|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 18, 2023 2:45:34 GMT
You can't compare DiCaprio ( age 49) to Clooney ( age 62). Not the same generation, had different entry points to stardom ( DiCaprio became a star as a teen, whilst Clooney was a D-lister for over a decade before becominga TV star with ER and transitioning to movie stardom in his late 30's). And they weren't in competition for roles either DiCaprio literally had the kind of head start into A-list stardom that very few actors get. It didn't really feel like he had to go through the same struggle many A-listers went through to reach the top. We know who Leo's generation were, and none of them had the easy ride to stardom he did ( Damon, Bale, Phoenix, Norton etc), so of course their choices would be different. None of them were in the same position as him. I don't agree. They misused their privilege, at least compared to him. There's no reason Norton after American History X couldn't dictate how his career would proceed. It's so clear to me that DiCaprio just plain cares more than these guys, however comparable in pure acting talent they are. Damon muddies things a bit, but Norton? What a complete fucking underachiever if there ever was one. Yes, Norton was in a relatively privileged position early in his career (though, he was never truly a major box office draw. His power in the industry at his peak came from the belief that he was the finest actor of his generation and the natural heir to the lineage of Brando, DeNiro etc). But as stephen already explained, Norton blew his goodwill by developing a reputation as a control freak. Many auteurs stopped wanting to work with him because he tried to take over the role of a director. Marvel dictated their policy regarding actors having too much say in the creative process, because of the negative experience they had with him trying to take over The Incredible Hulk.You can't legislate for that kind of self-sabotage. It's like Mickey Rourke fucking up his opportunities in the 80's by making so many enemies.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 18, 2023 2:50:27 GMT
I don't agree. They misused their privilege, at least compared to him. There's no reason Norton after American History X couldn't dictate how his career would proceed. It's so clear to me that DiCaprio just plain cares more than these guys, however comparable in pure acting talent they are. Damon muddies things a bit, but Norton? What a complete fucking underachiever if there ever was one. Yes, Norton was in a relatively privileged position early in his career (though, he was never truly a major box office draw. His power in the industry at his peak came from the belief that he was the finest actor of his generation and the natural heir to the lineage of Brando, DeNiro etc). But as stephen already explained, Norton blew his goodwill by developing a reputation as a control freak. Many auteurs stopped wanting to work with him because he tried to take over the role of a director. Marvel dictated their policy regarding actors having too much say in the creative process, because of the negative experience they had with him trying to take over The Incredible Hulk.You can't legislate for that kind of self-sabotage. It's like Mickey Rourke fucking up his opportunities in the 80's by making so many enemies. Norton could absolutely have pulled a Robert Downey, Jr.-level comeback if he'd just played ball, but he just couldn't resist. And while I don't necessarily think he's wrong for wanting to have full creative control on something, you can't have that straight out of the gate. You have to work up to that.
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 18, 2023 2:54:08 GMT
Yes, Norton was in a relatively privileged position early in his career (though, he was never truly a major box office draw. His power in the industry at his peak came from the belief that he was the finest actor of his generation and the natural heir to the lineage of Brando, DeNiro etc). But as stephen already explained, Norton blew his goodwill by developing a reputation as a control freak. Many auteurs stopped wanting to work with him because he tried to take over the role of a director. Marvel dictated their policy regarding actors having too much say in the creative process, because of the negative experience they had with him trying to take over The Incredible Hulk.You can't legislate for that kind of self-sabotage. It's like Mickey Rourke fucking up his opportunities in the 80's by making so many enemies. Norton could absolutely have pulled a Robert Downey, Jr.-level comeback if he'd just played ball, but he just couldn't resist. And while I don't necessarily think he's wrong for wanting to have full creative control on something, you can't have that straight out of the gate. You have to work up to that. Nah, you can't sign on a project as an actor, then decide you want to be the writer and director as well, which is basically what he got a reputation for doing. It's fucking disrespectful. I'm a fan of Norton as well. He's a great actor. But that was some self-inflicted damage he did to himself All stars have a healthy amount of influence on projects they are part of, but he seemed to have crossed the line a few times
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Dec 18, 2023 2:57:25 GMT
Norton could absolutely have pulled a Robert Downey, Jr.-level comeback if he'd just played ball, but he just couldn't resist. And while I don't necessarily think he's wrong for wanting to have full creative control on something, you can't have that straight out of the gate. You have to work up to that. Nah, you can't sign on a project as an actor, then decide you want to be the writer and director as well, which is basically what he got a reputation for doing. It's fucking disrespectful. I'm a fan of Norton as well. He's a great actor. But that was some self-inflicted damage he did to himself Oh, I don't disagree with that, but certain actors can bring a level of creative input that studios and filmmakers will allow more than others. The problem is that Norton wasn't being collaborative about it; he actively tried to wrest full creative control from his directors. But I am sure that by the time of Endgame, Downey, Jr. had enough clout that if he wanted to swing his weight around, Feige would probably budge.
