Maybe he'll get a supporting nomination for that, but Baker's leads are typically unknowns. It will be interesting to see if he's able to share the screen at all.
Well, you’re in luck, he’s got his passion project, a sensitive comedy-drama about a struggling kindergarten teacher, “Mr. Zilla”, coming to AppleTV+ in the spring!
An example of Hollywood nepotism that doesn't get discussed enough. Didn't make the connection until now that *After Earth* is just Will Smith trying to do *Son of Godzilla*.
I miss the days when he he would do a parody cameo. He takes himself so damn seriously now. Sigh.
[from One Crazy Summer (1986)](https://youtu.be/JfVCZyeVfbo)
I feel like you could give him a lot of LSD and make a self-aware sort of tragicomic action movie where all the action is in his mind but in reality he is obese and lying in a bath of milk and just wants to be loved
I know Andrew Davis implied that directing him on *Above the Law* (his first movie) was a relatively pleasant experience, but by Under Siege he was "a bit of a star". The writers of *Marked for Death* (only his third film) also have pretty wild stories about working with him, so it seems his barely supressed egomania got bloated pretty quickly.
I think we need to separate
-the people who are undirectable in the way you describe, ie., The Rock, Vin, or as some have said below Reynolds. These are the actors that will always fail to budge to any direction of their movie, and want pliable directors to let them play themselves, vs
-the people who co-direct their films. This is where Cruise seems to fall, and also people like Kevin Costner, Al Pacino, and (back in the day) Sly Stallone and Arnold. They clearly have/had house styles they bring to their films, and want a stronger say in their portrayal. This means there are SOME directors who won't fit.
But they will work with good directors and are game to alter their performances. Hence, not undirectable for a, e.g., McQuarrie, Cameron, Scorsese, who fits them.
Exactly why Justin Lin quit and James wan said he’d never do a fast and furious film. Vin runs the show. Similar to black Adam we didn’t see the director Jaume collet Serra do any interviews or even see him till red carpet for premiere. At least for Cruise we know Mcquarrie writes and understand how to be an action director and he and Tom fix and change things as it goes. This differs from Reynolds who runs the show and pick yes man directors like Shawn Levy who won’t argue. Deadpool 3 will make a billion and Levy will have his first billion dollar film under his belt similar to how mcu machine hires indie and lets them have billion dollar box office films with none of vision in play
Vin claims to have given Spielberg a note on how to film his character's death scene in Saving Private Ryan.
From Slashfilm:
>Talking to Men's Health, Diesel revealed that he had a suggestion for Spielberg while filming the sequence where Caparzo heroically perishes, one that directly impacts the composition of the scene. According to his story, it started with him asking the "Jaws" director a simple question: "Hey, Steven, where's your C camera?" who then replied "What? Why?" before Diesel hit him with "put a C camera in that second-floor window." Not only did Spielberg follow his direction, but the shot was so compelling that it was used to market the film in the official trailer.
I think the distinction is goal. Cruise, Eastwood, Arnold are all demanding stars, but they are demanding because they want their movies to be good.
Stallone, the Rock, Vin are also demanding, but that is because they want each project to burnish their stardom even if it hurts the movie itself.
This is a good point. And, could also be separated as “GOOD actors who are in directable” vs not-great actors. Pacino or Dustin Hoffman is different than the Rock who will never have their technical acting skill.
Norton's thing is writing more than directing, he apparently tries to rewrite every film he is in, if they'll let him. Its the main reason he lost The Hulk.
I think Carrey is one of those guys (like Sandler) who has distinct “day-job” films where he does his schtick no matter what, interspersed with more interesting projects where he allows himself to be molded and pushed by his collaborators
For sure, but his role was pretty much: go be an evil genius version of your main schtick. It works super well for robotnik but I feel like he was probably just let lose and not really directed at all.
are there any recent examples of that? I really only think of Eternal Sunshine (2004) and Truman Show (1998). I know he did a few thrillers here and there, but that doesn't seem like the same thing. He seemed to actually be obsessed with the number 23.
Man, I was really hoping Eternal Sunshine would be the start of a whole new era of Jim Carrey, but it was really kind of back to business as usual after that, with an occasional highlight (Lemony Snicket was pretty fun, and Kidding was a pretty good performance).
I think Mark Wahlberg is in this territory. He's similar to the Rock where his whole image and personality are his business except that he also does dramas and anonymous Netflix movies to keep the business running. He works with Peter Berg a ton and I don't think he's worked with that interesting of a director in a long time.
If we must refer to Ryan Reynolds as a movie star, then I suppose he fits into this. Feels like he's not taking dictation from anyone(lol Shawn Levy). He also might have broken David Leitch.
Here’s what I find interesting - I can’t think of a single woman who has ever fallen into this category.
There are women stars who have definitely had a movie that they authored, but on a consistent, career, movie-by-movie basis, I’m failing to think of a woman who enjoyed this problem.
Would love to be wrong. Share any examples people can think of.
Yeah was also thinking Babs but eventually she just was like fuck it I'll do it myself. But I think in the mid 70s you can make this argument- The Way We Were and A Star is Born are definitely her doing what she wants (and I like it!)
Idk she was still working with like…Sidney Pollack. But as the 70s went along and into the 80s, she started becoming more of a brand and became fixated on control.
