|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 27, 2022 3:57:43 GMT
if they can't secure his interest in a project, as a measure of their lack of artistic excellence/cultural clout?
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 27, 2022 4:02:43 GMT
No
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 27, 2022 4:09:25 GMT
 Well, who preceded him then!??
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 27, 2022 4:18:27 GMT
 Well, who preceded him then!?? I dunno. It's sort of an odd question that doesn't really make much sense to me. He's a hugely bankable star and acclaimed actor. Of course many directors want him in their movie. But thinking directors are "insecure" that they can't get him feels silly to me. Most directors don't get insecure if they can't get the biggest movie star in the world (arguably) in their film. They just look for another bankable and acclaimed actor. Or maybe they think another actor is a better fit than Leo for their film in the first place. I'm sure some directors don't even care if they ever work with him either, as he doesn't fit their tastes or aesthetic. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 27, 2022 4:34:27 GMT
Well, who preceded him then!?? I dunno. It's sort of an odd question that doesn't really make much sense to me. He's a hugely bankable star and acclaimed actor. Of course many directors want him in their movie. But thinking directors are "insecure" that they can't get him feels silly to me. Most directors don't get insecure if they can't get the biggest movie star in the world (arguably) in their film. They just look for another bankable and acclaimed actor. Or maybe they think another actor is a better fit than Leo for their film in the first place. I think there's a different level of anticipation for a project that creates this difference. Like people have a connection to the parties involved suddenly. Take Tom Cruise. Big time awesome movie star, but if your last viewings from him were The Mummy and a Mission Impossible movie, you might not even pay attention to his next movie. That hurts the Top Gun sequel on some level. What aesthetic? I can never look at a guy like Eggers and take him seriously if he said he didn't want or need Leo in a movie when a superior like James Cameron who has/had actual beef with Leo is like "It's up to him, really." |
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 27, 2022 4:37:27 GMT
Like I said, I simply don't think most directors worth their salt think like this. If I'm a director, and I can't get Leo in my film, but I can get a bankable actor I think is just as good (or maybe even better) like Phoenix or Bale, the last thing I'm going to feel is "insecure".
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Apr 27, 2022 6:04:25 GMT
Any examples of a director expressing insecurity over not getting Leo?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Apr 27, 2022 16:51:23 GMT
Like what level of director? 99% of directors can’t land Leo in their films. And even directors he’s expressed interest in working with he may pass on their projects based on how selective he is or to just work with Scorsese again. I doubt PTA or GDT have any insecurities about him passing on their projects last year.
|
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 27, 2022 16:57:51 GMT
This is not a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by DanQuixote on Apr 27, 2022 17:06:57 GMT
I can just imagine Scorsese being stressed out after being left on read by Leo.
|
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Apr 27, 2022 19:25:02 GMT
*Citation needed*
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 28, 2022 1:13:25 GMT
Like I said, I simply don't think most directors worth their salt think like this. If I'm a director, and I can't get Leo in my film, but I can get a bankable actor I think is just as good (or maybe even better) like Phoenix or Bale, the last thing I'm going to feel is "insecure". I think every director worth their salt thinks like this, short of Lynch, who rarely even has a part in his greatest movies a big name would work in. The difference between hiring Phoenix/Bale or Leo for a drama with no pre-established IP could be hundreds of millions of dollars, with the quality of the film scarcely different. How is that not something to ponder? Basically, Leo has nobody truly seen as more talented, but his peers are obviously less bankable, so it's created an inferiority complex in the industry. It's almost gotten to the point where not hiring Leo if he's interested in a role seems crazy. Can you think of another situation like that? DDL wanted Travolta's part in Pulp Fiction so bad, but QT wouldn't hear it, and was ultimately vindicated. Can you imagine post-Aviator Leo lobbying for a role and getting shut down by the director, like "Nah, breh. I'm good. I prefer this other person." That's what I'm talking about. It's probably gauche to even bring up this subject, but I think it bears discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 28, 2022 1:20:09 GMT
Like what level of director? 99% of directors can’t land Leo in their films. And even directors he’s expressed interest in working with he may pass on their projects based on how selective he is or to just work with Scorsese again. I doubt PTA or GDT have any insecurities about him passing on their projects last year. Couple things. We know Leo passed on Nightmare Alley, though we don't know why; could be scheduling, creative differences, salary issues, a myriad or combination of things. In any case, the fact that the film flopped badly financially despite having a big movie star like Bradley Cooper headlining it has to have GDT thinking (if scheduling was the sole issue), "Hmm....maybe I hold off next time like my buddy Inarritu did for The Revenant". Was it ever confirmed Leo was even offered a role in Licorice Pizza? PTA denied he was considered for the Cooper role, and I believe him because it's too tiny for Leo to ever consider. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 28, 2022 1:47:18 GMT
Any examples of a director expressing insecurity over not getting Leo? Why would they verbalize this in an interview? He might finally acquiesce, like he did with Nolan. |
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Apr 28, 2022 1:49:51 GMT
What you talk about in the OP is the case with pretty much any big respected movie star. Directors are known to be catty when stars turn them down. Billy Wilder specifically talked about feeling insecure that Cary Grant turned down like three of his movies and never worked with him just for one example.
