Dicaprio is phenominal in nearly everything he does. I don't think he would like to be apart of a franchise. Don't think he'd like that at all.
I've actually read that there really aren't any movie "stars" anymore that you can just slap there name on and people will see it. It's becoming exceedingly rare. Read a article aybe a year ago that said the only movie "stars" left are
Pitt, Dicaprio, Cruise. Cruise drawing the most.
Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him.
But it worked, and for an entire generation, he is a "star," along with Cruise and Pitt, who in the classic days of cinema would have been lucky to show up as extras.
Dicaprio is phenominal in nearly everything he does. I don't think he would like to be apart of a franchise. Don't think he'd like that at all.
I've actually read that there really aren't any movie "stars" anymore that you can just slap there name on and people will see it. It's becoming exceedingly rare. Read a article aybe a year ago that said the only movie "stars" left are
Pitt, Dicaprio, Cruise. Cruise drawing the most.
Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him.
But it worked, and for an entire generation, he is a "star," along with Cruise and Pitt, who in the classic days of cinema would have been lucky to show up as extras.
Acting styles have changed, and maybe for the worse. But what is accepted has changed. Could you imagine a movie star like Jimmy Stewart or Katharine Hepburn today? They were a fantastic actors and highly respected in their time, but I don't think they would be accepted today. I could imagine a whole number of things they would be citicised for. If they were born 50 years later, I'm sure they would have turned out much differently because they were such a product of their time.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
I think there are a great many producers and film companies who wouldn't mind being "trapped" by financial success like Eon. If you've got to have a problem, this particular one seems preferable.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Dicaprio is phenominal in nearly everything he does. I don't think he would like to be apart of a franchise. Don't think he'd like that at all.
I've actually read that there really aren't any movie "stars" anymore that you can just slap there name on and people will see it. It's becoming exceedingly rare. Read a article aybe a year ago that said the only movie "stars" left are
Pitt, Dicaprio, Cruise. Cruise drawing the most.
Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him.
But it worked, and for an entire generation, he is a "star," along with Cruise and Pitt, who in the classic days of cinema would have been lucky to show up as extras.
Agree 100% about diCaprio. I've never understood the appeal.
Tom Cruise, on the other hand - alhough not a great actor by any stretch - is a genuine movie star.
I disagree. Tom Cruice is very energetic and has a great screen presence, but he has a limited range. Cruice seems to play the same person in most movies. Di Caprio on the other hand has shown a great range. It's no accident Scorsese has picked him to be his favourite actor after de Niro got to old.
The "problems" that EON currently faces (if there really are any "problems") compared to the problems they have faced in the past are merely bumps in the road. Real problems? Connery leaving after YOLT. The francise disappearing for 6 years amid a mess of legal entanglements following the disappointing box office of LTK in '89. Those are problems. I will say, in the big picture I've never been a fan of MGM being EON's production partner. The studio always seems to be on the brink financially and MGM's last brush with death and the delay it caused may have contributed in the long run to an abreviated tenure for Craig and the possible predicament they may be in now.
I disagree. Tom Cruice is very energetic and has a great screen presence, but he has a limited range. Cruice seems to play the same person in most movies. Di Caprio on the other hand has shown a great range. It's no accident Scorsese has picked him to be his favourite actor after de Niro got to old.
It's Cruise's great screen presence that makes him a genuine movie star. Having a wide acting range is not a criteria to make someone a great movie star. I never thought of Cary Grant as having a wide range (at least from the many movies I've seen), but he's one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
I disagree. Tom Cruice is very energetic and has a great screen presence, but he has a limited range. Cruice seems to play the same person in most movies. Di Caprio on the other hand has shown a great range. It's no accident Scorsese has picked him to be his favourite actor after de Niro got to old.
It's Cruise's great screen presence that makes him a genuine movie star. Having a wide acting range is not a criteria to make someone a great movie star. I never thought of Cary Grant as having a wide range (at least from the many movies I've seen), but he's one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
I replied to a discussion involving eric7064, Gassy Man and Miles Messervy. Gassy man wrote: "Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him."
Miles Messervy agreed and I disagreed. Cruice is clearly a movie star with great screen presence, but he hasn't shown the range and acting skills di Caprio has.