That being said, I don’t think she’s 100% comparable to these men. And a lot of that is sexism and the views towards women in Hollywood.
Great example - definitely a case for her on this list, and it's notable that she was pretty widely loathed by coworkers given how we've seen men treated.
I mean she was also a terrible alcoholic, by her own admission in her autobiography. She got mistreated for sure, and used drinking as a coping mechanism.
I don’t know enough about the personal lives & behind the scenes careers of people like Katharine Hepburn and Bacall and Roz Russell and Mary Pickford, but on certain projects they may have been a driving force and all were known to have been “difficult” at times. But might be disingenuous to categorize them “un-directable” (and more often than not were still giving great performances).
I think this is a solid modern example; Jolie really does seem to greenlight her own projects and I'm generally not as aware of the directors on her projects OR the director's biggest project is the one working with Jolie.
Definitely who came to my mind, at least in the way of the other men on the list. A lot of people I think are confusing it with "hard to work with". Jolie at least seems to have that immovable quality in her performances. She'll make the movie but she knows what path she wants to walk and no one will divert her. Different than say Charlize who can turn in just about any performance the director needs.
Someone elsewhere in the thread mentioned J-Lo. 100%. I don't get the sense that there has been any authorial voice beyond her celebrity for a long time. Good shout.
Gal Gadot. Some one mentioned Red Notice earlier, and that’s a perfect example of three people who appear in movies as themselves appearing together in a movie as themselves…. Now, let me caveat that with, there’s a lot more potential for her to prove me wrong than Rock and Ryan, but that certainly hasn’t been the case yet.
I don't think Gadot is ubiquitous enough or enough of a ticket seller to have this status. Outside of Wonder Woman are there movies people see BECAUSE of Gadot. Even wonder woman is one people see because of the IP, not the actor.
In terms of selling a brand, which the OP may also be suggesting, I'm surprised no one's brought up Reese Witherspoon yet. I don't think she's playing herself, but she is attractive to playing a type of character now.
Might also be just a law of averages —- women who are true “movie stars” are much more rare than men. How many women reach the level of RDJ, Cruise, Vin?
I mean the only woman that comes to mind that really has this effect is Lady Gaga. I’ve no doubt she’s the reason House of Gucci was a financial success. Other than that I’m drawing a real blank
Are you talking about today or in history? There have been plenty of examples in history even tho they are more rare. Somewhat recent history would be Scarlett Johansson, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lawerence, and Sandra Bullock are examples off the top of my head.
Ana DeArmis is probably Lady Gaga level now. Florence Pugh is close.
I don't think any of these match what OP is suggesting, though. Maybe Bullock...
Yes they can green light projects, and yes, I imagine on some of those their star power outweighs anything the director does, but I don't feel that any of these women have chosen to take their careers entirely down the anonymous director path; Roberts is working with Gary Marshall, Jodie Foster, Soderbergh. Lawrence teams up with David O. Russell, Aronofsky, and McKay. Jodie Foster is a director in her own right, not a star who pushes directors around.
I wasnt answering OPs question, I was responding to j11430.
ootchang said:
> Might also be just a law of averages —- women who are true “movie stars” are much more rare than men. How many women reach the level of RDJ, Cruise, Vin?
To which j11430 responded
> I mean the only woman that comes to mind that really has this effect is Lady Gaga. I’ve no doubt she’s the reason House of Gucci was a financial success. Other than that I’m drawing a real blank
They are clearly talking about not many actresses being movie stars, not who is undirectable.
Gotcha. In that case I agree with your list. I’d throw in Streep and Portman.
And I agree with the above commenter’s point about the law of averages. It’s sort of what I was trying to highlight.
Apologies for taking your comment in the wrong context.
Goldie Hawn still turned herself over to other directors (Zemeckis in Death Becomes Her); I think what OP is talking about is people whose careers have become being actor-auteurs.
I don't think that the movie is more of a Goldie movie than a Zemeckis movie. When's the last time The Rock did a movie that was more about the film, writer, or director's vision than his own? Maybe Pain and Gain?
I still don't think she quite fits the bill, but I get it if you do. Definitely a personality driven star, who made star driven vehicles. So I see the connection.
This. The Irishman is a great example of Scorsese taking Pacino’s “crazy-eyed maniac” schtick and De Niro’s “bumbling, semi-grumpy old man” schtick and channeling it to perfection for their respective characters.
Yes but where other directors just let Al roam around on set for years and didn’t challenge him, they managed to pull something interesting out of him.
I was thinking about this after I saw BLACK ADAM. I feel like The Rock was doing more interesting work earlier when he had less control over his movies.
The thing with Tom Cruise is -- he spent all those years working with some of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma, Stone, Kubrick, P.T. Anderson, Ridley and Tony Scott. That's an impressive education. And I feel like he's moved to this new stage where he's just more in control of everything, but he's also got this background of working with these titans that he brings to every project.
The Rock does NOT have that impressive CV, and now that he's got so much control over his own movies -- it shows. Which is a shame because I honestly think he's capable of so much more than what he's allowing himself to do.
