Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Actors who act all high and mighty and turn down roles due to artistic reasons *rolls eyes*

Did you know Leonardo Di Caprio almost turned down the role of Jack because he thought Titanic had no substance? What is up with these actors and their huge egos? Di Caprio isn't even that great of an actor. Had it not for Titanic, he would've been a nobody and may even find it hard to find work.

by Anonymousreply 5401/10/2013

You sound like my aunt who gets really worked up over trivial things that have nothing to do with her.

by Anonymousreply 101/08/2013

Why should he have to take any role offered? Should you be forced to take any job in your profession?

And he's right in his assessment of Titani, IMO.

by Anonymousreply 201/08/2013

Unlike the ship itself, "Titanic" fangurls never sink to the bottom of the ocean.

by Anonymousreply 301/08/2013

Johnny Depp was offered Titanic first but turned it down to do The Astronaut's Wife instead.

by Anonymousreply 401/08/2013

Well, he was correct in that Titanic had little substance.

by Anonymousreply 501/08/2013

Lucy was offered Titanic, but James Cameron said he didn't want to do it add a ghost picture.

by Anonymousreply 601/08/2013

Leo was great in Gilbert Grape.

by Anonymousreply 701/08/2013

Actors do have to consider the quality of movies they make for the sake of their careers. You don't want to be the guy who makes a series of junk movies that bomb.

by Anonymousreply 801/08/2013

Them snobs wont speak to me over at the Dairy Queen. All high and mighty!

by Anonymousreply 901/08/2013

[quote]Did you know Leonardo Di Caprio almost turned down the role of Jack because he thought Titanic had no substance?

He's right. It had no substance. I'm embarrassed for people who think it was any good.

[quote]Had it not for Titanic, he would've been a nobody

A nobody who at that point already had an Oscar nomination under his belt and a well established career.

by Anonymousreply 1001/08/2013

I can see his point. I enjoyed the disaster aspects of the film BUT rewatching it nowadays you can see Jack is just a female fantasy figure. Why on earth is he so obsessed with Kate?

by Anonymousreply 1101/08/2013

So you're complaining about something that didnt even happen, OP? You sound fun.

by Anonymousreply 1201/09/2013

The success of Johnny Depp is largley due to his selective role assumption.. same for Jodie Foster

by Anonymousreply 1301/09/2013

It really is quite terrible, probably the worst picture made on the subject, it makes the made for TV version staring Marilu Henner look like Citizen Kane. Implausible love story, corny dialogue, predictable, not one sympathetic character in the whole thing.

by Anonymousreply 1401/09/2013

Actors can act. It doesn't mean they're smart. That's why they have agents, managers, etc.--to force them to accept work.

by Anonymousreply 1501/09/2013

[quote]A nobody who at that point already had an Oscar nomination under his belt and a well established career.

Titanic was his breakthrough role as an adult actor. It's fair to say it made his career.

by Anonymousreply 1601/09/2013

One thing that is kind of douchey about Leo is that, aside from his friendship with Kate, he won't have anything to do with Titanic. He hasn't appeared in any of the post-release docs featured in the DVD releases and was nowhere to be found during the hoopla of the 3D re-release...even Kate did press for that. It just seems rather ungrateful, to me.

by Anonymousreply 1701/09/2013

James Cameron was supposedly quite terrible to the cast of Titanic. Kate refused to support the film at first or do press for it. It was only when it became a smash that she changed her tune.

by Anonymousreply 1801/09/2013

Um, that's not true at all, R18. WTF

by Anonymousreply 1901/09/2013

It most definitly is true, r19. Read up on it.

by Anonymousreply 2001/09/2013

[quote] The success of Johnny Depp is largley due to his selective role assumption

That may have been true at one point, but not anymore. Depp is quickly headed down the same path taken by Nicholas Cage, who at one point was a great actor who did great films.

by Anonymousreply 2101/09/2013

R17, don't forget he refused to attend the Oscar ceremony after he wasn't nominated for Best Actor. I lost respect for him after that 'cause you should still support your film. But he comes off like an entitled asshole.

by Anonymousreply 2201/09/2013

[quote]Titanic was his breakthrough role as an adult actor. It's fair to say it made his career.

It elevated him to another level, yes, but he was already an Oscar-nominated young actor with plenty of work coming to him. 99% of actors at Leo's age then would have given anything to have what he had PRIOR to "Titanic".

