Just how overrated is Dicaprio ? and his parallels with Chris Nolan

Which is irrelevant in the context of whether the delay between films is caused by that work. The work could be total BS or he could be saving the world, but either way it would serve as a potential explanation for the gap between releases. That's the thing you mentioned, and the thing Iro was clearly responding to.

I think aron has been mostly fine and this has been at times an interesting thread, he hasn't really been rude except a brief exchange with cat which i think is understandable since he has been getting ganged up on something that is inevitable in a controversial thread. My only issue has been he hasn't been following other peoples points very well which your post is an example of and has resulted in him mentioning completely irrelevant/unrelated things consistently.

Only mentioning this because a few pages back i thought it was deliberate but i'm now starting to think he just isn't connecting with peoples posts probably because he is rushing to respond and the amount of replies he's getting has got to be overwhelming.

Yeah, I almost included a second paragraph about willful misinterpretation, but I agree, I don't think it is.

I do think maybe there's a lot of skimming and off-the-cuff responses, though, and then maybe some heel-digging after. But I'm not really sure. I just know there's a lot of very simple responses getting misinterpreted for no apparent reason.

nope..all its takes is a little googling to get a sense of his carbon footprint.
Really ? you fell for that ? the whole movie's oscar campaign is a scam/fraud. Do you know that a frozen lake melted over night when they were filming the opening scenes of batman begins in iceland. Did you hear about that as a selling point for oscars/box office ? show dont tell..moreover either way..even if what they claim is true..then they went and screwed two different locations over the course of shooting the movie..if they are so concerned about environment why not use CG ? nope..they want the real authenticity for oscar campaign.
Because he is under rated and he is an actor who does stuff out of pure joy/satisfaction and not for the sake of publicity and self aggrandizing.It accomplished US getting involved in the matter of human rights violation and that guy escaping from china with someone's help and china was forced to answer questions about their own practices.You didnt hear about it because he didnt make it a big deal..he did what he had to do so the people that actual matter knew about it aka Politicians.
you are right..it didnt effect his popularity that was precisely the point. In that way he gets the good will for being an activist and not face the wrath of crossing lines with corporations. You are too gullible. Actors are some of the most competitive and ruthless people on earth. To secure a job they have to be so competent . Your colleague now is your competitor later. So for them these activism are much more about self satisfaction or establishing their legacy and less about people.
Yes multiplex audience don't think deeply about stuff and that's precisely the reason why they would buy into his "activism" just by reading his tweets or reading an online article or a news promotion.

I've been so out of action. When did that happen? I must really be out of the loop for fake news over the last month or so. not a bad thing when it comes to the sewer rats working for crappy wannabee journalism rags.

Lol at your comment about private jets. I knew that would come up sooner or later. That jet was chartered by a friend of his and he hitched a ride so he could get to the awards ceremony and back again to continue the environment junket but it's much more fun to spread half truths to cause a sht storm by the small minded. I would have done the same thing as him. There is absolutely no difference in hitching a ride and sitting in the nose of a jumbo jet except that one is leaving a bigger footprint, and it'snot the one he hitched a ride on.

you may be right that I am jumping to conclusions rather quickly on some of the comments. I self moderate accordingly rather than going in tangents. The thing is this topic in of itself is very controversial to those who care. On one hand all his movies are good to excellent so its really hard to separate actor from movie when the movie is awesome and the actor is serviceable especially when he the lead of the movie and is at the front and center of it. Its much more easy to single out actor if the acting is bad like Katie Holmes in batman begins etc.So I get it...you cant say wolf of wall-street is awesome but the literally the title character is just serviceable . So its an argument that cant be won. Its just about bringing awareness to a different thought process that often misses in fan community which is - "great movie doesnt mean performances in the movies are great".

I think some of the people responding don't care about like Leo's acting reputation, they just think your arguments have been pretty poor. I know that's why i was sucked into this thread Leo isn't a major favourite of mine although i do like him. Not to speak for Iro but i'm pretty sure he isn't crazy about Leo either.

I think there's plenty of great films with weak performances as well as plenty of great performances in weak films. Most people here wouldn't dispute that which brings us to another reason this thread has been so controversial: you creating profiles for people that don't agree with you based on far out assumptions.

I also have to say your definition of Auteurs is nuts. An auteur isn't someone that can deliver a financially successful film, they may be able to but they may not that has no connection to the term. The early (meaning when the term started to get regularly used in film discussion) American Auteur's as referred to by people like Truffaut and Godard were often people not that popular and certainly not winners of major awards since the whole point was they were controversial rebels creating their own unique style seperate of the established norms in the movie world.

Obviously now filmmakers have a lot more freedom so it is usually applied strictly by its definition, which is the author of the film, the person that has their own style, often to the degree that their films are unmistakable. Like you can spot an Ozu film miles away, or going into panned territory you can spot a Michael Bay film a mile away. Awards and box office are irrelevant and i'm not really convinced say Innaritu has his own distinct style to the point he should be called an Auteur. Which absolutely isn't a remark on the quality of his films, while the Auteur Theory is interesting it's also ridiculous in that it has resulted in people like Bay and Zach Snyder recently for example being named among the greatest ever directors by purists.

one of my "profiles" is worth digging into..take for example my comment that included screenshots of youtube comments. Those comments depict a kind of fandom that almost treats him like an acting god and much more like a demigod .Which is highly unusual for an actor. Its worth mentioning (again and again) that this kind of blind fandom of can do no wrong attitude is actually translating to box office.This fandom is not similar to fans of kings speech. Fans of kings speech dont care about the actors in the movie. They care about the movie. But this fandom I think has some amount of toxicity to it. These kind of fandoms creates false illusions about actors and their talents. That's fascinating to me. How hard would it be to please such a person if you give him something different every time and add to that an auteur filmmaker.I dont see such fandom to any other actor or director..except may be chris nolan to some extent..but he partially deserves it because those are HIS movies...from inception to release.