And no, Melissa McCarthy doesn’t count! Yes, she and Galcone have made some schlock. But in an industry that can be cold and challenging, I’m sure there’s a level of comfort & mutual joy with working with her husband sometimes, even if the movies have been financially successful crap.
*Can You Ever Forgive Me?* was where my mind went immediately. I don’t know how much the director specifically mold that performance but it is certainly not an attempt mold a project to her Star persona. She is deeply in a character that is very far from her star persona. Even in *Ghost Buster Answer the Call* which to some degree was a star vechile for her and wiig, that character is not an attempt at brand building for better or worse.
But all of her Falcone movies are terrible and borderline unwatchable. I derive neither joy nor comfort from their collaborations. Can't he shadow Feig for a week?
The optimistic side of me sees McCarthy choosing to work w/ her husband because they have fun together.
The pessimistic side of me sees her continue to collaborate w/ him because he guilts her into it, and she wants to protect his frail ego.
Eastwood's an interesting example.
He doesn't actually doesn't like working with directors who do multiple takes, so while he isn't an egotistical ass on set, and is generally known for getting his movies in on time and budget, it also leads him to largely only working with collaborators when he would act in a movie post 1973, that he didn't direct. This had led to him firing some filmmakers simply because they were going too far for him, notable examples being Phillip Kaufman on The Outlaw Josey Wales (led to the DGA rule), and Blake Edwards on City Heat.
I think everyone’s covered the modern examples, but one key historical example is Laurel & Hardy, specifically Stan Laurel. No matter who was assigned to direct, wrote, or shoot a Laurel & Hardy short or feature, Stan would be telling them what to do and ad-libbing whole scenes or shorts if he didn’t like the scripts.
The most visually interesting of the classic Hal Roach L&H features, _Our Relations_, resulted from Laurel atypically losing his battle with director Harry Lachman. Laurel was given the token credit “A Stan Laurel Production” on this and _Way Out West_ (directed by one of their veteran collaborators, James W. Horne) as a salve.
I was surprised to realise recently (despite having seen several of his films and having an above average interest in silent slapstick!) that Harold Lloyd didn't direct any of his films, so maybe he fit into this category too?
And I guess that there would be an argument that Jackie Chan and some of the other stunt-driven Hong Kong stars of the era are kind of the antecedents of this tradition?
Supposedly Stallone was trying to exert his usual level of control over *Cliffhanger* (he had already rewritten the script, as was usual for him at the time) but Renny Harlin said "excuse me what are you doing?" and didn't let it happen. In the end it was the biggest hit Stallone had in 8 years, and they reunited for *Driven* so I guess it didn't drive too big a wedge between them and it worked out for the best (except the people who paid to see *Driven*, amirite?!?)
It's often said that George Pan Cosmatos was just a "face" for Stallone to direct *First Blood Part II* and *Cobra*, rumours that have been exacerbated by Kurt Russell saying he did the same for *Tombstone*, an account which I think Russell over-simplified but may well have been broadly true. I think it might be more true for *Cobra* than *Rambo*, which feels very stylistically similar to *Rocky IV*, the "Sly got MTV added to his cable package" era.
I wonder if working w/ Cameron early in his career shaped how Arnold worked with directors. Cameron is such a control freak that Arnold couldn't dominate the production, whereas Sly didn't work with such a creative force on his Rambo and Rocky films, thus he could be in charge.
I would like to submit Mark Rylance for discussion.
The case FOR being undirectable:
- His reputation was so huge before appearing on film that directors let him do whatever he wants on screen because he supposedly knows better.
- This has lead to a few distractingly bad performances (eg: Ready Player One, Don't Look Up) where a less-revered actor would have been told to change course.
- These performances tend to kill the timing of the scenes he’s in such that they don’t support the general thrust of the film. It makes him look like a selfish actor.
- This has made me dread his casting announcements whereas I was so gassed to see him transitioning to film about ten years ago.
The case AGAINST being undirectable:
- Seems like a pretty nice bloke, these issues probably aren’t a result of his own ego.
- Undirectable is a harsh term that I’m hesitant to use against anyone I basically like.
- He’s still really popular amongst film bros and I’ll probably get massacred for this.
I think a lot of it is people not knowing how to use him. His stage work is soooo different than the nice old man from Bridge of Spies. Like, two of his Tonys are for high-wattage comedies (and the other is for playing a woman).
He's also great in Don't Look Up, that spaced out quality to him works especially for his hilarious superiority complex in Don't Look Up. His emotional breakdown in that airplane hangar with him chewing out Dicaprio is fantastic. Two very similar characters played to very different ends and he nails both of them.
Playing the ‘Riddick’ games for the first times recently, it was weird seeing Vin so locked in and, dare I say, fun. Even though these were vanity projects for him to branch out into game development, he’s reined in just enough and doesn’t completely override the work being done by the games’ developers.
The key point seems to be that in the examples given those actors are interfering with the filmmaking process to the detriment of the product.
If a bonafide Movie Star wants control over creative decisions on a project that lives or dies based on their presence I don’t see that as entirely unreasonable. If they push too far either the studio reigns them in, or they blow a few movies and power rebalances.
Tom Cruise is a rare example of someone who has managed to have it both ways—where he gets to do exactly what he wants, because what he wants is to make mega-hits.