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Dec 18, 2023 4:48:53 GMT
Leo is smart. Picks the rights projects and directors. Its not that he alone had that privilege. Other actors had it to at some point like Christian Bale who shot to stardom with the Batman films but didn't play it smart like Leo. He worked with DOR, Scott Cooper and ruined whatever stardom and goodwill he got from his earlier work. Although not as bad as Bale, Damon too diluted his stardom by starring in string of bad films.
You associate your name with quality and people will flock to your films just coz you are in them.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Dec 18, 2023 5:05:22 GMT
You don't think it's significant that other actors who are worth hundreds of millions didn't make the choices DiCaprio made? You think Leo in 2003 had such a stranglehold Clooney couldn't pick his pocket here and there? Well again, Clooney's never been a significant BO draw, the Ocean's movies and Gravity are the only hit movies he's been in in the 21st Century. He's like a Warren Beatty figure who managed to always stay in the news for his relationships and political activism even if people weren't seeing his movies. To address other people Norton has also never been a BO draw to any extent and I don't really think he has the leading man good looks. Best case scenario for him in an alternate universe would be something like Phoenix's career right now where he has enormous industry and critical respect and does a big mainstream part once a in a while if the part suits him. Damon and Depp were rivals to Leo in the 2000's. Depp tapered off for obvious reasons and I think Damon's seat at the big kid's table getting offered big parts by Scorsese, Eastwood, and the Coens was largely due to the buzz created from the Bourne movies being such big hits. The further he got from that the more he slipped back into the pack. The point being, you can't say "why didn't Damon do Inception, Wolf of Wall Street or The Revenant" because I seriously doubt he got offered any of those parts. Leo is the first choice for everything he gets, other actors choices have nothing to do with his status. I think you're also really underestimating the fact the Leo did Titanic at age 23 and has been one of the most famous people alive ever since. Even when he made some flops between Titanic and Catch Me If You Can he was still constantly in the news and was a huge celebrity. His coming back was a matter of when, not if. Leo kind of won the lottery with Titanic, and then yes, he deserves some credit for being smart enough to nurture relationships with top directors and he is generally viewed as a good actor in the industry so auteurs trust him to be the lead in the movies. But it's not like you have to be a genius to realize that being the lead in a Scorsese movie is good for your career.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2023 6:27:50 GMT
You can't compare DiCaprio ( age 49) to Clooney ( age 62). Not the same generation, had different entry points to stardom ( DiCaprio became a star as a teen, whilst Clooney was a D-lister for over a decade before becominga TV star with ER and transitioning to movie stardom in his late 30's). And they weren't in competition for roles either DiCaprio literally had the kind of head start into A-list stardom that very few actors get. It didn't really feel like he had to go through the same struggle many A-listers went through to reach the top. We know who Leo's generation were, and none of them had the easy ride to stardom he did ( Damon, Bale, Phoenix, Norton etc), so of course their choices would be different. None of them were in the same position as him. I don't agree. They misused their privilege, at least compared to him. There's no reason Norton after American History X couldn't dictate how his career would proceed. It's so clear to me that DiCaprio just plain cares more than these guys, however comparable in pure acting talent they are. Damon muddies things a bit, but Norton? What a complete fucking underachiever if there ever was one. I think in this regard you are pretty much spot on. I am not a big believer in Ed Norton's actng talent tbh - I like him fine and he's been great certainly - but he has weaknesses as an actor - I mean immediate weaknesses that are easy to spot imo. When people call Ed Norton "one of America's best actors" I'm always like "Ok, well what is he - top 5? Top 10? Top, 20? Top 40? That's all arguable - but - he's a very uptight guy - one of those guys who loves to pontificate about actors and himself - he's ridiculously self-aware - so much so that he started to see himself in the pantheon of "great" actors in a very annoying and extremely bookish way.........uptight, academic and self-aware are things you try to lose to a large degree in acting - in his case they were self-inflicted road blocks. Here he is talking about Brando - and by extension DePac - these are guys who never graduated high school ffs and he graduated Yale.......... he has a lot of opinions - too many - and he's like listening to an audiobook - even when he's right, he's kinda wrong there's less lived experience and more note taking with him.............it definitely hurt his career, his behavior, his image of acting, his role as an actor........ This is his dream - someone asking him and listening while he pontificates about Brando .........when he's a lot closer to William Hurt .........
