|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 2, 2020 0:48:11 GMT
Ultimately, the highest level of artistic achievement accomplished with some frequency will achieve a noticeable measure of popularity. Bjork and Radiohead are platinum selling artists. Highly dubious ................ Sleater-Kinney isn't a Bjork in sales but artistically they are quite comparable in their artistry in the same exact period. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime.......there is no connection between popular success and depth of artistry in any Art form, I won't bore you by listing the "other Van Goghs" in other mediums. Like I said there's a place for the popular argument but none of it corresponds to "best"........there's no place for it there at all. I disagree. Sleater-Kinney has nothing on Bjork artistically. As for Van Gogh, what I'm saying requires a certain exposure and mental stability. Emily Dickinson is obviously not going to have been as popular as a living figure as Dickens or Emerson when her poems were not published. But DDL is a figure who won an Oscar in the 90s, 00s, and 10s.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Sept 2, 2020 1:06:01 GMT
Highly dubious ................ Sleater-Kinney isn't a Bjork in sales but artistically they are quite comparable in their artistry in the same exact period. Van Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime.......there is no connection between popular success and depth of artistry in any Art form, I won't bore you by listing the "other Van Goghs" in other mediums. Like I said there's a place for the popular argument but none of it corresponds to "best"........there's no place for it there at all. I disagree. Sleater-Kinney has nothing on Bjork artistically. As for Van Gogh, what I'm saying requires a certain exposure and mental stability. Emily Dickinson is obviously not going to have been as popular as a living figure as Dickens or Emerson when her poems were not published. But DDL is a figure who won an Oscar in the 90s, 00s, and 10s. Well we can agree to disagree but compare Sleater-Kinney's Metacritic scores to Bjork - quite comparable and again same work amount, same era - you'd find very few greater than Sleater-Kinney artistic acclaim I suspect. DDL is also a guy who wouldn't have had the career he had if he focused on appealing to Eddie Lunchbucket and Sally Housecoat - so by this reasoning the only way he could be "better" would be by not being himself at all.........that's the kind of convoluted logic you fall into by weighing popularity in the Arts with achievement. I'll go one step further - PSH, Day-Lewis, Phoenix arguably the 3 best post-70s actors imo (AND they were that in way in our GOAT list too btw) and NONE are big box-office stars at all.......and it's awesome ..............to me anyway.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 3:15:04 GMT
There is a lot of agenda-driven revisionism going on here. Robert De Niro was hardly a major star, and he is probably Brando's biggest challenger to the GOAT title. Al Pacino, while a bigger star than De Niro, was also not among the biggest stars of his generation. Dustin Hoffman was a much bigger star and has a better Oscar record than both De Niro and Pacino. But nobody would argue that he's a bigger GOAT contender than De Niro or Pacino.
The reason for that is that while he has iconic performances in iconic films, he still doesn't have something like The Godfather or The Godfather II on his resume, which are at the forefront of all discussions of the greatest films ever made. Your popularity in your own day matters less than whether the movies you were in have lasting power. Only film geeks seek out movies without a great reputation just for performances alone. For an actor to remain in the public consciousness, they need to have been in movies that people will want to watch decades from now. And those movies will serve as the entry point to the rest of the actors work. Marlon Brando has The Godfather, On the Waterfront, and Apocalypse Now to serve as an entry point to the rest of his work. Robert De Niro has Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and The Godfather II. Al Pacino has The Godfather and The Godfather II. It's hard as a post-1970s actor to compete with that.
