
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Jun 23, 2020 0:35:07 GMT
Bankability.Many of those directors love to work with exorbitant budgets. Look at Scorsese these days...demanding 200 million dollar. budgets for films he could make for 60 million. Phoenix has never been a major box office draw, which is why he works with directors primarily at the arthouse level, where his presence can probably get a budget between 10-30 million dollars. Maybe more with well known co-stars. Joker and the fact that it made a billion dollars with him as the lead may change that going forward, but Phoenix might still feel comfortable sticking to directors who work at the Mike Mills and PTA budget level. But many of these figures have had leads no more bankable than Phoenix. Dafoe in The Last Temptation of Christ. DDL topped out as a lead at $75 million worldwide before GONY. The Last Temptation Of Christ was over 30 years ago, when Scorsese still understood the concept of being frugal and working with limited budgets. He's since become somewhat greedy and uncompromising about wanting huge budgets. If he made TLTOC today, he'd want a 250 million budget and would never be able to cast Dafoe in the lead. The studio would not give Scorsese the budget he wanted for Gangs Of New York with Daniel Day-Lewis as the biggest star in the movie . That is why they mandated that Leonardo DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz, more bankable movie stars, also had to be in the film.
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jun 23, 2020 1:25:31 GMT
Also, why doesn't he get more offers from top-tier directors? For all of the film twitter hoopla over his work in The Master (largely attributable to one scene), you'd think since 2012 he'd have people like Spielberg, Lynch, Scorsese, Mann, Nolan, etc. kicking his door down. Bankability.Many of those directors love to work with exorbitant budgets. Look at Scorsese these days...demanding 200 million dollar. budgets for films he could make for 60 million. Marty would have had to learn how to be frugal if he wanted to cast Joaquin in a lead role before last year. Phoenix has never been a major box office draw, which is why he works with directors primarily at the arthouse level, where his presence can probably get a budget between 10-30 million dollars. Maybe more with well known co-stars. Joker and the fact that it made a billion dollars with him as the lead may change that going forward, but Phoenix might still feel comfortable sticking to directors who work at the Mike Mills and PTA budget level. If he ended up doing roles with the likes of Spielberg, it'd probably be a supporting role to a more bankable leading man (like he did in Signs and Gladiator) and he'd eventually get percieved as a supporting actor. He made the wise choice to a a big fish in a small pond as an arthouse leading man. Sorry OT, but I feel like Adam Driver is following a similar path, and so far it’s working for him. I guess both Phoenix and a Driver have been lucky that they were a part of successful big budget films early on, and at least to me feel like they’re above a lot of their peers by not having major box office blemishes on their filmographies unlike other actors that were/are on the rise like the Chrises, Jake Gyllenhaal, Oscar Isaac, etc. I guess Phoenix isn’t quite the same, but I’m thinking of actors that came up right after he broke out in To Die For, not going to count his work when he was younger, like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jude Law, Edward Norton, etc., and while they’re all still successful to varying degrees, he really carved out his own unique path sticking to mostly smaller films. He’s had his ups and downs like they have of course, but I think he got more respect in some ways going that route because less chance of doing something that could be a big bomb like Gigli for Affleck. Or being the butt of a joke at the Oscars for being in too many movies that didn’t do well like Law was. I’m not positive that Driver will follow the same path exactly because he is much older when he got his big break than Phoenix was, so he may want to chase big movies more at this stage, but for an actor that has lots of patience, it’s actually a pretty smart path imo as long as they’re able to have a good mix of big movies and small movies.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Jun 23, 2020 1:59:18 GMT
