Bale Vs. DiCaprio

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 26266
Joined: February 2010
Location: Texas
IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:
m4st4 wrote:
Jax_Teller wrote:I think we're past one actor deserving it most, they're all worthy, picking a performance another one here when there are so many outstanding ones (hell Joaquin deserves it too if we're playing, and so does Matthew McConaughey, and so does Leo, and etc, and etc) is just counter-productive, it feels wrong.
Calm your tits.

I for one was just rattling the cages.

This Vs. bullshit thread should be locked anyway.
Why should it be locked? Vs threads are not against forum rules and this is currently a hot topic in the awards race.
Which is a clear indication of how messed our appreciation of film and acting is.

User avatar
Forum Pro
Posts: 54871
Joined: May 2010
Location: Jackson County
IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:
m4st4 wrote:
Jax_Teller wrote:I think we're past one actor deserving it most, they're all worthy, picking a performance another one here when there are so many outstanding ones (hell Joaquin deserves it too if we're playing, and so does Matthew McConaughey, and so does Leo, and etc, and etc) is just counter-productive, it feels wrong.
Calm your tits.

I for one was just rattling the cages.

This Vs. bullshit thread should be locked anyway.
Why should it be locked? Vs threads are not against forum rules and this is currently a hot topic in the awards race.
Did you actually contribute to it, though? You made this thread, posted a little ''imo'' exclamation and that's it.

User avatar
Posts: 4705
Joined: May 2013
Location: Inside Llewyn Davis
I dedicate this image from the bottom of my heart to all the Leo fanboys:
Image
Crying and made up of Oscars winners!
Cil's right: From a long time Leo was safe as hell.
And who's McCoinissanse? Sounds likea girl of AwardsWatch

User avatar
Posts: 42529
Joined: May 2010
funny thing is it is obvious DiCaprio doesn't care about winning an Oscar as much as trolls on the internet think he does.

User avatar
Posts: 26266
Joined: February 2010
Location: Texas
In my observation, the matter of safeness is all about choices.

It's obvious that Leo makes choices that ensure he'll get great reception for the role, with directors whom he knows have good track records. I think he likes to calculate the risk of his moves like he's playing chess and takes the best path possible. Personally I think it's because Leo understands his own limitations and range, so he plays within those boundaries. This is not a bad thing, it's just his preferred method. Wolf, for example, although it is one of Leo's most unique and fearless roles, was pretty much a solid promise for praise because:
1. He worked with a director he's acted for many times already, who is already a master in his own right
2. The character is written to Leo's strengths of expressiveness and emotionality
3. The role doesn't require him to do much stretching/transformation (whatever the fuck you wanna call it) beyond what he is used to, he simply had to increase the intensity.

Bale makes a wider range of choices that are riskier, that are more about him trying new things and experimenting. Sometimes they don't end up well (Terminator: Salvation, Reign of Fire) sometimes they do (The Fighter). Sometimes he isn't dealt a good hand in terms of the people he works with, sometimes he is. So, if Leo is playing chess, Bale is playing poker. I liked Furnace a lot, but the consensus seems to be that it was an over-promised and under-delivered film. It's inherently part of the risk he takes on.

So, it's not like one is playing better than the other, they're really just playing two completely different games. They have different approaches to acting and role selection, which is why comparing the two is pointless.

It's probably only unhealthy for your career if you get locked into just continually doing safe shit (like De Niro in the last few decades) because that's when stagnation occurs.

User avatar
Posts: 4705
Joined: May 2013
Location: Inside Llewyn Davis
Cilogy wrote:In my observation, the matter of safeness is all about choices.

It's obvious that Leo makes choices that ensure he'll get great reception for the role, with directors whom he knows have good track records. I think he likes to calculate the risk of his moves like he's playing chess and takes the best path possible. Personally I think it's because Leo understands his own limitations and range, so he plays within those boundaries. This is not a bad thing, it's just his preferred method. Wolf, for example, although it is one of Leo's most unique and fearless roles, was pretty much a solid promise for praise because:
1. He worked with a director he's acted for many times already, who is already a master in his own right
2. The character is written to Leo's strengths of expressiveness and emotionality
3. The role doesn't require him to do much stretching/transformation (whatever the fuck you wanna call it) beyond what he is used to, he simply had to increase the intensity.

Bale makes a wider range of choices that are riskier, that are more about him trying new things and experimenting. Sometimes they don't end up well (Terminator: Salvation, Reign of Fire) sometimes they do (The Fighter). Sometimes he isn't dealt a good hand in terms of the people he works with, sometimes he is. So, if Leo is playing chess, Bale is playing poker. I liked Furnace a lot, but the consensus seems to be that it was an over-promised and under-delivered film. It's inherently part of the risk he takes on.