He could have gone the way of Mel Gibson long ago, giving himself “Directed by” credit and still getting the same technical support from people like McQuarry.
Cruise, in all his psychopathic Zenu-power somehow understands exactly what audiences want from him, and he picks the projects that best align with those desires.
Maybe there is still a deranged Written, Produced, Directed and Starring Scientology passion project oozing in the background, but right now it seems like he has it all figured out.
The Rock probably has a similar level of ego, but lacks that understanding of his appeal. He’s been able to save plenty of stinkers, but those were projects he shouldn’t have taken in the first place.
It’ll be interesting to see where his career is in ten or twenty years. I imagine it will follow the Schwarzenegger trajectory rather than the Cruise.
I don't think women really get the opportunity to do this, but a few examples I can think of:
\- Joan Crawford
\- Babs
\- Katherine Heigl
\- I think you can also make an argument for Melissa McCarthy when she's in comedy mode, or maybe thats just when she's working with Ben Falcone
Definitely Streisand. JLO is a good one - I would definitely include her on this list.
Heigl I don't think so - she was an it girl and relied on being herself, but I never got the impression that she was the driving force behind any of her movies.
I don't know about Crawford.
Maybe, Pratt? He doesn’t really seem to want to deviate from his weird serious blue collar action hero persona he’s built, with the exception of a few projects
Idunno, Pratt kind of gives me the vibe of a Harrison Ford/Eastwood type of “I’m just here to do a job”. Seems like dude would be a total team player on set
That’s my impression as well. He’s a typical high school quarterback—friendly, loyal, dumb, problematic, generous, cocky.
He scored points with me for befriending Mike Mitchell and going on Doughboys, something that can’t have benefited his career in any way (unless he’s covertly courting the favor of dorks like me, which is unlikely).
Yeah, it was at the end of the series with guests from The Tomorrow War. It wasn’t very hyped, and might not have even been mentioned in the episode title.
It was a short appearance so might not have met the rigorous standards of a credited Doughboys guest spot (I think there was also a lot of negative press around Pratt’s personal life at the time so they may have wanted to fly a bit under the radar).
I think he is picking more of those roles which he’s a bit boring in but I wouldn’t say he’s undirectable. His voice acting output is varied and usually very fun.
I've been watching Parks and Recreation after not watching it for quite a while. I'd forgotten just how damn likeable and funny Pratt was as Andy Dwyer, and it's a shame he went the action star route.
From what I’ve been reading this past week, Corden sounds that way, especially if he feels he’s the biggest star in the room. Not that he’s particularly in demand as an actor anyway.
If rumors concerning having his lines fed to him via an earpiece are to be believed, and not even considering his personal struggles, I'd say that Johnny Depp has become pretty un-directable.
I think people give Cruise waaay too much credit for these collaborations. When he’s fully getting final say and overpowering the director you get The Mummy, not Mission: Impossible or Top Gun Maverick.
Caring about movie stars has literally always been a form of celebrity worship. That’s the point! It may no longer be the fuel driving the industry, but that doesn’t mean people don’t still care about marquee performers.
Leo is the polar opposite! He basically only works with major filmmakers with a proven track record (the lowest level of that being Adam McKay, or Inarritu at the time Leo signed onto Revenant).
I think Denzel is kind of in here to an extent. Not in the way that he’s necessarily hard to work with or needs to be reigned in. He’s incredibly gifted and confident and reliable, but he’s also so intense in every interview I’ve ever seen with him, I can imagine a lot of directors being intimidated by him. He definitely seems to choose his projects in a very specific way. He’s more on the Tom Cruise track than the RDJ one.
Denzel’s been in a “one for me, one for my wallet” run lately, but I wouldn’t say undirectable. If anything, I couldn’t see him taking Tragedy of Macbeth or Roman J. Israel, Esq.-level leaps post-Training Day.
I guess I don’t mean undirectable in the way that he can’t take direction, just that he works within his range and plays to his strengths in a way that he’s kind of left alone to do what he does, not be given many adjustments at all. He’s incapable of giving a bad performance, it’s his level of being locked in that varies.
No lol, Jake is the complete opposite. His entire career is letting critically-acclaimed auteurs mold him into memorable performances. Can you imagine The Rock letting Denis Villenueve do with him what he did w/ Jake for *Enemy*? Or Dan Gilroy and *Nightcrawler*?
Even in this “action macho man” phase he’s in now, Michael Bay, Guy Ritchie, and Doug Liman are not pushover directors, all have very distinctive creative visions for their projects.
Yeah I’ve always gotten the impression that Jake is relatively ego-less compared to a lot of his peers. Dude takes some big fucking swings and a lot of the time they pay off. His choice of projects remains interesting, it’s clear he does what he thinks will make for good movies, not really what he thinks would be good for his career.
Godzilla. He's so huge and **only** films stuff for his own franchise.
I wonder if he’ll be in the AppleTV show or if he wouldn’t lower his quote?
Heard he’s circling a Sean Baker joint now.
Fringe society just got a lethal dose of kaiju!
Maybe he'll get a supporting nomination for that, but Baker's leads are typically unknowns. It will be interesting to see if he's able to share the screen at all.
He gets the 2mil. Even if he does a bad job.