Bankability.Many of those directors love to work with exorbitant budgets. Look at Scorsese these days...demanding 200 million dollar. budgets for films he could make for 60 million. Marty would have had to learn how to be frugal if he wanted to cast Joaquin in a lead role before last year. Phoenix has never been a major box office draw, which is why he works with directors primarily at the arthouse level, where his presence can probably get a budget between 10-30 million dollars. Maybe more with well known co-stars. Joker and the fact that it made a billion dollars with him as the lead may change that going forward, but Phoenix might still feel comfortable sticking to directors who work at the Mike Mills and PTA budget level. If he ended up doing roles with the likes of Spielberg, it'd probably be a supporting role to a more bankable leading man (like he did in Signs and Gladiator) and he'd eventually get percieved as a supporting actor. He made the wise choice to a a big fish in a small pond as an arthouse leading man. Sorry OT, but I feel like Adam Driver is following a similar path, and so far it’s working for him. I guess both Phoenix and a Driver have been lucky that they were a part of successful big budget films early on, and at least to me feel like they’re above a lot of their peers by not having major box office blemishes on their filmographies unlike other actors that were/are on the rise like the Chrises, Jake Gyllenhaal, Oscar Isaac, etc. I guess Phoenix isn’t quite the same, but I’m thinking of actors that came up right after he broke out in To Die For, not going to count his work when he was younger, like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jude Law, Edward Norton, etc., and while they’re all still successful to varying degrees, he really carved out his own unique path sticking to mostly smaller films. He’s had his ups and downs like they have of course, but I think he got more respect in some ways going that route because less chance of doing something that could be a big bomb like Gigli for Affleck. Or being the butt of a joke at the Oscars for being in too many movies that didn’t do well like Law was. I’m not positive that Driver will follow the same path exactly because he is much older when he got his big break than Phoenix was, so he may want to chase big movies more at this stage, but for an actor that has lots of patience, it’s actually a pretty smart path imo as long as they’re able to have a good mix of big movies and small movies. Driver is also doing The Last Duel (whenever it gets released), so I get the opinion that he'll do go back and forth between more wide-released bigger budgeted epics and smaller more intimate film fare like Marriage Story, until he eventually wins that presumed Oscar. Phoenix is a bit unique (or maybe not so unique), in that he started out as a child actor, then became a potential matinee type leading man with movies like Gladiator, Signs, and Walk The Lead, and he eventually got tired of the whole business, and wanted to quit Hollywood altogether (remember when he turned down Doctor Strange?). Not to mention he had the whole "rapping career" meltdown happen. It's pretty obvious he only did Joker under the pretense that it would be a one-off film, and that it was a character study. I think his filmography is solid, but sometimes I do get the impression, that he can be a bit of a "try hard actor".
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 23, 2020 2:09:40 GMT
Bankability.Many of those directors love to work with exorbitant budgets. Look at Scorsese these days...demanding 200 million dollar. budgets for films he could make for 60 million. Marty would have had to learn how to be frugal if he wanted to cast Joaquin in a lead role before last year. Phoenix has never been a major box office draw, which is why he works with directors primarily at the arthouse level, where his presence can probably get a budget between 10-30 million dollars. Maybe more with well known co-stars. Joker and the fact that it made a billion dollars with him as the lead may change that going forward, but Phoenix might still feel comfortable sticking to directors who work at the Mike Mills and PTA budget level. If he ended up doing roles with the likes of Spielberg, it'd probably be a supporting role to a more bankable leading man (like he did in Signs and Gladiator) and he'd eventually get percieved as a supporting actor. He made the wise choice to a a big fish in a small pond as an arthouse leading man. Sorry OT, but I feel like Adam Driver is following a similar path, and so far it’s working for him.