I disagree. Tom Cruice is very energetic and has a great screen presence, but he has a limited range. Cruice seems to play the same person in most movies. Di Caprio on the other hand has shown a great range. It's no accident Scorsese has picked him to be his favourite actor after de Niro got to old.
It's Cruise's great screen presence that makes him a genuine movie star. Having a wide acting range is not a criteria to make someone a great movie star. I never thought of Cary Grant as having a wide range (at least from the many movies I've seen), but he's one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
I replied to a discussion involving eric7064, Gassy Man and Miles Messervy. Gassy man wrote: "Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him."
Miles Messervy agreed and I disagreed. Cruice is clearly a movie star with great screen presence, but he hasn't shown the range and acting skills di Caprio has.
Sorry, you didn't make that clear. My comment was a reply to you disagreeing with "Tom Cruise, on the other hand - alhough not a great actor by any stretch - is a genuine movie star", since your comment was immediately after that line. You wrote immediately after that comment that you disagree and continued to say negative things about Cruise.
Interesting discourse re Di Caprio, Cruise, etc. Neither are even remotely candidates to be the next Bond. What has come up in the past and certainly is relevant to the question at hand....is there an American actor out there who could be a serious candidate to be the next Bond? I don't believe EON will go in that direction (they took enough grief for too short and blond). I previously threw out the name of Zach McGowan (Captain Charles Vane on "Black Sails"). Cleans up well, handsome (dark hair, med complexion, but has blue eyes) in a cruel, rugged way which works well for Bond, can do action, stunts, etc, 6' 175lbs, lean and ripped, and does such a convincing British accent that he fooled the producers and casting people when auditioning for "Black Sails". They actually thought he was British and had no idea he was American.
It's Cruise's great screen presence that makes him a genuine movie star. Having a wide acting range is not a criteria to make someone a great movie star. I never thought of Cary Grant as having a wide range (at least from the many movies I've seen), but he's one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
I replied to a discussion involving eric7064, Gassy Man and Miles Messervy. Gassy man wrote: "Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him."
Miles Messervy agreed and I disagreed. Cruice is clearly a movie star with great screen presence, but he hasn't shown the range and acting skills di Caprio has.
Sorry, you didn't make that clear. My comment was a reply to you disagreeing with "Tom Cruise, on the other hand - alhough not a great actor by any stretch - is a genuine movie star", since your comment was immediately after that line. You wrote immediately after that comment that you disagree and continued to say negative things about Cruise.
In retrospect I should have latched my comment to the whole discussion. But we were off topic. I don't think they should cast an American in the role. There are plenty of American action heroes in cinemas, several very good British candidates and Bond Brithishness is a part of his identity.
Dicaprio is phenominal in nearly everything he does. I don't think he would like to be apart of a franchise. Don't think he'd like that at all.
I've actually read that there really aren't any movie "stars" anymore that you can just slap there name on and people will see it. It's becoming exceedingly rare. Read a article aybe a year ago that said the only movie "stars" left are
Pitt, Dicaprio, Cruise. Cruise drawing the most.
Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him.
But it worked, and for an entire generation, he is a "star," along with Cruise and Pitt, who in the classic days of cinema would have been lucky to show up as extras.
Acting styles have changed, and maybe for the worse. But what is accepted has changed. Could you imagine a movie star like Jimmy Stewart or Katharine Hepburn today? They were a fantastic actors and highly respected in their time, but I don't think they would be accepted today. I could imagine a whole number of things they would be citicised for. If they were born 50 years later, I'm sure they would have turned out much differently because they were such a product of their time.
Absolutely I could imagine such. The overrated, weird-looking Tom Hanks basically does a Jimmy Stewart impersonation with every role, and Jennifer Jason Leigh literally copied Hepburn in The Hudsucker Proxy. The highly successful Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou? essentially reiterated the over-the-top, zany styles of the 1930s and 1940s farces.
The thing is, you have to be the full package to pull of theatrical acting -- talented, charismatic, good looking, and believable (despite the artifice). The funny thing is that the more you see these old school actors with their craft, the more subtlety there is to what they do -- to the degree that it isn't that much different than the so-called "natural" school of acting that people think is different.
What's different is not the acting so much as the writing and directing. When the writing is banal -- which it too often is -- and the directing is more about the set piece and action scenes -- which it too often is -- you don't need a high quality actor so much as a prop with enough popularity to get people into the theater. Hence, the DiCrapios.
