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

when i compare him to rock...i dont mean talent wise but more of a boxoffice wise..rock is boxoffice draw but not every movie he makes is a hit...baywatch proved that audience arent gonna blindly march to the movies ...but in case of Dicaprio time and again he is getting budgets of 100 million and above for almost every project. So people if you do it enough you are gonna be a brand..its like a circle...without awards buzz and auteurs at the helm his movies would have lost money most of the time.

Speaking of performances in revenant or aviator...the problem starts right from the casting..he doesnt fit both the roles genetically..he is a man baby..revenant needs ddl or bale..you are talking about a role that needs a warrior kind of person not a man baby...even in aviator you need a charming man and not an angry teenager..his fights with cate blanchett were laughable because she looks more mature than him..and then it again brings me back to the situations surrounding the movie...his acting revenant is more of less like ton of other actors in snowy movies..but you say he is excellent because of the direction of the movie and the budget they spent to shoot..director is the key about how the movie shapes and the nominations...same performance in a straight to video movie would feel like "yeah whatever" kind of performance. Its called perception.

Still not sure what your point is - it sounds like your big complaint here is "nobody would think he was good if he had done completely different movies to the ones he actually did". The Rock comparison is valid because they both make very different types of movies - The Rock makes simple crowd-pleasers, whereas DiCaprio does more ambitious work so the fact that he's actually drawing the cash necessary to make more films like that is ultimately a good thing. Maybe people's perception of him would be vastly different if he kept coasting off the pretty-boy fame he got after Titanic for the past 20 years, but it doesn't matter because he ultimately didn't do that. His "brand" involves working with a variety of acclaimed directors and turning in his own good work - how is that something that should be treated like some kind of evil conspiracy to brainwash the masses?

The Revenant is about a frontiersman trying to survive the winter - he's not going to be some bulky action-hero type, he's going to be half-starved and reliant on something other than brute strength to stay alive. Having a baby face barely registers when it's covered in hair and dirt and snow and blood the whole time. Likewise, The Aviator is meant to chart Howard Hughes' psychological decline so it makes sense that his charming-man surface would crack under pressure and reveal his inner fragility. For someone who wants to lecture other people on perception, you're not really demonstrating a whole lot of it yourself.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I think DiCaprio is one of the very best and certainly one of the most charismatic actors of his generation. He's in the process of building one of the most impressive filmographies of all time, while giving financial opportunities to the most talented directors of our times.

If this is all somehow the result of some very clever "marketing technique" (or "evil conspiracy" as you make it sound), then I'm totally on board. I'm buying!

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I think the most appealing aspect of any discussion, from my perspective, is when the other side thinks your contrary opinion is irrelevant, that you aren't an educated film fan for liking a certain actor a certain amount, or that since they themselves don't regard said actor as such the person inherently overrates them because of it.

It's fun.

you are buying a false idol...someone who is hanging the carrot of huge budget and heavy awards campaign in front of directors to lure them into casting him in their movies. If you so lovingly want to buy into the notion that his filmography is impressive its upto you.But to me my decision of an great actor is someone who overcame hurdles in taking on roles that are completely unexpected and challenging and not someone who has everything handed to him in silver platter after titanic. He is a decent actor which intense desire to please audience with his performance.Please aka making audience think he is "acting" and chewing scenery...there is no self confidence in his performance..its just "lets emote everything and make audience think we are acting"..but the problem is he comes of same in every movie with different costumes and settings...but same person. Jigs gonna be up when Scorsese is dead...who is he gonna force to make his projects for him then ?

How do you think he got Titanic? He proved himself with films like The Basketball Diaries, This Boy's Life and What's Eating Gilbert Grape?, all impressive performances and pretty challenging roles.