I guess both Phoenix and a Driver have been lucky that they were a part of successful big budget films early on, and at least to me feel like they’re above a lot of their peers by not having major box office blemishes on their filmographies unlike other actors that were/are on the rise like the Chrises, Jake Gyllenhaal, Oscar Isaac, etc. I guess Phoenix isn’t quite the same, but I’m thinking of actors that came up right after he broke out in To Die For, not going to count his work when he was younger, like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jude Law, Edward Norton, etc., and while they’re all still successful to varying degrees, he really carved out his own unique path sticking to mostly smaller films. He’s had his ups and downs like they have of course, but I think he got more respect in some ways going that route because less chance of doing something that could be a big bomb like Gigli for Affleck. Or being the butt of a joke at the Oscars for being in too many movies that didn’t do well like Law was. I’m not positive that Driver will follow the same path exactly because he is much older when he got his big break than Phoenix was, so he may want to chase big movies more at this stage, but for an actor that has lots of patience, it’s actually a pretty smart path imo as long as they’re able to have a good mix of big movies and small movies. I don't really see similarities between the two. Driver is less transformative (IMO, on the basis of Wock's Gladiator and Walk the Line), has never been a feature in something as big as Gladiator, and is generally just a supporting player.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 23, 2020 2:11:05 GMT
In my opinion, it's because he lives in the shadow of Leonardo DiCaprio - to the eyes of the majority of producers/directors/older film dudes. For Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, seemed like producers/Tarantino wanted one guy from the jump.... DiCaprio. For all Scorsese films, you're gonna have to convince the producers why Leo is only the 2nd best actor for the role. Because it seems like most Scorsese roles (unless Jesus Christ or something), would go to Leo first unless for some extraneous reason, he would do equally as well/better than Phoenix. The only director that you named that I can logically see him being cast in.... is Nolan. I feel like it's only a matter of time before Nolan casts him in something. But then Tenet went to Pattinson. Not sure if Phoenix was even in the running for that, but I think that was one opportunity for Joaquin that didn't happen to materialize. So for that reason, Joker seemed like a role he defaulted to because there wasn't any better at the time. Not that it ended up being a bad role by any stretch (an Oscar winner for Best Actor), just don't think he would've done that movie had there been an opening from Tarantino/Scorsese/Nolan, which the answer was no on all 3 counts. Also, by putting Mann and Lynch on your list...... both have done a combined 2 films in the last 14 years - with Lynch doing a TV revival. *This makes me seem like a Leo stan now. I'm not. I'm just stating the obvious. To most people (outside of this forum), Leo easily gets the role first, and Phoenix is merely a 2nd option.
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Jun 23, 2020 2:31:26 GMT
In my opinion, it's because he lives in the shadow of Leonardo DiCaprio - to the eyes of the majority of producers/directors/older film dudes. For Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, seemed like producers/Tarantino wanted one guy from the jump.... DiCaprio. For all Scorsese films, you're gonna have to convince the producers why Leo is only the 2nd best actor for the role. Because it seems like most Scorsese roles (unless Jesus Christ or something), would go to Leo first unless for some extraneous reason, he would do equally as well/better than Phoenix.The only director that you named that I can logically see him being cast in.... is Nolan. I feel like it's only a matter of time before Nolan casts him in something. But then Tenet went to Pattinson. Not sure if Phoenix was even in the running for that, but I think that was one opportunity for Joaquin that didn't happen to materialize. So for that reason, Joker seemed like a role he defaulted to because there wasn't any better at the time. Not that it ended up being a bad role by any stretch (an Oscar winner for Best Actor), just don't think he would've done that movie had there been an opening from Tarantino/Scorsese/Nolan, which the answer was no on all 3 counts. Also, by putting Mann and Lynch on your list...... both have done a combined 2 films in the last 14 years - with Lynch doing a TV revival. *This makes me seem like a Leo stan now. I'm not. I'm just stating the obvious. To most people (outside of this forum), Leo easily gets the role first, and Phoenix is merely a 2nd option. That's what I'm wondering about. Even if we just talk about projects DiCaprio was hovering around, Joaquin's comparative lineup of projects he didn't do pales in comparison. Why?
|
|
morton
Based
Posts: 2,811
Likes: 2,954
|
Post by morton on Jun 23, 2020 2:46:05 GMT
Sorry OT, but I feel like Adam Driver is following a similar path, and so far it’s working for him.