Does Daniel Day-Lewis have a movie like that on his resume? Most likely not, though it's conceivable that There Will Be Blood could eventually earn a similar reputation. Even if it does, is it going to be enough? No, because it's just one movie and it will never be The Godfather. But that doesn't stop him from being considered the greatest actor of his generation, with his own generational rivals like Washington (who called him the best actor working) and Penn (who called him possibly the GOAT) anointing him as such.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 2,351
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2020 3:41:52 GMT
There is a lot of agenda-driven revisionism going on here. Robert De Niro was hardly a major star, and he is probably Brando's biggest challenger to the GOAT title. Al Pacino, while a bigger star than De Niro, was also not among the biggest stars of his generation. Dustin Hoffman was a much bigger star and has a better Oscar record than both De Niro and Pacino. But nobody would argue that he's a bigger GOAT contender than De Niro or Pacino. The reason for that is that while he has iconic performances in iconic films, he still doesn't have something like The Godfather or The Godfather II on his resume, which are at the forefront of all discussions of the greatest films ever made. Your popularity in your own day matters less than whether the movies you were in have lasting power. Only film geeks seek out movies without a great reputation just for performances alone. For an actor to remain in the public consciousness, they need to have been in movies that people will want to watch decades from now. And those movies will serve as the entry point to the rest of the actors work. Marlon Brando has The Godfather, On the Waterfront, and Apocalypse Now to serve as an entry point to the rest of his work. Robert De Niro has Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and The Godfather II. Al Pacino has The Godfather and The Godfather II. It's hard as a post-1970s actor to compete with that. Does Daniel Day-Lewis have a movie like that on his resume? Most likely not, though it's conceivable that There Will Be Blood could eventually earn a similar reputation. Even if it does, is it going to be enough? No, because it's just one movie and it will never be The Godfather. But that doesn't stop him from being considered the greatest actor of his generation, with his own generational rivals like Washington (who called him the best actor working) and Penn (who called him possibly the GOAT) anointing him as such. I see you're counting those box office stats again. DeNiro was certainly among the most well-known actors in the 70s. But he probably broke the barrier in the 80s, and in the 90s he was one of most copied and imitated actors. People did DeNiro voices and imitations at home. And his ability to endure for decades gave him his current reputation. By 1995, he had 25 years of strong work already. Now I know he isn't Harrison Ford in his box office receipts, but again there's more than just box office. Besides, you could gross money and nobody cares about you no matter how many times they've seen your face. Tobey Maguire, Ryan O'Neal are examples of this. And when everybody who sees your movies cares about you, you can earn less money and still be really well known. Now was he the biggest star of the 70s-80s? Maybe not, but he was certainly a major star.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 4:23:35 GMT
I see you're counting those box office stats again. DeNiro was certainly among the most well-known actors in the 70s. My point is that he wasn't as popular or as well-known as Dustin Hoffman, in the 1970s or the 1980s. Of course he endured, but it's because he delivered iconic performances in movies that had real lasting power. Not because he was a popular star. Even someone like Redford was way more popular than De Niro. This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. Dustin Hoffman was a bigger star and more popular than De Niro in the 1970s and the 1980s. This isn't even debatable. Moving on. Nope. He was never a major star. In terms of stardom and popularity, he was kind of like what Christian Bale is these days. He is, however, a major legend, and that has quite a bit to do with the movies he was in.
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Sept 2, 2020 5:31:23 GMT
About Dustin Hoffman, I think The graduate and Rain man are pretty iconic movies, still well known and rewatched even nowadays.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 5:39:09 GMT
About Dustin Hoffman, I think The graduate and Rain man are pretty iconic movies, still well known and rewatched even nowadays. Absolutely, and I said as much in my earlier post: "The reason for that is that while he has iconic performances in iconic films, he still doesn't have something like The Godfather or The Godfather II on his resume, which are at the forefront of all discussions of the greatest films ever made." Hoffman has also got Midnight Cowboy, All the President's Men, Kramer vs Kramer, and Tootsie. All I'm saying is that they're not as well-regarded as The Godfather or Taxi Driver.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 2,351
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2020 5:51:35 GMT
I see you're counting those box office stats again. DeNiro was certainly among the most well-known actors in the 70s. My point is that he wasn't as popular or as well-known as Dustin Hoffman, in the 1970s or the 1980s. Of course he endured, but it's because he delivered iconic performances in movies that had real lasting power. Not because he was a popular star. Even someone like Redford was way more popular than De Niro. This is irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything I'm saying. Dustin Hoffman was a bigger star and more popular than De Niro in the 1970s and the 1980s. This isn't even debatable. Moving on. Nope. He was never a major star. In terms of stardom and popularity, he was kind of like what Christian Bale is these days. He is, however, a major legend, and that has quite a bit to do with the movies he was in. I didn't know you were strictly comparing him to Hoffman. In the 70s... Hoffman for sure was more well known. DeNiro was barely a newbie, and his biggest film of the decade was Taxi Driver, and he was still working out of newbie mode as late as Raging Bull. I guess he wasn't a newbie anymore after that. In the 80s.... I'd say Hoffman by virtue of Tootsie and Rain Man, although DeNiro began to close the gap slightly. In the 90s.... I think that's when DeNiro started to turn it in his favor. Goodfellas, Cape Fear, Awakenings, Casino, and Heat cemented his legacy. I don't know how you define "major star" or "popular star" but I won't debate that.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2020 6:31:33 GMT
