Post by ReyKahuka on Apr 21, 2021 19:56:01 GMT
DiCaprio isn't the same as those guys. He actually has range. But arguing over which leading man is your favorite isn't the real point here.
Why did Lando have a cape? Honestly it doesn't matter. You're arguing Lando, the guy who sells them out to the empire and only switches sides when Vader threatens to take over his entire operation, is somehow depicted as morally superior to the other characters?
Lack of diversity isn't good for the cinemas, neither are streaming services. But that's the way things are headed.
Lack of diversity in entertainment selections is bad but Hollywood doesn't care. The problem is they don't want people to make their own creative choices. They want to control it.
Yes, they have Byron Allen and few other black business men but they are controlled--if they go outside of what is acceptable to the gatekeepers they will get the Cosby treatment.
He had a cape to look more dashing probably.
DiCaprio is forced into roles he isn't suited for. Part of Hollywood's downsizing.
50 years ago they would never have someone like him-who played retarded characters and the wimpy sidekick in a western, as the leading man--playing J Edgar Hoover and the Richard Harris role from The Man In the Wilderness.
They would pick two different types. Ditto with Johnny Depp-who was Dillinger and Tonto and Barnabas Collins. It isn't because he has more range--it is because Hollywood wants to hire less. It's down-sizing.
The more diversity they harp about, the less content variety there is.
I know for a fact that movies from the last 30 years are not as well regarded as ones from decades ago.
I see it here--people hardly ever quote from 90s movies--they quote the 80s and earlier.
"If Matrix was here, he'd laugh too."
Your opinion of 90s film is your own, but it isn't backed up by the countless lists you can look up for yourself. And the 90s were decades ago at this point. Sure they quote 90s movies, you probably don't realize it because you've never seen the films.
The problem with Hollywood today is that everything is IP; there are no movie stars under 40 who can open a movie with their name alone, and it isn't because Hollywood is trying to force feed us the next black superstar. Studios are taking less chances because the probable return on investment in theaters is as dicey as ever. Film studios in America have always been about revenue, not art (well, with the exception of New Hollywood). Today the money is in IP; who you cast is secondary. The film has to be an event, not a showcase for the actor like the old days. That's the stuff that largely goes to art house cinemas and streaming services.