You clearly know very little about Hollywood. 99% of actors never get the level of success Leo already had at that point.

by Anonymousreply 2301/09/2013

I think diCaprio is an ugly fatty, but he can act. I second R7. And I've never found him not believable in a role. Also, not everyone can be a Parker Posey and create an entire career doing only indie flicks. You have to do pet projects but also do periodic blockbusters regardless how trite. It's managing an image, and image is everything in terms of an actor's sustainability.

Kate, FWIW, begged for the role. She was rather insistent that the part was for her. She had to work with a vocal coach to get the accent down. She wasn't so fabulously famous before this movie, either, and the part would have easily gone to an American instead if not for her lobbying.

Can't speak for post-Titanic, but I'd walk away too if I were Leo. He's done a lot of other work since then and is much bigger now than Titanic is now. He doesn't have to. I also don't make the rounds at my old jobs from 10+ years ago. Do you?

by Anonymousreply 2401/09/2013

Yes, and that certainly doesn't apply to anyone here, does it r1?

by Anonymousreply 2501/09/2013

Well this one turn out to be a useless topic. Nice one, OP.

by Anonymousreply 2601/09/2013

"Rolls Eyes" = fat 65 year old cat lover.

by Anonymousreply 2701/09/2013

Not anywhere near 65, r27, otherwise you're right.

by Anonymousreply 2801/09/2013

This is why movies and music suck now. Because artists make such huge amounts of money, they are not hungry.

In the old days great actresses like Bette Davis, made a lot of money, but not enough to retire forever.

So they took what they could. You can take a mediocre script and put a great actress like Davis in it. And suddenly the movie is good. Because Davis was just that good.

Look at Dolly Parton's "I Will Always Love You." A mediocre song. Even Parton admitted that she released it several times and it did nothing.

Then Whiteny "I can't stay sober long enough to take a bath" Houston, used her awesome voice and made it a classic.

Great artists can make good out of mediocre.

by Anonymousreply 2901/09/2013

Hindsight is 20/20. Titanic could have flopped and we all would be writing that DiCaprio should have followed his initial instincts.

by Anonymousreply 3001/09/2013

Kate refused to support the film at first or do press for it. It was only when it became a smash that she changed her tune.

Well, the film was an instant smash, wasn't it?

As for Leo, the film stinks. He's better than that, so why would waste any time peddling it?

by Anonymousreply 3101/09/2013

I like how in Britain, actors are free to take any roles without being constantly monitored and having flops used against them, even years later.

If a film or play flops, they just go to the next one.

by Anonymousreply 3201/09/2013

Titanic was hardly a sure thing. It could have very easily been an enormous, expensive flop.

by Anonymousreply 3301/09/2013

Kate's recent ex-boyfriend died a few days before Titanic was released; Leo even commented on it at the U.S. premiere in December, 1997. She jetted to America after New Year's to do press for the film.

Despite how shitty Cameron was to the cast and crew, they were there to support it in the press initially, including Leo. It was only after it became a huge hit and Leo was snubbed for an Oscar nod that he refused to have anything to do with it.

by Anonymousreply 3401/09/2013

"Did you know Leonardo Di Caprio almost turned down the role of Jack because he thought Titanic had no substance?"

It DIDN'T have any "substance." It was a big budget commercial movie. That's ALL it was.

by Anonymousreply 3501/09/2013

Watching Leo in Django I thought that he would make a great Orson Wells. I also realized that Leo is better in character roles. He seems to like the really dramatic scenery chewing roles. That personifies Orson as a human being.

by Anonymousreply 3601/09/2013

{quote] isn't even that great of an actor

The word "of" has no place in that sentence. It was a grammatical error like a small flag announcing, "this person just throws out words that have no meaning. Don't bother to consider what he says."

by Anonymousreply 3701/09/2013

Leonardo DiCaprio was an above average actor for that generation. He had done Basketball Diaries and Gilbert Grape, both which he was quite good in.

And, why shouldn't he pick or choose his roles? Should you take any job that's offered to you when you CAN choose?

Titanic is so overrated.

by Anonymousreply 3801/09/2013

He WAS good. Not anymore. I can't remember the last time he gave a convincing performance in a movie.

by Anonymousreply 3901/09/2013

"You don't want to be the guy who makes a series of junk movies that bomb"

Oh.

by Anonymousreply 4001/09/2013

[quote]Titanic was hardly a sure thing. It could have very easily been an enormous, expensive flop.

It WAS expected to flop. Before it was released everyone was talking about how it would never recoup its costs.