I agree he's not the greatest actor ever but he's a very weird person to target when there's so many worse actors regularly working. Also i wouldn't really call him a Box Office Star, Titanic and Inception are really the only blockbusters he has been in, if anything he's stayed away from that side of the business since Titanic and taken work in more prestigious drama's.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I gotta say, I don't really "get" arguments that are basically just people stating their opinions to each other, or stating their opinions over and over, or where every response is just sort of uncharitably telling people why they think something, usually without any knowledge of the person.

he is being targeted because the gap between his actual skills and the perceived skills is very very vast...the same person who sees and likes a mission impossible movie is more inclined to liking wolf of wallstreet than something like lincoln or there will be blood...agree ? because to them the movie is much more appealing than period piece which is a slow burn..but since wolf is directed by scorsese and is a drama...the same people who loves mission impossible will be like "well , mission impossible is a movie i liked but its not a academy material..its a fun action movie..." but the same person since he like wolf will say "scorsese makes academy level movies and since i liked wolf then obliviously its an oscar movie and since leo is in the front and center of the movie,his performance is oscar worthy and since it is something I can understand as its outrageous and funny and breaking the law he defnitely deserves oscar"..its in the screencrush article i mentioned in the OP just replace Nolan with dicaprio..he makes movies that appeal to a certain type of audience who are more easily manipulated and idol worship him..you cant do the same with fans of american sniper or Shakespeare in love...those people wont be in youtube comments sections or online defending the stars of those movies...fans of those movies are just that..fans of those movies..they would never blindly follow the stars of the movies.

As for staying away from blockbusters that only appeals to revenant..which to me is his least box office friendly movie...rest of his movies just has a different blockbuster model...wolf,departed etc..are all Oscar prestige movies but with blockbuster characteristics..instead of summer..they are put out in Oscars season..but they appeal to broader audience..a prime example how those movies can go wrong are j.edgar, gold, hostiles,out of the furnace..all these movies are supposed to capture broad zeitgeist during oscar season but didnt pick up the steam.So all his movies except revenant are blockbuster type movies...but they just have different marketing models. HIs role in shutter island is no different from ethan hunt in mission impossible..its just dicaprio with a different name in different location and costumes...just like its tom cruise with different name and profession.

As for him getting titanic role..his pre titanic roles were challenging for his age but after titanic he stopped taking risks not just by not working with young filmmakers(which i understand given the budgets of those movies) but he stopped taking risks even in roles..all of them are dicaprio angry and instense with different hairstyles,facial hair,costumes and settings..there is no difference between his performance in revolutionary road and shutter island and inception and even great gatsby..some of these are great movies but he is just surrounded by excellent filmmaking..he is just riding the coattails.

but its fun..to elaborate on a point of view which most people choose to ignore like housing bubble until it burst open.

Okay, i think you're just repeating your opinions, that's fine, i don't agree but i can't be bothered going around in circles about something i really don't care about.

Who are great actors in your opinion? You ignored Citizen's question earlier.

Yeah, DiCaprio's overacting is clearly a threat to middle-class debt-to-equity ratios.

i felt that..but if you see the comments..most of them are repeating themselves as well..according to me christian bale and Daniel day Lewis are great actors.. and they are exact opposites of DiCaprio. They are risk takers and not afraid to fail.

they are just similar in terms of "people ignoring the obvious as long as they get what they want"

I know there’s no real point in arguing this anymore but it irks me; Leo isn’t a risk taker? What do Django Unchained, Wolf of Wall Street, The Revenant and even that Manson movie he’s making with Tarantino seem like to you?

That's a pretty weird analogy, since in order for it to make sense you have to imagine that people have some weird need to think he's a good actor, and are somehow tricking themselves into enjoying his performances.

Anyway, I don't really see most of these replies as "expounding" on anything. They mostly just seem like a reiteration of your opinion. Which, again, is all yours. Enjoy having it. But I don't see a lot of substantive back-and-forth happening here. The stuff where you basically psychoanalyze people who disagree based on nothing other than their reaction to a particular actor, and purport to tell them why they actually like him strikes me as especially unfair and unproductive.