So, it's not like one is playing better than the other, they're really just playing two completely different games. They have different approaches to acting and role selection, which is why comparing the two is pointless.

It's probably only unhealthy for your career if you get locked into just continually doing safe shit (like De Niro in the last few decades) because that's when stagnation occurs.
Thank you. I fucking love you. I came up with that conclusion too some months ago.

User avatar
Posts: 42529
Joined: May 2010
theseeker9175 wrote:
Cilogy wrote:In my observation, the matter of safeness is all about choices.

It's obvious that Leo makes choices that ensure he'll get great reception for the role, with directors whom he knows have good track records. I think he likes to calculate the risk of his moves like he's playing chess and takes the best path possible. Personally I think it's because Leo understands his own limitations and range, so he plays within those boundaries. This is not a bad thing, it's just his preferred method. Wolf, for example, although it is one of Leo's most unique and fearless roles, was pretty much a solid promise for praise because:
1. He worked with a director he's acted for many times already, who is already a master in his own right
2. The character is written to Leo's strengths of expressiveness and emotionality
3. The role doesn't require him to do much stretching/transformation (whatever the fuck you wanna call it) beyond what he is used to, he simply had to increase the intensity.

Bale makes a wider range of choices that are riskier, that are more about him trying new things and experimenting. Sometimes they don't end up well (Terminator: Salvation, Reign of Fire) sometimes they do (The Fighter). Sometimes he isn't dealt a good hand in terms of the people he works with, sometimes he is. So, if Leo is playing chess, Bale is playing poker. I liked Furnace a lot, but the consensus seems to be that it was an over-promised and under-delivered film. It's inherently part of the risk he takes on.

So, it's not like one is playing better than the other, they're really just playing two completely different games. They have different approaches to acting and role selection, which is why comparing the two is pointless.

It's probably only unhealthy for your career if you get locked into just continually doing safe shit (like De Niro in the last few decades) because that's when stagnation occurs.
Thank you. I fucking love you. I came up with that conclusion too some months ago.
lol

User avatar
Posts: 6272
Joined: December 2010
Location: Space Truckin'
Cilogy wrote:In my observation, the matter of safeness is all about choices.

It's obvious that Leo makes choices that ensure he'll get great reception for the role, with directors whom he knows have good track records. I think he likes to calculate the risk of his moves like he's playing chess and takes the best path possible. Personally I think it's because Leo understands his own limitations and range, so he plays within those boundaries. This is not a bad thing, it's just his preferred method. Wolf, for example, although it is one of Leo's most unique and fearless roles, was pretty much a solid promise for praise because:
1. He worked with a director he's acted for many times already, who is already a master in his own right
2. The character is written to Leo's strengths of expressiveness and emotionality
3. The role doesn't require him to do much stretching/transformation (whatever the fuck you wanna call it) beyond what he is used to, he simply had to increase the intensity.

Bale makes a wider range of choices that are riskier, that are more about him trying new things and experimenting. Sometimes they don't end up well (Terminator: Salvation, Reign of Fire) sometimes they do (The Fighter). Sometimes he isn't dealt a good hand in terms of the people he works with, sometimes he is. So, if Leo is playing chess, Bale is playing poker. I liked Furnace a lot, but the consensus seems to be that it was an over-promised and under-delivered film. It's inherently part of the risk he takes on.

So, it's not like one is playing better than the other, they're really just playing two completely different games. They have different approaches to acting and role selection, which is why comparing the two is pointless.

It's probably only unhealthy for your career if you get locked into just continually doing safe shit (like De Niro in the last few decades) because that's when stagnation occurs.
Post of the day! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Posts: 323
Joined: August 2012
I think it's obvious that Bale is maybe the most lunatic actor over our era, maybe ever?, speaking of selecting roles and preparation. From his beginnings with Reign, psycho, "rescue dawn -that's a fucking maniac role" to his various transformations in numerous shapes and edges like equilibrium, machinist and fighter.. even batman, Harsh and that chinese film were challenging roles and he really dug into them. Overall, I didn't see American Hustle but I did see WOLF, nevertheless I think leo deserves that nom and of course Bale deserve a nom too but I do favor Leo to get that oscar, though I don't really care about OSCARS or any other awards, but for the sake of recognition.. Leo really got into that character's head and did an outstanding performance that I think it's the best in this year, "still didn't see Her".

User avatar
Posts: 8049
Joined: October 2011
Location: Chungking Mansions
Neizar wrote:I think it's obvious that Bale is maybe the most lunatic actor over our era, maybe ever?, speaking of selecting roles and preparation.
DDL probably tops him, he's mental. And he does it without the bathroom scales.

Post Reply