I disagree. Tom Cruice is very energetic and has a great screen presence, but he has a limited range. Cruice seems to play the same person in most movies. Di Caprio on the other hand has shown a great range. It's no accident Scorsese has picked him to be his favourite actor after de Niro got to old.
It's Cruise's great screen presence that makes him a genuine movie star. Having a wide acting range is not a criteria to make someone a great movie star. I never thought of Cary Grant as having a wide range (at least from the many movies I've seen), but he's one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
But Cary Grant never came across as a narcissistic dick, as is Cruise's claim to fame. He's only a star because Hollywood doesn't upchuck anything better, which is why when he is not in a a high-profile, heavily-marketed film, nobody watches him.
Interesting discourse re Di Caprio, Cruise, etc. Neither are even remotely candidates to be the next Bond. What has come up in the past and certainly is relevant to the question at hand....is there an American actor out there who could be a serious candidate to be the next Bond? I don't believe EON will go in that direction (they took enough grief for too short and blond). I previously threw out the name of Zach McGowan (Captain Charles Vane on "Black Sails"). Cleans up well, handsome (dark hair, med complexion, but has blue eyes) in a cruel, rugged way which works well for Bond, can do action, stunts, etc, 6' 175lbs, lean and ripped, and does such a convincing British accent that he fooled the producers and casting people when auditioning for "Black Sails". They actually thought he was British and had no idea he was American.
No, there's no American actor working today that I think comes close, though I will say that Bond does not have to have blue eyes (Connery doesn't) nor that he has to be six foot (Craig is not). Even casting the net that wide, I can't think of an actor who embodies the Bond qualities, at least not traditionally. DiCrapio, who looks more and more like James Cagney the older he gets, certainly would not. American actors, for some reason, never seem to look very masculine except in a boyish model sort of way, as though they've never worked a hard day in their lives. Craig brought some of that masculinity back, but on him, it looks more natural, as it should. Bond is a man of the world, and not of the gym and juice bar.
Dicaprio is my favorite actor. I think he is amazing in everything he does and is a must watch for me no matter what he is in. But as Bond no.
Regarding movie stars me and my mom always have this conversation o are actors better now or back in the "golden age".
And maybe it's a generation gap but I most certainly think actors are much better now then ever before. With range, abilty, commitment and everything involved. I don't think it's close. To often in the past those golden age movie stars were cast in extremely similar roles for each film.
Now the problem in today's cinema is tuning out of ideas. Churning out sequel or remake after another.
But performances are as good as they've ever been.
Dicaprio is my favorite actor. I think he is amazing in everything he does and is a must watch for me no matter what he is in. But as Bond no.
Regarding movie stars me and my mom always have this conversation o are actors better now or back in the "golden age".
And maybe it's a generation gap but I most certainly think actors are much better now then ever before. With range, abilty, commitment and everything involved. I don't think it's close. To often in the past those golden age movie stars were cast in extremely similar roles for each film.
Now the problem in today's cinema is tuning out of ideas. Churning out sequel or remake after another.
But performances are as good as they've ever been.
AND no American bond. Would hate that b
It is partly a generational thing. My students tend to love DiCrapio, too, but then do some people my age. Most of my friends, though, think he's as limited as a sophomore drama student.
I like some of Dicaprios work but he is limited to a couple of character types, and he tends to pick those roles. The Revenent was a different role for him but he said himself the conditions were that bad while filming he didn't have to act, he won his Oscar and he deserved it but for a film with very little dialogue for his character.
There are still many fine actors around but with so many actors and actresses on the scene these days acting is a dying trade as the roles go to the "best fit actor" around as opposed to the finest actor.
I thought Cavill acted very well in The Tudors but was wooden in both UNCLE and as Superman. Therefore, I suspect that it's not Cavill's acting that's the issue, but he's doing what the directors want. Guy Ritchie wanted him to be quirky in UNCLE and clearly Zack Snyder wanted his Superman to be wooden/steely. I have no reason to believe that he couldn't be Bond but I don't think he will be because I'm not sure that EON would want Superman to be James Bond.
I'm sure there are American actors who have the looks and acting talent to play Bond who also has the skill to do a fine British accent.