Christian Bale, is better than DiCaprio? I'd say they're on par. I happen to like both.

It seems like twice a year or so, there will be a thread from someone who really, really, really, dislikes DiCaprio...and it always seems like an obsession to me, more than just a critique of his acting abilities. I mean there are actors I don't like but I don't drag out a soapbox to loudly proclaim it. So I'm guessing it's not DiCaprio's acting that you don't like, but something about his personality that rubs you the wrong way. Am I right?

now we are getting somewhere ...if there is one thing more certain than superhero movies making money is that industry insiders admire and respect auteur filmmakers..something like phantom thread had very little love from pre oscar awards ceremonies but it got 5 oscar nominations because PTA is an auteur..what do all the movies you mentioned have in common ? thats right..auteur filmmakers..filmmakers who are respected because each and everyone of their movies are good...they cant make a bad movie...in case of Tarantino he is an auteur with a fan following...heck even hateful eight with no starpower made 150 million at boxoffice...Risk taking doesnt mean making oscar movies with auteur filmmakers..its like betting on a number 1 horse...of course he will work with quentin tarantino..that dude didnt make a bad movie...django unchained is fresh after inglourious basterds and his role was almost like that of christoph waltz...a villian who foils heroes plot..of course he was gonna take it...with aim of oscar win like christoph waltz.
Watch this video he explains it pretty clearly - search it on youtube unpopular opinion leonardo dicaprio

Budget wise they are risks but in terms of making a good movie they are not risks...scorsese can direct movie like wolf of wallstreeet in his sleep. Quentin tarantino script directed by himself ..are you kidding me ?? its gonna be a oscar player 100%..revenant made by winner of last year oscar..are you kidding me ?? of course its gonna be oscar player.

Risk taking to me is the big short by adam mckay...christian bale took risk by choosing to work with this comedy director on a serious subject thats a risk...chrisitan bale choosing to work with christipher nolan on batman begins , this guy who only made low budget movies art house movies like memento etc. after batman and robin is a risk...doing exodus gods and kings ( a failure) after ridley scott made the counselor and hasnt made a good movie in few years and even the story of the movie is pretty radical ..thats risk...not what leo is doing...he is being handed these opportunities in a silver platter...Leo is cast in manson movie because quentin tarantino wanted 100 million for the movie..so producers needs starpower to make the movie..not talent..they need art house prestige picture starpower.

Risk taking is not wanting your to fail. All the directors at the time he worked with them are almost batting close to 100%..so any fool can blindly work with them.Even his roles are not risks.His only risky role was whats eating gilberts grapes. Risky role to me is muscular batman christian bale playing drug addicted loud mouthed dicky eklund in the fighter. Not the same guy who shouted in boston streets in the departed and revolutionary road shouting again in wallstreet in wolf of wallstreet.

Ohh man you think those movies are risks ??? then what do you call playing overweight con artist in american hustle?? or hedge fund manager on spectrum in the big short ? or risking everything by playing a serial killer in highly controversial american psycho ?

I will say it has to do with the undeserving praise he gets..that most of us realists dont appreciate..thats the reason you see those threads often..acting basically means playing someone different than you..tom cruise can't do it and people know it..but dicaprio cant do it either but his movies are so appealing to the internet dwelling movie fan demographic that they trick themselves into thinking everything is perfect about his acting. Its unnatural to have first 20 comments on his youtube videos with 1000 likes each all with the same meaning of "he deserves oscars and give him oscar already"..that doesnt sound unusual to you ? that doesnt sound like a bunch of irrational fanboys and girls who dont know what they are talking about praising his acting ? there is incredible gap between his actual skill and his perceived skill.There is no other actor in the history of hollywood with such widespread gap.

but you have to agree that its better than calling names and dismissing people's opnions

I think it kinda is dismissing someone's opinion to tell them why they hold it, or to assume they hold it because they're being tricked.

But I'll certainly grant you've been mostly civil in the disagreement apart from that, so thanks.