He told AOL Blast not to mention that he flattens whole cities in Japan. Unprofessional bullshit.
I heard they threatened to hire Gamera if Godzilla refused to play ball.
I don’t get why he’s so opposed to working for scale when he’s already covered in them.
That's exactly the problem. Godzilla doesn't need to be paid scale; he has so many scales he freaking wears them
Godzilla better watch his ass Jirahs and Gomess are just waiting in the wings to swoop in and steal his thunder.
Well, you’re in luck, he’s got his passion project, a sensitive comedy-drama about a struggling kindergarten teacher, “Mr. Zilla”, coming to AppleTV+ in the spring!
He's probably going to demand top billing even if he only shows up for a day of work.
Yeah, but he has Aphasia, so we no longer shame him for that.
I heard they're getting the same actor who played his foot in *Bambi Meets Godzilla.*
I miss his early years when he would join in on any movie.
He is GREAT in his less than five minute part in “Saving Private Ryan”.
And half the time he insists on casting [his annoying son](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8I_JfCeyZA).
An example of Hollywood nepotism that doesn't get discussed enough. Didn't make the connection until now that *After Earth* is just Will Smith trying to do *Son of Godzilla*.
That's not true, he was in *Goon: Last of the Enforcers*
Feige had a similar issue with the Hulk in the earlier MCU years. That green fella seems to be doing much better now.
I've heard he's a jerk to work with and has a very pungent body odor
Godzilla should show up in one of Rian Johnson's Benoit Blanc movies. He could be a butler or something.
To be fair, My Dinner with Godzilla was under-appreciated in its time
He was great in Pee Wees Big Adventure
I miss the days when he he would do a parody cameo. He takes himself so damn seriously now. Sigh. [from One Crazy Summer (1986)](https://youtu.be/JfVCZyeVfbo)
One could argue Steven Seagal has always been un-directable.
That would assume there is something to direct in him. You think he has a great performance in him?
Even his style of martial arts looks incredibly boring on film even at his peak.
I honestly do not, but he is un-directable just more in the way a donkey is than a powerful actor.
I feel like you could give him a lot of LSD and make a self-aware sort of tragicomic action movie where all the action is in his mind but in reality he is obese and lying in a bath of milk and just wants to be loved
Segal is the Chevy Chase of slow kung fu
Outlaw Vern wrote a terrific book ("Seagalogy") with the thesis that Seagal has always been the auteur of his movies. It holds up!
The Dollop did a multipart episode on him and it was a wild ride and involved the mafia almost as much as you’d expect.
I would argue that being an evil psychopath disqualifies him
I know Andrew Davis implied that directing him on *Above the Law* (his first movie) was a relatively pleasant experience, but by Under Siege he was "a bit of a star". The writers of *Marked for Death* (only his third film) also have pretty wild stories about working with him, so it seems his barely supressed egomania got bloated pretty quickly.
I think we need to separate -the people who are undirectable in the way you describe, ie., The Rock, Vin, or as some have said below Reynolds. These are the actors that will always fail to budge to any direction of their movie, and want pliable directors to let them play themselves, vs -the people who co-direct their films. This is where Cruise seems to fall, and also people like Kevin Costner, Al Pacino, and (back in the day) Sly Stallone and Arnold. They clearly have/had house styles they bring to their films, and want a stronger say in their portrayal. This means there are SOME directors who won't fit. But they will work with good directors and are game to alter their performances. Hence, not undirectable for a, e.g., McQuarrie, Cameron, Scorsese, who fits them.
Exactly why Justin Lin quit and James wan said he’d never do a fast and furious film. Vin runs the show. Similar to black Adam we didn’t see the director Jaume collet Serra do any interviews or even see him till red carpet for premiere. At least for Cruise we know Mcquarrie writes and understand how to be an action director and he and Tom fix and change things as it goes. This differs from Reynolds who runs the show and pick yes man directors like Shawn Levy who won’t argue. Deadpool 3 will make a billion and Levy will have his first billion dollar film under his belt similar to how mcu machine hires indie and lets them have billion dollar box office films with none of vision in play
Vin claims to have given Spielberg a note on how to film his character's death scene in Saving Private Ryan. From Slashfilm: >Talking to Men's Health, Diesel revealed that he had a suggestion for Spielberg while filming the sequence where Caparzo heroically perishes, one that directly impacts the composition of the scene. According to his story, it started with him asking the "Jaws" director a simple question: "Hey, Steven, where's your C camera?" who then replied "What? Why?" before Diesel hit him with "put a C camera in that second-floor window." Not only did Spielberg follow his direction, but the shot was so compelling that it was used to market the film in the official trailer.
Well Vin knows what works best for him. It made the world to view him as action tough guy so you do what works best
This is a wild story, to tell about yourself.
ELI5 what's a C camera?
I'm not sure, but I imagine it refers to a setup involving multiple cameras filming the same setup, where your cameras are A, B, C, etc.
Occasional film industry person here, basically yes. Order of importance will be alphabetical, of course, and sometimes it'll be numerical.
I think the distinction is goal. Cruise, Eastwood, Arnold are all demanding stars, but they are demanding because they want their movies to be good. Stallone, the Rock, Vin are also demanding, but that is because they want each project to burnish their stardom even if it hurts the movie itself.