I still don't want an American to play Bond because his Britishness is so central to the character and the whole franchise. Most action heroes in the movies are American anyway, so I think it's important to protect the "brand".
I'm sure there are American actors who have the looks and acting talent to play Bond who also has the skill to do a fine British accent.
I still don't want an American to play Bond because his Britishness is so central to the character and the whole franchise. Most action heroes in the movies are American anyway, so I think it's important to protect the "brand".
I'm sure there are American actors who have the looks and acting talent to play Bond who also has the skill to do a fine British accent.
I still don't want an American to play Bond because his Britishness is so central to the character and the whole franchise. Most action heroes in the movies are American anyway, so I think it's important to protect the "brand".
Comments
But it worked, and for an entire generation, he is a "star," along with Cruise and Pitt, who in the classic days of cinema would have been lucky to show up as extras.
Acting styles have changed, and maybe for the worse. But what is accepted has changed. Could you imagine a movie star like Jimmy Stewart or Katharine Hepburn today? They were a fantastic actors and highly respected in their time, but I don't think they would be accepted today. I could imagine a whole number of things they would be citicised for. If they were born 50 years later, I'm sure they would have turned out much differently because they were such a product of their time.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Agree 100% about diCaprio. I've never understood the appeal.
Tom Cruise, on the other hand - alhough not a great actor by any stretch - is a genuine movie star.
Most film francises can only dream of the "problems" EON has now.
It's Cruise's great screen presence that makes him a genuine movie star. Having a wide acting range is not a criteria to make someone a great movie star. I never thought of Cary Grant as having a wide range (at least from the many movies I've seen), but he's one of the greatest movie stars of all time.
I replied to a discussion involving eric7064, Gassy Man and Miles Messervy. Gassy man wrote: "Ugh, Dicrapio sucks. He delivers lines like a high school drama student and always has. If ever there was a manufactured star, it's him."
Miles Messervy agreed and I disagreed. Cruice is clearly a movie star with great screen presence, but he hasn't shown the range and acting skills di Caprio has.
Sorry, you didn't make that clear. My comment was a reply to you disagreeing with "Tom Cruise, on the other hand - alhough not a great actor by any stretch - is a genuine movie star", since your comment was immediately after that line. You wrote immediately after that comment that you disagree and continued to say negative things about Cruise.
In retrospect I should have latched my comment to the whole discussion. But we were off topic. I don't think they should cast an American in the role. There are plenty of American action heroes in cinemas, several very good British candidates and Bond Brithishness is a part of his identity.
The thing is, you have to be the full package to pull of theatrical acting -- talented, charismatic, good looking, and believable (despite the artifice). The funny thing is that the more you see these old school actors with their craft, the more subtlety there is to what they do -- to the degree that it isn't that much different than the so-called "natural" school of acting that people think is different.
What's different is not the acting so much as the writing and directing. When the writing is banal -- which it too often is -- and the directing is more about the set piece and action scenes -- which it too often is -- you don't need a high quality actor so much as a prop with enough popularity to get people into the theater. Hence, the DiCrapios.
Well, perhaps "dilemma" would be a better term than "problem". But the issues they are face with are real, even if they are not short of money.
Regarding movie stars me and my mom always have this conversation o are actors better now or back in the "golden age".
And maybe it's a generation gap but I most certainly think actors are much better now then ever before. With range, abilty, commitment and everything involved. I don't think it's close. To often in the past those golden age movie stars were cast in extremely similar roles for each film.
Now the problem in today's cinema is tuning out of ideas. Churning out sequel or remake after another.
But performances are as good as they've ever been.
AND no American bond. Would hate that b
My choice remains Wes Bentley as long as he can do a decent accent.
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
There are still many fine actors around but with so many actors and actresses on the scene these days acting is a dying trade as the roles go to the "best fit actor" around as opposed to the finest actor.
And Henry Cavills acting is more like the man of wood than the man of steel
It's odd He was so good as N Solo, but lacks any chraisma as Superman
but thats another subject
Christian Bale is from the UK and played Batman. Your point is moot lol.
Bond: “I must be dreaming.”
I still don't want an American to play Bond because his Britishness is so central to the character and the whole franchise. Most action heroes in the movies are American anyway, so I think it's important to protect the "brand".
How about a Norwegian?