But they underestimated the American public, who would buy shit if it was packaged beautifully.

[quote]Leonardo DiCaprio was an above average actor for that generation. He had done Basketball Diaries and Gilbert Grape, both which he was quite good in.

Then there was my favorite, This Boy's Life, which he should have received a Best Supporting nod for.

by Anonymousreply 4101/09/2013

From Wikipedia, for R29:

[quote]"I Will Always Love You" is a song by American singer-songwriter Dolly Parton. The country track was released on June 6, 1974 as the second single from Parton's thirteenth solo studio album, Jolene (1974). Recorded on June 13, 1973, the singer wrote the song for her one-time partner and mentor Porter Wagoner, from whom she was professionally splitting at the time. "I Will Always Love You" received positive comments from critics and [bold]attained commercial success, reaching number one on the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart two times[/bold]. With the accomplishment, Parton became the first artist ever to earn a number one record twice with the same song as a singer, and three times as a writer. "I Will Always Love You" is the second song ever to reach the top three on the Billboard Hot 100 in separate chart runs.

by Anonymousreply 4201/09/2013

Well that's pretty contradictory if the OP's claim is true, R22. He didn't want the role because it had no substance, then had a hissy fit when he wasn't nominated for a fluff role?

by Anonymousreply 4301/09/2013

I am not the poster quoted by R37, nor am I someone who doesn't care about good grammar, but wow. Ease up on whatever is turning you into such an insufferable, uppity cunt.

by Anonymousreply 4401/09/2013

Dicaprio was royally pissed he didn't get an Oscar nom for Titanic - it was reported in the news at the time - and ever since he's never done any pr stuff for it, like DVD interviews, commentary etc. He snubbed the Oscars that year and got a lot of shit for it in the press.

by Anonymousreply 4501/09/2013

[all posts by right wing shit-stain # a removed.]

by Anonymousreply 4601/09/2013

I agree with a few of the posts--Titanic made DiCaprio a global supertar but he was already one of the best and most-sought after young actors at the time anyway. He had already received an Oscar nomination and was cited for good performances in smaller films such as This Boy's Life. Even in the Quick and the Dead which a B movie for Sharon Stone, you could see he was a natural. And he was a teen heart throb with young girls anyway due to Romeo and Juliet. Titanic just propelled him higher up the Hollywood chain at a much faster rate. But I think even without Titanic, he would have ended up with a pretty solid career anyway. Probably no worst than Toby Maguires' career.

by Anonymousreply 4701/09/2013

Actually you have that wrong r46. There are many reasons she didn't do it but "too violent" was never one of them. One of the problem she had was the character Starling being changed so dramatically. Making Starling into Hannibals lover , making her weak, making her eat brains etc.

The Starling you saw on Hannibal was NOT Starling in Silence.

Get it right r46 before shooting your mouth off.

by Anonymousreply 4801/09/2013

I dont blame him for not going to the Oscars. Let's face it, that whole thing is one long boring circle jerk. Anyone with half a brain knows its nothing more than a marketing ploy. No one seemed to care that Bette Davis, Kathrine Hepburn or Joan Crawford never showed up when they were nominated, so someone not attending when they weren't nominated shouldn't be a big deal.

by Anonymousreply 4901/09/2013

Titanic was worthwhile to see a realistic (as far as effects) sinking of the ship. As Kathy Bates as Molly Brown said, now that's something you don't see everyday.

by Anonymousreply 5001/09/2013

[quote]As Kathy Bates as Molly Brown said, now that's something you don't see everyday.

Too bad the iceberg got more screen time than she did. She's another one who doesn't seem to have an enjoyable time on the good ship Cameron. I saw her on Charley Rose shortly after Titanic was released. I cant remember exactly what she said, but when he brought the picture up, she managed in an a few words to get the message across: "I dont ever want to talk about that piece of garbage again."

by Anonymousreply 5101/09/2013

Of course she didn't, r51.

James Cameron is such a colossal asshole on his sets that he's Michael Bay's role model. Seriously.

Cameron knew that and used it to pressure Bay into shooting Trns3 in 3-D, even though Bay hates it.

by Anonymousreply 5201/09/2013

OP does not know what "artistic reasons" means.

It means an actor realizes they'll suck in a role, or that the film will end up sucking. It's a perfectly valid reason to turn down work.

by Anonymousreply 5301/09/2013

LOL, R40.

by Anonymousreply 5401/10/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.