What happened to Jake Gyllenhaal


aronisred's Avatar
outrageous film reviewer
I mean , he was at a position where i thought he would never fall. But seemingly he is now on broadway and his solo/independent art house movies are not even breaking 10 million at box office. The directors he worked with went from david fincher , sam mendes to more commercial/niche lesser known filmmakers. Even his broadway turn feels fake because it looks like he tried to be a movie star and once that didn't work out he retraced to showing that he is a "serious" actor. I think it all started with prince of persia. He thought that movie would make him a box office draw but it ended up doing the opposite. That movie was classic hollywood popcorn movie with no artistic merit. I honestly think he never was a box office draw.

"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."

He's about to be the villain in the new Spiderman movie....and that's probably gonna do well so....I see what you are saying, but some actors follow this kind of path. I think a lot of people would agree that he's an extremely talented actor, and movies are generally better with him than without him.

A system of cells interlinked
He's been in plenty in recent years, and as mentioned, is just about to appear as Mysterio in the new Spiderman flick. Even though it was a few years ago, I liked his turn in Villeneuve's Prisoners opposite Hugh Jackman. The 2017 film Life wasn't a great film, but it wasn't terrible, just derivative. Jake was fine in it.

Meanwhile, hasn't he always had a penchant for indie stuff his entire career? Donnie Darko, etc.?
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP

You already started this exact thread, containing the same odd assumption that all actors (even those with insane amounts of money already) are motivated by box office. I'll reproduce one of my replies there and close this thread:

Yeah, I was thinking something similar but just barely decided not to include it in my previous post.

Obviously, money is important and matters a lot, but there are manifestly all sorts of decisions, particularly creative ones, that are not completely (or even primarily) under its sway. There's definitely an Internet thing, too, where people try to grapple with the vast unknown of human behavior by trying to shoehorn it into something quantifiable, like budget or box office or online review scores, even though it's wildly insufficient to discuss things like actor motivation.

I can very much sympathize with the desire to make sense of the tangled web that is everybody else, but it really can't be summarized by one metric that they care about to varying (and fluctuating) degrees.
You can bump that other one if you want, but the answer is that there's nothing wrong with him, you simply have a strangely narrow view of what motivates other people.