|
|
|
Post by pupdurcs on Dec 18, 2023 9:23:29 GMT
Norton pretty much worships the ground Denzel Washington walks on, so, smart man. As much as Norton likes to talk about Brando's past tense influence, he seems to place Denzel above all living actors (even Daniel Day-Lewis).
Norton speaking on Denzel on the Bill Simmons podcast
"If you had a bunch of us...I think a lot of people would say, pound for pound, Denzel is the best actor working in the business. Because he's one of the greatest stage actors in America. Like full stop, no question. Classical...Julius Ceasar, The Iceman Cometh. I mean this guy has done canonical, big classical theatre. Fences by August Wilson, which I would say him and Viola Davis in Fences was one of the greatest things I've ever seen on stage. I've never seen an audience weeping like that. The film is really good. On stage I think it's one of the greatest performances I've ever seen on stage, that duet.
And he's a great character actor. Like that one he did recently about the guy....Tony Gilroy's movie, he's a lawyer (Roman J Israel Esq)...he'll play like Hurricane Carter...and then he's one of the biggest movie stars in the world. He really does it all. But very, very few people are like that. I think Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the greatest actors ever, but he hasn't like....I mean who is one of the greatest stage actors in the country, a huge movie star and actually like one of the really great film character actors too? There just aren't many people like that".
His thoughts on Washington begin about 1:03:35.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 18, 2023 12:51:43 GMT
"I mean who is one of the greatest stage actors in the country, a huge movie star and actually like one of the really great film character actors too? There just aren't many people like that".
Now? Probably only Denzel as a movie star - he's a far bigger movie star than most who do it - but several actors have done it in his same era: Rylance, Spacey and Kline - all have as many (or more) accolades as him in theater and film combined .......... just not movie stars at his level.......in history not many Americans - George C. Scott who set the bar for all of them.........
There are only 3 American men who ever got at least 6 Oscar nominations - "movie stars" and 2 Tony nominations - it's hard to get those - which is a staggering low number:
Jack Lemmon (8 and 2), Washington (9 and 2) .........and of course GOAT Pacino (9 and 3)
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Dec 18, 2023 23:38:05 GMT
I don't know if this is off-topic, but Norton is one of the best of his generation, and regardless of his personality and reputation, he deserves a comeback and an Oscar.
He's apparently close with LDC, why the latter doesn't get him a supporting part in the next Scorsese film??
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Dec 19, 2023 0:23:45 GMT
I don't know if this is off-topic, but Norton is one of the best of his generation, and regardless of his personality and reputation, he deserves a comeback and an Oscar.
He's apparently close with LDC, why the latter doesn't get him a supporting part in the next Scorsese film?? I wonder if he'll ever get a part as perfect as Birdman to win - that part was a breakthrough for him - a comedy (he has comedy work but nothing that great prior imo) where he makes fun of his over-serious persona and who is kind of a mean jerkoff in a BP winner........he's kind of given away 10 years or so since and I think he has almost nothing shot upcoming too........it's amazing that nothing came of that role - it's one of his best imo.........
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Dec 19, 2023 2:39:41 GMT
I didn’t read all the comments but I think people are overthinking this. He gets any role he wants and he’s Martin Scorsese’s muse. That is most of it.
|
|