- 37,127
- 14,107
- Joined
- May 2, 2012
QFT. I'm in the boat of hoping Leo wins, and believing he will. And it's not because he's deserved it in the past; IMO this year he out-acted the other nominations. Simple as that.
2016 Academy Awards/Oscars - Nominees Announced Today - February 28th
QFT. I'm in the boat of hoping Leo wins, and believing he will. And it's not because he's deserved it in the past; IMO this year he out-acted the other nominations. Simple as that.
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
its not that he barely said a word its that his performance was super blandJust because he barely said a word doesn't mean he's not acting.
really shaping up to be the most overrated movie performance of all time
who would have thought the key to winning an oscar was being cold and not actually acting
I think it's harder to pull of Leo's role well than Tom Hardy's role for example.
take literally any top tier actor around leos age and put them in the same role and they do just as well if not better
leo's only methods of expressing emotion are yelling or whispering, it happens in all his movies.
hardy was way more convincing as a character, he actually felt like a totally different person while it was just leo crawling around acting constipated.
without the gimmick of "it was so hard to shoot" i doubt leo would be a front runner. people giving him props for eating liver, when that's not even acting.
- 23,933
- 5,933
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2005
It's not really a gimmick tho
It's well reported the movie went way over budget and had a lot of issues filming. Not reports by the studios. Reports by people with no skin in the game.
Of course they're smart to use it to their advantage, but a gimmick would be them purposely making it "extra tough" just to gain recognition.
It wasn't planned, they didn't expect for it to have to be reshot in Canada because they'd run out of snow. A lot of the issues filming this movie were spontaneous and unplanned, including the conditions.
So how is it a gimmick?
Fortunate? Yes. But what smart studio wouldn't twist those negatives into a positive for good PR? Any other studio with any other of the nominated movies or actors would do the same.
Everyone of them uses every thing they can to gain traction for oscars nominations and recognition. It's been part of the game for decades.
If you're going to call Leo's struggles a gimmick you should call out all the other marketing gimmicks other studios use to boost their chances of winning to.
You're picking and choosing your examples based on who you DONT FEEL should win.
It's well reported the movie went way over budget and had a lot of issues filming. Not reports by the studios. Reports by people with no skin in the game.
Of course they're smart to use it to their advantage, but a gimmick would be them purposely making it "extra tough" just to gain recognition.
It wasn't planned, they didn't expect for it to have to be reshot in Canada because they'd run out of snow. A lot of the issues filming this movie were spontaneous and unplanned, including the conditions.
So how is it a gimmick?
Fortunate? Yes. But what smart studio wouldn't twist those negatives into a positive for good PR? Any other studio with any other of the nominated movies or actors would do the same.
Everyone of them uses every thing they can to gain traction for oscars nominations and recognition. It's been part of the game for decades.
If you're going to call Leo's struggles a gimmick you should call out all the other marketing gimmicks other studios use to boost their chances of winning to.
You're picking and choosing your examples based on who you DONT FEEL should win.
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
yes, i dont feel he should win because he put on a bland performance that his hyped up by the fact that he put himself through all these things while filming that have nothing to do with acting.
the acting aspects of his performance were nothing special.
the ENTIRE campaign for leo is that it was hard for him to play this role because of external factors.
overall, leo has become an overrated actor. his best talent is his ability to choose projects, not his actual acting. The great movies he's been in has people blinded into thinking he's a top tier acting talent.
the acting aspects of his performance were nothing special.
the ENTIRE campaign for leo is that it was hard for him to play this role because of external factors.
overall, leo has become an overrated actor. his best talent is his ability to choose projects, not his actual acting. The great movies he's been in has people blinded into thinking he's a top tier acting talent.
- 5,735
- 5,198
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2000
I don't think you understand what the word "gimmick" means or you just don't know how to use it in this sense. If the film had any gimmicks it would be the the long takes the cinematographer and director are known for employing in their films, that's a gimmick. Something that's repeatedly done and somewhat expected to attract an audience to see whatever it is you made like found footage films or promising a twist at the end of every flick or even your example of Boyhood.
"it was so hard to shoot" is not really a gimmick as the climate and terrain were not made for an entire movie to be shot on. throw in freezing temps and the fact that only natural light was used(again, I don't even think you know what that means) then.....yeah "it was so hard to shoot"
When you actually hear that being said, it's not good publicity for the film at all, they are just trying to spin it like that:
-went over budget
-finished filming in august when it was supposed to be done in april...for a december release
-crew actually left the production, pretty high turn around
-Tom Hardy said he'd only stay and finish if he was allowed to choke the director out because he was so frustrated....and the director allowed him to.
Those are all negative points, in fact, while this movie may be the belle of the awards season, I'm not hearing the directors next project already lined up, in fact I'm sure studios are very reluctant to sign him to anything as i'm sure whatever studio made this film lost money....