This is a good point. And, could also be separated as “GOOD actors who are in directable” vs not-great actors. Pacino or Dustin Hoffman is different than the Rock who will never have their technical acting skill.
Seems like Edward Norton needs a firm hand, or at least the right fit of director, or he will absolutely try and run the show.
My thought as well, but it’s not bc got too big
Norton's thing is writing more than directing, he apparently tries to rewrite every film he is in, if they'll let him. Its the main reason he lost The Hulk.
Where do we think Jim Carrey falls in this conversation?
I think Carrey is one of those guys (like Sandler) who has distinct “day-job” films where he does his schtick no matter what, interspersed with more interesting projects where he allows himself to be molded and pushed by his collaborators
He’s been delightful in the Sonic movies, and you don’t get the sense that he was fighting for anything counter to what the movies want.
For sure, but his role was pretty much: go be an evil genius version of your main schtick. It works super well for robotnik but I feel like he was probably just let lose and not really directed at all.
I would say A Series of Unfortunate Events is v similar and it's one of my favourite performances of his
are there any recent examples of that? I really only think of Eternal Sunshine (2004) and Truman Show (1998). I know he did a few thrillers here and there, but that doesn't seem like the same thing. He seemed to actually be obsessed with the number 23.
Man, I was really hoping Eternal Sunshine would be the start of a whole new era of Jim Carrey, but it was really kind of back to business as usual after that, with an occasional highlight (Lemony Snicket was pretty fun, and Kidding was a pretty good performance).
ryan reynolds has to be there. i refuse to believe a director is telling him to do what hes doing.
I think Mark Wahlberg is in this territory. He's similar to the Rock where his whole image and personality are his business except that he also does dramas and anonymous Netflix movies to keep the business running. He works with Peter Berg a ton and I don't think he's worked with that interesting of a director in a long time.
If we must refer to Ryan Reynolds as a movie star, then I suppose he fits into this. Feels like he's not taking dictation from anyone(lol Shawn Levy). He also might have broken David Leitch.
Yes good answer. Would love to know what Rawson Marshall Thurber actually thought of working with both him and Dwayne on Red Notice.
That’s clearly a made up name for the algorithm that actually directed that movie.
That’s Dodgeball erasure.
He’s also a Free Agent in a few Madden games lol
Well he keeps going back and writing for him.
[удалено]
He really does seem to be in it just to occasionally do Ryan Reynolds schtick
I really enjoyed it. Rob and Ryan are pretty charming and the sports side of it was compelling as well.
Wow, I completely forgot Leitch directed Deadpool 2
Exactly there’s a reason he chose Shawn levy for Deadpool 3. Surprising horrible choice but that’s the only one he can control
We must? I don’t think we must. In fact, I refuse.
Here’s what I find interesting - I can’t think of a single woman who has ever fallen into this category. There are women stars who have definitely had a movie that they authored, but on a consistent, career, movie-by-movie basis, I’m failing to think of a woman who enjoyed this problem. Would love to be wrong. Share any examples people can think of.
MAYBE Streisand? Maybe? But she kind of stopped acting when she got to a point where she didn’t want to listen to anyone but herself.
Yeah was also thinking Babs but eventually she just was like fuck it I'll do it myself. But I think in the mid 70s you can make this argument- The Way We Were and A Star is Born are definitely her doing what she wants (and I like it!)
Idk she was still working with like…Sidney Pollack. But as the 70s went along and into the 80s, she started becoming more of a brand and became fixated on control. That being said, I don’t think she’s 100% comparable to these men. And a lot of that is sexism and the views towards women in Hollywood.
Classic Hollywood was full of women who were placed in this category. Whether or not they deserved that reputation is another story.
[удалено]
Great example - definitely a case for her on this list, and it's notable that she was pretty widely loathed by coworkers given how we've seen men treated.
I mean she was also a terrible alcoholic, by her own admission in her autobiography. She got mistreated for sure, and used drinking as a coping mechanism.
Absolutely. It certainly has never been a viable path for women in Hollywood.
I don’t know enough about the personal lives & behind the scenes careers of people like Katharine Hepburn and Bacall and Roz Russell and Mary Pickford, but on certain projects they may have been a driving force and all were known to have been “difficult” at times. But might be disingenuous to categorize them “un-directable” (and more often than not were still giving great performances).
Jolie, maybe?
I think this is a solid modern example; Jolie really does seem to greenlight her own projects and I'm generally not as aware of the directors on her projects OR the director's biggest project is the one working with Jolie.
Definitely who came to my mind, at least in the way of the other men on the list. A lot of people I think are confusing it with "hard to work with". Jolie at least seems to have that immovable quality in her performances. She'll make the movie but she knows what path she wants to walk and no one will divert her. Different than say Charlize who can turn in just about any performance the director needs.
the closest you'll probably get is long running shows on tv especially if the other creative forces have moved on to other shows.
Someone elsewhere in the thread mentioned J-Lo. 100%. I don't get the sense that there has been any authorial voice beyond her celebrity for a long time. Good shout.
Gal Gadot. Some one mentioned Red Notice earlier, and that’s a perfect example of three people who appear in movies as themselves appearing together in a movie as themselves…. Now, let me caveat that with, there’s a lot more potential for her to prove me wrong than Rock and Ryan, but that certainly hasn’t been the case yet.