I guess both Phoenix and a Driver have been lucky that they were a part of successful big budget films early on, and at least to me feel like they’re above a lot of their peers by not having major box office blemishes on their filmographies unlike other actors that were/are on the rise like the Chrises, Jake Gyllenhaal, Oscar Isaac, etc. I guess Phoenix isn’t quite the same, but I’m thinking of actors that came up right after he broke out in To Die For, not going to count his work when he was younger, like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, Jude Law, Edward Norton, etc., and while they’re all still successful to varying degrees, he really carved out his own unique path sticking to mostly smaller films. He’s had his ups and downs like they have of course, but I think he got more respect in some ways going that route because less chance of doing something that could be a big bomb like Gigli for Affleck. Or being the butt of a joke at the Oscars for being in too many movies that didn’t do well like Law was. I’m not positive that Driver will follow the same path exactly because he is much older when he got his big break than Phoenix was, so he may want to chase big movies more at this stage, but for an actor that has lots of patience, it’s actually a pretty smart path imo as long as they’re able to have a good mix of big movies and small movies. I don't really see similarities between the two. Driver is less transformative (IMO, on the basis of Wock's Gladiator and Walk the Line), has never been a feature in something as big as Gladiator, and is generally just a supporting player. Oh I don’t think their acting styles are anything alike, but both played a villain in a big blockbuster and really had their careers take off and solidify after they did. Driver has done smaller roles generally in big movies, and he also had Girls, so I know the comparison doesn’t totally work. Obviously there are differences between their careers, but I think both have been fortunate, at least Driver has been so far in his short career, that they seem “above” having to do certain movies. Obviously things could change, but like Phoenix didn’t do Dr. Strange as therealcomicman117 pointed out, and when he did Joker, it had an aura of being more than a comic book movie partly because of him being in it. Driver did Star Wars, but he was fortunate in that he was only tied to 3 movies, and escaped the SW curse, at least so far. While I wouldn’t be surprised if he ever did do a Marvel or DC film, so far he has escaped it while I think pretty much everyone of his peers mainly Gosling and Redmayne have all done it. Is SW on the same level or below comic book movies, maybe? But for me, I think being tied down to only 3 movies is a lot better deal than the contracts that the actors sign for Marvel. Right now as long as he continues pretty much the path he’s on, if he ever does a comic book movie, I think it could be somewhat similar to when Phoenix did Joker in that it will be looked at as something more prestigious than a regular comic book movie because the perception will be that he didn’t have to do it unless there was a good reason too. I know I’ve probably doomed The Last Duel to fail now lol, but while it would be very difficult to not be tempted by getting all the fame and riches, it’s also a nice way to avoid failing spectacularly. Like looking at the promise that Michael Fassbender’s career had, and while he got two Oscar nominations in a short time, he had so many high profile misses that I think really hurt his career trajectory.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 23, 2020 3:40:52 GMT
Another thread where someone asks about the quality of something and most the discussion on the thread is just about Oscars and money and not the merits of what is being discussed.
The Master is one of the best films ever made and Walk the Line might be my favorite of 05 as well. He even has good commercial stuff (since we're talking about that) in Gladiator, Signs, The Village, and Joker. I like his filmography fine.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 23, 2020 3:50:56 GMT
Another thread where someone asks about the quality of something and most the discussion on the thread is just about Oscars and money and not the merits of what is being discussed. The Master is one of the best films ever made and Walk the Line might be my favorite of 05 as well. He even has good commercial stuff (since we're talking about that) in Gladiator, Signs, The Village, and Joker. I like his filmography fine. Actually, it sounds to me like he was asking "why isn't he cast in more good movies?" so this discussion is obviously drifting more in the territory of box office/the casting behind the movies/bankability. I don't know about you, but I really don't wanna talk about the merits of Joker or The Master, or Phoenix's performance in either. Like I haven't heard about those films enough on this board.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 23, 2020 4:14:59 GMT