There is a lot of agenda-driven revisionism going on here. Robert De Niro was hardly a major star, and he is probably Brando's biggest challenger to the GOAT title. Al Pacino, while a bigger star than De Niro, was also not among the biggest stars of his generation. Dustin Hoffman was a much bigger star and has a better Oscar record than both De Niro and Pacino. But nobody would argue that he's a bigger GOAT contender than De Niro or Pacino. The reason for that is that while he has iconic performances in iconic films, he still doesn't have something like The Godfather or The Godfather II on his resume, which are at the forefront of all discussions of the greatest films ever made. Your popularity in your own day matters less than whether the movies you were in have lasting power. Only film geeks seek out movies without a great reputation just for performances alone. For an actor to remain in the public consciousness, they need to have been in movies that people will want to watch decades from now. And those movies will serve as the entry point to the rest of the actors work. Marlon Brando has The Godfather, On the Waterfront, and Apocalypse Now to serve as an entry point to the rest of his work. Robert De Niro has Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and The Godfather II. Al Pacino has The Godfather and The Godfather II. It's hard as a post-1970s actor to compete with that. Does Daniel Day-Lewis have a movie like that on his resume? Most likely not, though it's conceivable that There Will Be Blood could eventually earn a similar reputation. Even if it does, is it going to be enough? No, because it's just one movie and it will never be The Godfather. But that doesn't stop him from being considered the greatest actor of his generation, with his own generational rivals like Washington (who called him the best actor working) and Penn (who called him possibly the GOAT) anointing him as such. I see you're counting those box office stats again. DeNiro was certainly among the most well-known actors in the 70s. But he probably broke the barrier in the 80s, and in the 90s he was one of most copied and imitated actors. People did DeNiro voices and imitations at home. And his ability to endure for decades gave him his current reputation. By 1995, he had 25 years of strong work already. Now I know he isn't Harrison Ford in his box office receipts, but again there's more than just box office. Besides, you could gross money and nobody cares about you no matter how many times they've seen your face. Tobey Maguire, Ryan O'Neal are examples of this. And when everybody who sees your movies cares about you, you can earn less money and still be really well known. Now was he the biggest star of the 70s-80s? Maybe not, but he was certainly a major star. DeNiro was enough of an international household name by 1984, that major pop bands in the UK were naming hit pop songs after him: You don't have to be the biggest box office star to have the crowd. There are dozens of bigger box office stars than many of the top GOAT contenders. Nobody is putting Tom Cruise or Will Smith at the forefront of GOAT debates. But the cultural impact and cache of DeNiro even by the early to mid 80's when he was still a relatively young actor was massive. Average people on the street talked about him and imitated him. He was beloved. He had the crowd. Comparing that to DDL's modest cultural cache doesn't make much sense to me.
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 2,351
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2020 7:05:11 GMT
I see you're counting those box office stats again. DeNiro was certainly among the most well-known actors in the 70s. But he probably broke the barrier in the 80s, and in the 90s he was one of most copied and imitated actors. People did DeNiro voices and imitations at home. And his ability to endure for decades gave him his current reputation. By 1995, he had 25 years of strong work already. Now I know he isn't Harrison Ford in his box office receipts, but again there's more than just box office. Besides, you could gross money and nobody cares about you no matter how many times they've seen your face. Tobey Maguire, Ryan O'Neal are examples of this. And when everybody who sees your movies cares about you, you can earn less money and still be really well known. Now was he the biggest star of the 70s-80s? Maybe not, but he was certainly a major star. DeNiro was enough of an international household name by 1984, that major pop bands in the UK were naming hit pop songs after him: You don't have to be the biggest box office star to have the crowd. There are dozens of bigger box office stars than many of the top GOAT contenders. Nobody is putting Tom Cruise or Will Smith at the forefront of GOAT debates. But the cultural impact and cache of DeNiro even by the early to mid 80's when he was still a relatively young actor was massive. Average people on the street talked about him and imitated him. He was beloved. He had the crowd. Comparing that to DDL's modest cultural cache doesn't make much sense to me. Of course DDL doesn't touch DeNiro. But like I said, it could be because of the times he lived in. 2007+ is not a memorable era of moviegoing imo. I don't think it's going to be remembered as fondly as decades preceding, and for this reason... most movies releases during that span just come and go. I personally remember DDL for 1992-2002.... his biggest hits. This 2007+ period was clearly the start of a new period for him. One thing about DeNiro is his iconography. He's very much like Bogart and Wayne. Songs are written about him, he's the guy people wears his face on their T-shirt. He's simply a symbol in our culture. Now... is Hoffman possibly more popular during his time? Maybe, but Hoffman is not the type of guy they put his face on their t-shirts. His movies were big events though. The whole family went to see the The Graduate, Tootsie, and Rain Man. I'm not into comparing who's more popular between Hoffman or DeNiro. They were popular in different ways is what I'll say. But I definitley don't think DeNiro gained his status just because he had the classic films like Taxi Driver or Raging Bull - those movies that grow in film circle talks over time. There's more to it than that. He was deemed as iconic not long after he came around. He was simply the most talked about thing on the planet at a point, and all of that culminated in his GOAT status.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 7:13:22 GMT
DeNiro was enough of an international household name by 1984, that major pop bands in the UK were naming hit pop songs after him: Pop songs is a weird cherry-picked metric, but it's not like Day-Lewis hasn't been mentioned in songs. Triple One, a Hip Hop group from Australia, came out with a song just this year where Day-Lewis is mentioned alongside Brando. Not sure what this is supposed to prove, but there you go. Also, nobody said Day-Lewis has the cultural appeal of De Niro. He doesn't, because he hasn't been in all-timer movies like The Godfather II or Taxi Driver. That's kind of the point.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2020 7:15:17 GMT
Triple-who
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 7:17:45 GMT
Triple-who Triple One, a Hip Hop group from Australia. You know, the group that mentioned this guy called Daniel Day-Lewis, who Denzel Washington has acknowledged as the best actor of their generation.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2020 7:31:20 GMT
So now we are comparing the cultural value of Bananarama naming a song after you, one of the biggest girl groups of all-time who have sold in excess of 40 million records to being namechecked by some minor Australian hip-hop band who barely do numbers in their own country and have little to no cultural impact outside of Australia.