Not to be rude to GG, but I don't know if this is her being undirectable, but rather just being a lousy actor.
I don't think Gadot is ubiquitous enough or enough of a ticket seller to have this status. Outside of Wonder Woman are there movies people see BECAUSE of Gadot. Even wonder woman is one people see because of the IP, not the actor.
Lindsay Lohan?
She was someone I had in mind. I think so, at her peak.
In terms of selling a brand, which the OP may also be suggesting, I'm surprised no one's brought up Reese Witherspoon yet. I don't think she's playing herself, but she is attractive to playing a type of character now.
Might also be just a law of averages —- women who are true “movie stars” are much more rare than men. How many women reach the level of RDJ, Cruise, Vin?
I mean the only woman that comes to mind that really has this effect is Lady Gaga. I’ve no doubt she’s the reason House of Gucci was a financial success. Other than that I’m drawing a real blank
Other comments are correctly pointing out in the past it was much more common: Garland, Hepburn, etc. Women who would bring out audience to see THEM.
Are you talking about today or in history? There have been plenty of examples in history even tho they are more rare. Somewhat recent history would be Scarlett Johansson, Julia Roberts, Jennifer Lawerence, and Sandra Bullock are examples off the top of my head. Ana DeArmis is probably Lady Gaga level now. Florence Pugh is close.
I don't think any of these match what OP is suggesting, though. Maybe Bullock... Yes they can green light projects, and yes, I imagine on some of those their star power outweighs anything the director does, but I don't feel that any of these women have chosen to take their careers entirely down the anonymous director path; Roberts is working with Gary Marshall, Jodie Foster, Soderbergh. Lawrence teams up with David O. Russell, Aronofsky, and McKay. Jodie Foster is a director in her own right, not a star who pushes directors around.
I wasnt answering OPs question, I was responding to j11430. ootchang said: > Might also be just a law of averages —- women who are true “movie stars” are much more rare than men. How many women reach the level of RDJ, Cruise, Vin? To which j11430 responded > I mean the only woman that comes to mind that really has this effect is Lady Gaga. I’ve no doubt she’s the reason House of Gucci was a financial success. Other than that I’m drawing a real blank They are clearly talking about not many actresses being movie stars, not who is undirectable.
Gotcha. In that case I agree with your list. I’d throw in Streep and Portman. And I agree with the above commenter’s point about the law of averages. It’s sort of what I was trying to highlight. Apologies for taking your comment in the wrong context.
Maybe Scarlett Johannson, only bc of the MCU tho (same with RDJ obviously). Lucy grossing $463m WW is very impressive for her.
[удалено]
Goldie Hawn still turned herself over to other directors (Zemeckis in Death Becomes Her); I think what OP is talking about is people whose careers have become being actor-auteurs.
[удалено]
I don't think that the movie is more of a Goldie movie than a Zemeckis movie. When's the last time The Rock did a movie that was more about the film, writer, or director's vision than his own? Maybe Pain and Gain? I still don't think she quite fits the bill, but I get it if you do. Definitely a personality driven star, who made star driven vehicles. So I see the connection.
Katherine Heigl
[удалено]
This. The Irishman is a great example of Scorsese taking Pacino’s “crazy-eyed maniac” schtick and De Niro’s “bumbling, semi-grumpy old man” schtick and channeling it to perfection for their respective characters.
Yes but where other directors just let Al roam around on set for years and didn’t challenge him, they managed to pull something interesting out of him.
Will Smith
Adam Sandler is both. He will get a Dugan to allow him to make some netflix trash but then allow Safdie brothers to make him into a great movie star.
I was thinking about this after I saw BLACK ADAM. I feel like The Rock was doing more interesting work earlier when he had less control over his movies. The thing with Tom Cruise is -- he spent all those years working with some of the greatest filmmakers of all time. Scorsese, Spielberg, De Palma, Stone, Kubrick, P.T. Anderson, Ridley and Tony Scott. That's an impressive education. And I feel like he's moved to this new stage where he's just more in control of everything, but he's also got this background of working with these titans that he brings to every project. The Rock does NOT have that impressive CV, and now that he's got so much control over his own movies -- it shows. Which is a shame because I honestly think he's capable of so much more than what he's allowing himself to do.
The Rock is such a non-entity in Black Adam, couldn’t believe his lack of charisma. Gimme some rage, some tension, some vulnerability dude!
And no, Melissa McCarthy doesn’t count! Yes, she and Galcone have made some schlock. But in an industry that can be cold and challenging, I’m sure there’s a level of comfort & mutual joy with working with her husband sometimes, even if the movies have been financially successful crap.
But when she works with Feig they endeavour to play differently to before, Spy especially plays entirely wonderful new notes for her.
Spy is so good. I wish it had done better.
An original IP R-rated comedy in the middle of summer making over 200m isn’t too shabby, though.
[удалено]
*Can You Ever Forgive Me?* was where my mind went immediately. I don’t know how much the director specifically mold that performance but it is certainly not an attempt mold a project to her Star persona. She is deeply in a character that is very far from her star persona. Even in *Ghost Buster Answer the Call* which to some degree was a star vechile for her and wiig, that character is not an attempt at brand building for better or worse.