|
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Apr 28, 2022 4:52:25 GMT
Like I said, I simply don't think most directors worth their salt think like this. If I'm a director, and I can't get Leo in my film, but I can get a bankable actor I think is just as good (or maybe even better) like Phoenix or Bale, the last thing I'm going to feel is "insecure". I think every director worth their salt thinks like this, short of Lynch, who rarely even has a part in his greatest movies a big name would work in. The difference between hiring Phoenix/Bale or Leo for a drama with no pre-established IP could be hundreds of millions of dollars, with the quality of the film scarcely different. How is that not something to ponder? Basically, Leo has nobody truly seen as more talented, but his peers are obviously less bankable, so it's created an inferiority complex in the industry. It's almost gotten to the point where not hiring Leo if he's interested in a role seems crazy. Can you think of another situation like that? DDL wanted Travolta's part in Pulp Fiction so bad, but QT wouldn't hear it, and was ultimately vindicated. Can you imagine post-Aviator Leo lobbying for a role and getting shut down by the director, like "Nah, breh. I'm good. I prefer this other person." That's what I'm talking about. It's probably gauche to even bring up this subject, but I think it bears discussion. The reason this whole topic feels vaguely ridiculous to me is that DiCaprio is one actor. No intelligent director is going to stake the hopes of a project they've probably spent many years developing on one actor (who is heavily in demand and has a busy slate of projects of his own) saying yes. Directors have casting wishlists that usually involve multiple actors for a lead or major role. DiCaprio might be on many of those wishlists because of the upside he usually brings to a project, but if they don't get him, there are plenty of other great and acclaimed leading men that they would also have in mind. And frankly, I do think plenty of directors already have their favorite or "pet" leading men, and would 100% say "no" to DiCaprio if their "go to guy" wanted the part. It's a little thing called integrity . You think Scott Cooper or David O Russell are going to damage their relationship with Christian Bale, whom they've both worked with on multiple films and has always delivered for them, to have a one-off fling with DiCaprio if Bale wanted the part? Hell no. That's how relationships can get permanently damaged. Danny Boyle actually did that with Ewan McGregor on The Beach. Mcgregor badly wanted the part (and McGregor and Boyle had a very successful collaboration up to that point with Shallow Grave and Trainspotting). Boyle opted to go with DiCaprio, who was a much more internationally bankable movie star. And thar pretty much messed up his relationship with McGregor and they didn't talk to each other for like another 15 years. They've since repaired their relationship, but Boyle always says that he wishes he'd handled the situation differently. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 28, 2022 6:22:09 GMT
I think every director worth their salt thinks like this, short of Lynch, who rarely even has a part in his greatest movies a big name would work in. The difference between hiring Phoenix/Bale or Leo for a drama with no pre-established IP could be hundreds of millions of dollars, with the quality of the film scarcely different. How is that not something to ponder? Basically, Leo has nobody truly seen as more talented, but his peers are obviously less bankable, so it's created an inferiority complex in the industry. It's almost gotten to the point where not hiring Leo if he's interested in a role seems crazy. Can you think of another situation like that? DDL wanted Travolta's part in Pulp Fiction so bad, but QT wouldn't hear it, and was ultimately vindicated. Can you imagine post-Aviator Leo lobbying for a role and getting shut down by the director, like "Nah, breh. I'm good. I prefer this other person." That's what I'm talking about. It's probably gauche to even bring up this subject, but I think it bears discussion. The reason this whole topic feels vaguely ridiculous to me is that DiCaprio is one actor. No intelligent director is going to stake the hopes of a project they've probably spent many years developing on one actor (who is heavily in demand and has a busy slate of projects of his own) saying yes. Directors have casting wishlists that usually involve multiple actors for a lead or major role. DiCaprio might be on many of those wishlists because of the upside he usually brings to a project, but if they don't get him, there are plenty of other great and acclaimed leading men that they would also have in mind. And frankly, I do think plenty of directors already have their favorite or "pet" leading men, and would 100% say "no" to DiCaprio if their "go to guy" wanted the part. It's a little thing called integrity . You think Scott Cooper or David O Russell are going to damage their relationship with Christian Bale, whom they've both worked with on multiple films and has always delivered for them, to have a one-off fling with DiCaprio if Bale wanted the part? Hell no. That's how relationships can get permanently damaged. Danny Boyle actually did that with Ewan McGregor on The Beach. Mcgregor badly wanted the part (and McGregor and Boyle had a very successful collaboration up to that point with Shallow Grave and Trainspotting). Boyle opted to go with DiCaprio, who was a much more internationally bankable movie star. And thar pretty much messed up his relationship with McGregor and they didn't talk to each other for like another 15 years. They've since repaired their relationship, but Boyle always says that he wishes he'd handled the situation differently. Yeah, I do think Cooper or O. Russell would be on their knees to have Leo helm a project. Not that they would double-cross Bale to do it, but they'd