Another thread where someone asks about the quality of something and most the discussion on the thread is just about Oscars and money and not the merits of what is being discussed. The Master is one of the best films ever made and Walk the Line might be my favorite of 05 as well. He even has good commercial stuff (since we're talking about that) in Gladiator, Signs, The Village, and Joker. I like his filmography fine. Actually, it sounds to me like he was asking "why isn't he cast in more good movies?" so this discussion is obviously drifting more in the territory of box office/the casting behind the movies/bankability. I don't know about you, but I really don't wanna talk about the merits of Joker or The Master, or Phoenix's performance in either. Like I haven't heard about those films enough on this board. Those seem like questions about the quality of the films (especially since Two Lovers was a bomb and didn't win awards, OP must just personally view it as one of his only good films) and then there was the question about his director roster. It just seems like for the past month+ every acting thread turns into dick measuring via oscar or BO stats as opposed to talking about the actual performances or films. It really does not matter to me if a movie makes money or wins awards.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,825
Likes: 2,354
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jun 23, 2020 4:23:41 GMT
Those seem like questions about the quality of the films (especially since Two Lovers was a bomb and didn't win awards, OP must just personally view it as one of his only good films) and then there was the question about his director roster. It just seems like for the past month+ every acting thread turns into dick measuring via oscar or BO stats as opposed to talking about the actual performances or films. It really does not matter to me if a movie makes money or wins awards. To each his own, but that's not how I read his post. And you might be right, but it is par course for discussion to find out the "why?" in Hollywood and all these box office discussions and popularity talks allow us to deconstruct and break down the happenings within Hollywood so we can all have a better grasp about the current climate of movies. And overall, I'm sure some people are just sick of talking about The Master and Joker. The latter has riled enough people up, and the former for the last 8 years is like Groundhog Day. Everytime you come on this board and the original MA, there's 4 threads on it daily, and then it just becomes like a tiresome running routine you're reliving every day.
|
|
|
Post by fiosnasiob on Jun 23, 2020 8:45:09 GMT
Another thread where someone asks about the quality of something and most the discussion on the thread is just about Oscars and money and not the merits of what is being discussed. So true and it's really sad. Anti-cinema at its worst.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 23, 2020 9:37:46 GMT
Another thread where someone asks about the quality of something and most the discussion on the thread is just about Oscars and money and not the merits of what is being discussed. The Master is one of the best films ever made and Walk the Line might be my favorite of 05 as well. He even has good commercial stuff (since we're talking about that) in Gladiator, Signs, The Village, and Joker. I like his filmography fine. This is always the thing here though - I mean the board is literally called Movie Awards so people will just default to Oscars somewhat and that is a part of filmography too (not the whole of course) and box-office will always be in play for a guy at his peak like Phoenix is now at 45........still it is a little unfair to say "if we removed Gladiator" like the OP said because Gladiator touches on both things even if neither is all because of Phoenix .......that's a trick of filmography - it's awards/popularity/subjective quality simultaneously.......more things than just that even. "Dullard arguing" : ____________ is the best actor/actress because they are the biggest/most awarded....... is an obvious lie but acknowledging the parameters of the work by assessing acclaim and money is fine with me and often necessary actually ..............I mean the reason that threads on just the quality of the work of say Willem Dafoe or Michelle Williams even exist are why this board has cool favorites like that too and props them up so much too against bigger/more awarded stars often (rightfully so imo).
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Sept 7, 2020 11:00:01 GMT
DiCaprio was the first choice for Joker, he turned it down for OUATIH, and got replaced by Phoenix.
It's telling of the fact that Phoenix despite the acclaim from certain critics circles and parts of Film Twitter, he's never been considered generally (by the general public) as great as DiCaprio.
That's why aside from PTA, A-list filmmakers don't seem interested in him.
|
|
|
Post by TerryMontana on Sept 7, 2020 12:02:57 GMT
He needed that Joker movie as the most iconic and recognizable role in his career.
Apart from that, I think he has a much better filmography than many people give him credit for.
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Sept 7, 2020 15:24:20 GMT
His filmography is flat out awesome imo . One of his films he did with James Gray called We Own the Night is criminally underrated.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 8, 2020 3:42:41 GMT
DiCaprio was the first choice for Joker, he turned it down for OUATIH, and got replaced by Phoenix. No, Todd Phillips said he wrote the role with Phoenix in mind. The studio heads probably wanted DiCaprio, for obvious reasons, but Phoenix was the first choice. It's not like DiCaprio would have accepted the role, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by stabcaesar on Sept 8, 2020 5:39:26 GMT
It's not like DiCaprio would have accepted the rolebeen any good, anyway. FTFY
|
|