For a film to use "hard shoot" as a gimmick it would have to be the crew from the new Jungle Book saying that, as that entire film was shot in a backlot in LA, all on green screen that's when you go
I'm assuming you have no experience what so ever working in film or acting?? I'd be shocked otherwise.
Leo is a extremely proud Vegetarian and has been for quite sometime, so the fact that he's eating Raw, not cooked, raw bison liver and making it look like he actually needs this to live, and you know in real life he wouldn't even be caught dead eating it, out of a strong preference, and it probably goes against his morals(people do take this seriously, met quite a few)
well.....that's acting
also what makes you think other "top tier" actors were not approached for this film and told they would be living in freezing conditions? If other people were capable of this, we'd heard how many people audtioned for the coveted role of Leo's character(it's publicized all the time)
You are more than entitled to your opinion, but to say that all this guy did was walk around constipated, got out shined by every other actor in the film and that this actors emotional range only consist of 2 extreme volumes of his voice.....sounds like hate and that you have a Leo problem
I actually agree if you just didn't like the film and was like "eh....wasn't for me" but when you say Matt Damon or Tom Cruise out acted Leo in flicks that has a very different foundations(and completely different genres) it's hard to wrap my brain around that.
Just seems like you are taking shots without knowing the actual hard work that goes into acting, or working a film crew. If you don't then your opinion actually has limits.
I do and have worked various film sets(most recent was Jobs) and have acted in small roles in films and have been fortunate to see from either side, the hard work and preparation that go into normal shoots
The Revenant is everyone's worst nightmare in terms of conditions all around(had a friend who was one of those people that left the crew, to start production on another film he was already late for)
So when I hear someone saying "thats not acting!" "Anyone could do that!" "That isn't hard"
It's obvious you just don't get the fundamentals of making a film or what is used.
It's one thing to not like something and give points, but you are on some other level, calling it bland
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
long takes are not a gimmick, it is an example of great technical filmmaking. Using all natural light is great technical filmmaking. this film should win for cinematography, not acting.
I would much rather be put though the cold conditions that leo "endured" making this movie than have to watch his performance again
d riding because he eats bison liver is EXACTLY why it is a gimmick. any actor could have made it just as believable eating a fake liver, eating a real one just for the sake of doing it doesnt add anything to the performance other than being an oscar bait attention grabbing tactic.
who cares if leo doesnt eat meat? what does that have to do with acting? might as well give an oscar to barny from how I met your mother because the actor is gay yet hooks up with so many women.
of course there is so much hard work that goes into every aspect of film. In the revenant most of the technical aspects are close to perfection. the only weak link was leo's performance, dont bring up all this other pointlessness that has nothing to do with the fact that his performance was bland.
you just proved my point son
you typed out 600 words of fluff and literally the only thing you could bring up about why leo is deserving is that he doesnt eat meat and forced himself to eat raw meat
I would much rather be put though the cold conditions that leo "endured" making this movie than have to watch his performance again
d riding because he eats bison liver is EXACTLY why it is a gimmick. any actor could have made it just as believable eating a fake liver, eating a real one just for the sake of doing it doesnt add anything to the performance other than being an oscar bait attention grabbing tactic.
who cares if leo doesnt eat meat? what does that have to do with acting? might as well give an oscar to barny from how I met your mother because the actor is gay yet hooks up with so many women.
of course there is so much hard work that goes into every aspect of film. In the revenant most of the technical aspects are close to perfection. the only weak link was leo's performance, dont bring up all this other pointlessness that has nothing to do with the fact that his performance was bland.
you just proved my point son
you typed out 600 words of fluff and literally the only thing you could bring up about why leo is deserving is that he doesnt eat meat and forced himself to eat raw meat
- 16,339
- 20,172
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2007
i don't think tom cruise would have done as well. he would have probably hammed it up a little too much and come off as disingenuous. while it might be ok to be a tad bit over the top for an action flick, it wouldn't have worked as well here. matt damon could not have pulled this role off. he's too snarky and that worked out fine in the martian.
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
i dont think tom cruse could have pulled the role off, but leo is not pulling off the stuff tom does in the MI movies either
damon totally could have pulled the role off, he can be toned down when he wants to and he's better at showing emotion than leo
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
tom hardy's role was the perfect matt damon character
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,955
- 37,248
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
I used to be a Leo hater, couldn't stand him but now he's one of my top favorite actors.
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
leo is a very good actor, he always brings it in his roles but this was just one of his weaker performances
he should have won for his performance in django (even though it was 100% yelling)
he should have won for his performance in django (even though it was 100% yelling)
- 5,735
- 5,198
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2000
long takes are not a gimmick, it is an example of great technical filmmaking. Using all natural light is great technical filmmaking. this film should win for cinematography, not acting.