M'mkay. One thing is not like the other.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 7:44:48 GMT
I didn't know you were strictly comparing him to Hoffman Even though I explicitly compared him to Hoffman in my post? De Niro was being considered the better actor and perhaps the bigger legend of the two, but Hoffman was still the bigger star and the more popular actor into the 1990s. It's not for nothing that Hoffman was billed over De Niro in Wag the Dog. It wasn't until Analyze This and especially Meet the Parents that De Niro surpassed Hoffman to become the bigger star. I mean by them what they actually mean. That people want to pay money to watch you in movies. But perhaps you've living under too many John Malkovich rocks to know that
|
|
urbanpatrician
Based
"I just wanna go back, back to 1999. back to hit me baby one more time" - Charli XCX
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 2,351
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Sept 2, 2020 7:45:59 GMT
So now we are comparing the cultural value of Bananarama naming a song after you , one of the biggest girl groups of all-time who have sold in excess of 40 million records to being namechecked by some minor Australian hip-hop band who barely do numbers in their own country and have little to no cultural impact outside of Australia. M'mkay. One thing is not like the other. Heya ever heard of Triple Who?
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 7:48:42 GMT
So now we are comparing the cultural value of Bananarama naming a song after you , one of the biggest girl groups of all-time who have sold in excess of 40 million records to being namechecked by some minor Australian hip-hop band who barely do numbers in their own country and have little to no cultural impact outside of Australia. M'mkay. One thing is not like the other. Why does the popularity of the group matter? We're not talking about which gets your name out more. We're talking about the actors being popular enough to be mentioned in songs in the first place. I could easily spin this the other way around and say that even small groups in Australia are namechecking Day-Lewis as an acting great alongside Brando.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2020 7:50:36 GMT
I think you need to let this one go. Can't win 'em all.
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 7:56:40 GMT
So now we are comparing the cultural value of Bananarama naming a song after you , one of the biggest girl groups of all-time who have sold in excess of 40 million records to being namechecked by some minor Australian hip-hop band who barely do numbers in their own country and have little to no cultural impact outside of Australia. M'mkay. One thing is not like the other. Oh, and if we're talking about numbers, let's also not compare someone like Denzel Washington who can barely gross more than $200M without help from bigger stars like Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts to someone like Leonardo DiCaprio who has grossed over $2000M with an original movie. One thing is not like the other
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2020 8:00:49 GMT
You are boring dude. And when you are lost or losing, you always revert to making random arguments about Denzel Washington Think we're done here, bro. Enjoy them Triple Who records!
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Sept 2, 2020 8:02:21 GMT
So now we are comparing the cultural value of Bananarama naming a song after you , one of the biggest girl groups of all-time who have sold in excess of 40 million records to being namechecked by some minor Australian hip-hop band who barely do numbers in their own country and have little to no cultural impact outside of Australia. M'mkay. One thing is not like the other. Heya ever heard of Triple Who? My new favorite band!
|
|
Good God
Badass
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 1,937
|
Post by Good God on Sept 2, 2020 8:02:52 GMT
Awww, looks like someone got their wee feelings hurt. Funny how numbers don't matter, until they suddenly do when they favor you
|
|
cherry68
Based
Man is unhappy because he doesn't know he's happy. It's only that.
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 2,107
|
Post by cherry68 on Sept 2, 2020 10:39:30 GMT
At the end of the day, Daniel Day Lewis is still Cecil in A room with a view for me. 😁
|
|