certainly try to cast him from the jump (Cooper not so much because he'd know it's not possible); we already have O. Russell at a roundtable talking about courting Leo circa The Revenant. Boyle said all of his regret about how The Beach's casting went down, but still was interested in casting Leo as Steve Jobs. His reflection about that The Beach situation is more about not doing McGregor dirty after basically promising him the job than working with Leo. Basically, I don't agree that there are plenty of great and acclaimed leading men anymore. Younger Denzel fit the bill. 90s Hanks (though not so much as an action guy). Cruise. They all advanced too much in age, besides Cruise, who doesn't give a damn about much besides stunts anymore. Who does that leave? Pitt is certainly great and acclaimed, but he's older and has a hole in his career where he was perceived as too vacant. Damon is popular, but his respect is spotty; how many times have I tried to explain to people how good he was in The Departed, but they can't quite see it because his character is ostensibly a snake? Or how good he is in True Grit (way better than the nominated Bridges or Steinfeld) but few people see it? I love me some Damon, and he's legit a good sub for Leo in many things, but even simple things like his propensity to accept shitty George Clooney movies has hurt him. It's not so much that I think every director is banking on hiring Leo and getting their hopes crushed. I'm more thinking that if you think you're an elite director and span some time in the industry, hiring Leo will come across your mind, and it's a test of your status (more than anyone else) as to whether or not he'd even consider meeting with you. That was the subtext of that "His brand is excellence" article in THR from before OUATIH came out, and I think it's legit. I don't think any other screen actor male or female cultivated that kind of status. |
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Apr 28, 2022 7:32:44 GMT
I can just imagine Scorsese being stressed out after being left on read by Leo. I know this is in jest, but it's my point. Scorsese particularly after The Departed has had as much clout as ever, but chooses to work with Leo whenever a project he's interested in has someone in that age bracket with a meaningful role. Spielberg said Leo's a close personal friend and got DDL to listen to him on doing Lincoln, after having dinner with him at his house; is another Spielberg/Leo film on the horizon? Probably. |
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Jun 29, 2022 15:21:23 GMT
Yes. Not even Leo friends usually works with Di Caprio. He was raised in a hippy community with Uma Thurman and Winona Ryder. How many films they made together (Zero and one with no share scenes).-
His best friend suppose to be Tobey Maguire and Kate Winslet, he works twice with both. So not even his closer friends usually works with him.
Some actors needs big budget films, other critical acclaim, and other big office success. But Di Caprio films needs the 3. big budget films, critical acclaim and box office success.
Not only but also Di Caprio choose their directors for his personal proyects.-
Almodovar for example never made a trully Big Budget film, even if he likes Di Caprio, he will never work with him. The same will happen to every european, asian or latinoamerican respected director that doesn't want to make a huge budget Hollywood film.-
Di Caprio Indie films ended with Titanic. Is impossible to make a Di Caprio film with less than 50 m. budget.-
Tom Cruise is different an "average" director could make his action movies.-
Any way he isn't the first. Many leading man and leading ladies were very demanding and a mess in the sets. For example Bing Crosby. Even his own children hate him. He change every day the script, in order to looks him better.-
Marlon Brando another one, much more respected.-
Not so long ago, Daniel Day Lewis, who semiretired several times, he made very few movies, and he said no to almost everything.-
21 movies (including cameos and extras) and only 14 leading roles including 3 times with Jim Sheridan and 2 times with Paul Thomas Anderson.-
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 5, 2022 22:03:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 5, 2022 22:10:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 5, 2022 22:13:55 GMT
He's saying despite being an Oscar-winning, world famous, hugely respected screen actor, directors he's worked with multiple times who are his friends have told him they offered Leo some roles first. I think that feeds into the premise of this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 5, 2022 22:47:19 GMT
He's saying despite being an Oscar-winning, world famous, hugely respected screen actor, directors he's worked with multiple times who are his friends have told him they offered Leo some roles first. I think that feeds into the premise of this thread. It feeds into what everyone else has been saying. Leo is offered basically every major male acting role and he turns the vast majority down. Exactly why a director would not feel insecure about it. |
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Oct 5, 2022 23:30:51 GMT
Perfect thread relocation
|
|
|
|
Post by futuretrunks on Oct 5, 2022 23:56:25 GMT
He's saying despite being an Oscar-winning, world famous, hugely respected screen actor, directors he's worked with multiple times who are his friends have told him they offered Leo some roles first. I think that feeds into the premise of this thread. It feeds into what everyone else has been saying. Leo is offered basically every major male acting role and he turns the vast majority down. Exactly why a director would not feel insecure about it. Huh? The implication is that if Leo turns you down, you're second or third rate, exactly what would make you feel insecure. Are y'all playing dumb? |
|
Well, who preceded him then!??
Well, who preceded him then!??