This is celebrity culture, and yes it is insane and silly, but it is not even remotely limited to this guy.

A huge part of your position seems to be based in a belief that these stray YouTube comments are a) indicative of most people's feelings and b) only found in reference to DiCaprio. But neither is even close to true. The people who leave these comments are very atypical, and this kind of thing happens with pretty much everybody above a certain level of fame.

The YouTube comment section is full of all kinds of toxic BS no matter what video you click on. It doesn't accurately reflect anything about the real world.

It also doesn't accurately represent the mentality of any of the people on this forum, so please stop trying to lump anyone who disagrees with you in with the cretins of the YouTube comment section.

__________________

I think that screenshot was much more revealing about you, it implied backed up with all your other anecdotes and the size of this thread that you are obsessed with this topic.

Similar how you treat him like the antichrist? Or much less dramatically, someone that deserves much more negative attention than he actually deserves?

Why do you care so much about how much his films make?

Am i in the Twilight Zone? Who mentioned The King's Speech?

I think every major fandom does exactly this and we are made more aware of it with easy long distance discussion on the interenet.

Okay. False illusions about actors even if you are correct is not toxic in any meaningful way. It's not harming anyone Billy Joe from South Carolina thinking Leo is the best person to walk the earth.

You should learn what Auteur means and why it's completely irrelevant when discussing quality, just like Box Office.

Every major Hollywood Actor has fandom, and i'd highly dispute Leo being #1, #1 among the Youtube Videos about Leo you seem to spend most of your time around sure, but in general no.

Directors i agree, Nolan and Spielberg are the only Directors i've actually known with fans among people not really interested in film.

Okay may be i got it wrong. But to me auteur is someone who is respected by his peers and held at high regard and someone who is not a sellout like ridley scott who to me is a hired gun. He is a director who can make movies under budget and in time if you give him a script.Auteurs are directors with their stamp on a movie but the movies should work. Someone like Terrence malick might be an auteur but his recent movies dont work. They almost became a parody of his earlier work. Someone like PTA might not have commercial success but once his movies are released there is enough of individuality and useful originality there to be recognized as a profound piece of art. I can make 10 movies about topics that I find fascinating from my point of view but if those dont connect to audience at all then I am not an auteur. Zack snyder has a distinct vision but his vision sucks. So does his movies. It's almost personal for auteurs if people dont like their movies because it almost feels like people dont like who they are. I think I might want to specify I mean "Auteurs that succeed in connecting with audience consistently". Innaritu seems to be little inspired by Terrence Malick but his movies are much more approachable and not obtuse. Auteur thing greatly helps during oscars campaign. If you are consistently making movies that feel like your own with your signature that in of itself is anti-studio system. So that kind of gives your movies a leg up over others because oscar voters know that something like the martian is a well made studio movie. Something like revenant is a well made movie with the vision of innaritu behind it.

Someone like scott cooper is in between. He does have a vision which seems unique. He seems to be dealing with non-obvious story-lines but his vision is not profound enough yet to be appreciated as a praise worthy piece of art.

Some or all of this could be true about an Auteur, the only major thing is they have their own distinct, highly noticeable style. Think Oscar-Friendly is the term you are looking for not "Auteur".

but kings speech is also oscar friends and i dont think its a work of an auteur.So is something like argo. Those as well made movies but they dont have distinct directorial styles.

Yeah, the Auteur is the Director though so his work has to be recognizable against each other. I don't personally think Innaritu qualifies there, but again even if he does that term has no connection to quality or financial success like you've been using it.

I might be obsessed in disproving this myth.
why i care about his box office ? because I for one feel that many of the great roles he has been given are wasted on him because of his box office appeal..you would say how i can know that..then why do all the movies have huge budgets ? . Had they been played by other more well suited and versatile actors the movies would have been elevated to new heights. Something like revenent needs a guy who is so good at surviving in wilderness that he became a tracker. Someone like DDL or christian bale would have brought a certain depth and stoicness to the role that he didnt bring. Same with Django..that role needs a slightly older in his 50s kind of actor because what he says at dinner table almost sounds like an educated and experience speech how ever flawed it might be and when Leo plays it , it feels fake.Same with the departed. An undercover fbi agent should be much more slick and this guy is chewing scenery by screaming at every chance he got. These may be just my opinions. Even new tarantino movie needed 100 million so they had to cast him(I might have told this earlier in this thread).

I've been very fair to you here, i've went back on my initial impressions and even backed you up in a couple posts. Please don't even think you know anything about me especially not anything "i would say", i don't want to be mean because i've enjoyed this thread and i don't think you've been a bad addition but please let's not start!

okay fair enough

Glad to see we sorted that, hope Leo pops in here soon!