I would much rather be put though the cold conditions that leo "endured" making this movie than have to watch his performance again
d riding because he eats bison liver is EXACTLY why it is a gimmick. any actor could have made it just as believable eating a fake liver, eating a real one just for the sake of doing it doesnt add anything to the performance other than being an oscar bait attention grabbing tactic.
who cares if leo doesnt eat meat? what does that have to do with acting? might as well give an oscar to barny from how I met your mother because the actor is gay yet hooks up with so many women.
of course there is so much hard work that goes into every aspect of film. In the revenant most of the technical aspects are close to perfection. the only weak link was leo's performance, dont bring up all this other pointlessness that has nothing to do with the fact that his performance was bland.
you just proved my point son
you typed out 600 words of fluff and literally the only thing you could bring up about why leo is deserving is that he doesnt eat meat and forced himself to eat raw meat
I brought up the eating liver point because you have been using that as point to strengthen your argument that Leo gave a weak performance, in fact most of the response I quoted above is again based off of that. I mean I could say what everyone has been saying again and say emotional range but then you'd be comparing him to matt damon or fassenbender or something else irrelevant. I never said he deserved the role because he ate raw meat, its a component of how seriously he takes his craft
you are all over the place in your stance, you said Leo's real ability is to choose his roles then you said all he does in his roles is yell or whisper, but now you are saying Leo is a great actor???
I'm more confused than ever. and the HIMYM comparison was very weak and not even remotely close a comparison
we shall just agree to disagree
back to lurk mode, I've already wasted enough time between this thread and the revenant one
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
he's a very good actor who is very good at yelling, that's his go to dramatic acting move.
overall he's a great actor but he wasnt great in this role, it happens to the best of em
but not a "this is an outrage that he's never won an oscar" level actor
his BEST ability is the career choices that he makes, that doesnt mean he cant act
my views on leo have always been consistent
how is comparing him to damon or fassbender irrelevant? that's literally who he is competing with for an oscar
overall he's a great actor but he wasnt great in this role, it happens to the best of em
but not a "this is an outrage that he's never won an oscar" level actor
his BEST ability is the career choices that he makes, that doesnt mean he cant act
my views on leo have always been consistent
how is comparing him to damon or fassbender irrelevant? that's literally who he is competing with for an oscar
- 34,898
- 76,781
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
Tom Cruise would have been able to fit inside a fox.
- 34,898
- 76,781
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
So which is it, very good or great?
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
to me they mean pretty much the same thingSo which is it, very good or great?
but if I had to choose it would be very good
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
tom cruise would have rode an actual horse off an actual 40 foot cliff
- 16,339
- 20,172
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2007
definitely agreed. tom cruise is ethan hunt.
i'm not a leo stan even though i really enjoy most of his performances. i'm probably the only one that liked him in shutter island much more than wolf of wall street.
- 87,735
- 50,125
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
You keep saying this but everyone who praises it doesn't lead or end or sometimes include that at all.
I just gave you a list of quotes from ppl who work int he business praising the movie, the director, and Leo
Stop lying.
It's coming out post by post.
You just a Leo hater.
Denying his greatness.
Last edited:
- 34,898
- 76,781
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
Have you read Here Lies Hugh Glass or the Revenant?
Leo's interpretation is pretty spot on.
The script didn't call for the "acting range" that the Martian did. Can't really fault him for that. Javier Bardem was pretty stoic in No Country for Old Men, but he still turned in a brilliant performance.
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
ive said this multiple times, the role didnt call for a wide acting range and wasn't a great oscar role other than all the "it was physically tolling stuff"
a bunch of actors would have done better than leo in that role but i dont think they would be oscar worthy either
- 7,338
- 12,140
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
What's an "Oscar" role?
you mean Oscar bait? That's exactly what Redmayne, Cranston, and Fassbender did. Guess they have Oscar roles so they should win over Leo.
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
A role that demands a high level acting performance to pull off.
and yes, they should win over Leo. And if Leo took any of their roles he would have been required to show more range as an actor
and yes, they should win over Leo. And if Leo took any of their roles he would have been required to show more range as an actor
Belgium
formerly colombia
- 25,955
- 37,248
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
I think Redmayne in Danish Girl is the only real oscar bait role out of the nominations.What's an "Oscar" role?
- 87,735
- 50,125
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
@ the role didn't demand much and isn't an "Oscar role" but it's nominated and the favorite to win.Leo is getting all of that off of a gimmick.
Makes NO sense. If any of that was even a little bit true, studios, actors and directors would be creating gimmicks EVERY year on top of making Oscar bait movies.
It really seems the material just really wasn't for you and you're a bit salty that it's getting all this praise that you can't make sense of.