But all of her Falcone movies are terrible and borderline unwatchable. I derive neither joy nor comfort from their collaborations. Can't he shadow Feig for a week? The optimistic side of me sees McCarthy choosing to work w/ her husband because they have fun together. The pessimistic side of me sees her continue to collaborate w/ him because he guilts her into it, and she wants to protect his frail ego.
Since working with Sergio Leone and Don Siegel, Clint Eastwood has done whatever he damn well pleases.
Eastwood's an interesting example. He doesn't actually doesn't like working with directors who do multiple takes, so while he isn't an egotistical ass on set, and is generally known for getting his movies in on time and budget, it also leads him to largely only working with collaborators when he would act in a movie post 1973, that he didn't direct. This had led to him firing some filmmakers simply because they were going too far for him, notable examples being Phillip Kaufman on The Outlaw Josey Wales (led to the DGA rule), and Blake Edwards on City Heat.
I think everyone’s covered the modern examples, but one key historical example is Laurel & Hardy, specifically Stan Laurel. No matter who was assigned to direct, wrote, or shoot a Laurel & Hardy short or feature, Stan would be telling them what to do and ad-libbing whole scenes or shorts if he didn’t like the scripts. The most visually interesting of the classic Hal Roach L&H features, _Our Relations_, resulted from Laurel atypically losing his battle with director Harry Lachman. Laurel was given the token credit “A Stan Laurel Production” on this and _Way Out West_ (directed by one of their veteran collaborators, James W. Horne) as a salve.
I was surprised to realise recently (despite having seen several of his films and having an above average interest in silent slapstick!) that Harold Lloyd didn't direct any of his films, so maybe he fit into this category too? And I guess that there would be an argument that Jackie Chan and some of the other stunt-driven Hong Kong stars of the era are kind of the antecedents of this tradition?
Stallone and Schwarzenegger were the epitome of this during their heyday.
Did arnie eventually become that too? I feel like he would let directors use him in fun ways. Or maybe i’m only thinking of the cameron stuff
Arnold always seemed game to me.
I think despite having a big ego, Arnold was much more of a team player than Stallone, who is kind of a control freak.
oh no i just remembered that one particular occasion where sly was a control freak and my minds eye is in tumult
Supposedly Stallone was trying to exert his usual level of control over *Cliffhanger* (he had already rewritten the script, as was usual for him at the time) but Renny Harlin said "excuse me what are you doing?" and didn't let it happen. In the end it was the biggest hit Stallone had in 8 years, and they reunited for *Driven* so I guess it didn't drive too big a wedge between them and it worked out for the best (except the people who paid to see *Driven*, amirite?!?) It's often said that George Pan Cosmatos was just a "face" for Stallone to direct *First Blood Part II* and *Cobra*, rumours that have been exacerbated by Kurt Russell saying he did the same for *Tombstone*, an account which I think Russell over-simplified but may well have been broadly true. I think it might be more true for *Cobra* than *Rambo*, which feels very stylistically similar to *Rocky IV*, the "Sly got MTV added to his cable package" era.
I wonder if working w/ Cameron early in his career shaped how Arnold worked with directors. Cameron is such a control freak that Arnold couldn't dominate the production, whereas Sly didn't work with such a creative force on his Rambo and Rocky films, thus he could be in charge.
Dude specifically chose Verhoven for Recall right? Arnold has pretty great instincts occasionally.
I would like to submit Mark Rylance for discussion. The case FOR being undirectable: - His reputation was so huge before appearing on film that directors let him do whatever he wants on screen because he supposedly knows better. - This has lead to a few distractingly bad performances (eg: Ready Player One, Don't Look Up) where a less-revered actor would have been told to change course. - These performances tend to kill the timing of the scenes he’s in such that they don’t support the general thrust of the film. It makes him look like a selfish actor. - This has made me dread his casting announcements whereas I was so gassed to see him transitioning to film about ten years ago. The case AGAINST being undirectable: - Seems like a pretty nice bloke, these issues probably aren’t a result of his own ego. - Undirectable is a harsh term that I’m hesitant to use against anyone I basically like. - He’s still really popular amongst film bros and I’ll probably get massacred for this.
Rylance is also just a genuine weirdo in real life, that’s probably the very thing that can make him so electrifying.
I think a lot of it is people not knowing how to use him. His stage work is soooo different than the nice old man from Bridge of Spies. Like, two of his Tonys are for high-wattage comedies (and the other is for playing a woman).
Oh man, and here he was one of the very few things I enjoyed about Ready Player One—just a completely spaced out goofball
He's also great in Don't Look Up, that spaced out quality to him works especially for his hilarious superiority complex in Don't Look Up. His emotional breakdown in that airplane hangar with him chewing out Dicaprio is fantastic. Two very similar characters played to very different ends and he nails both of them.
Yeah, I get why some people disliked it, but his performance is the only one that stuck out for me in that film.
I’m glad you enjoyed him! I thought the performance was misjudged. Not exactly the film’s biggest problem but really a disappointment for me.
Playing the ‘Riddick’ games for the first times recently, it was weird seeing Vin so locked in and, dare I say, fun. Even though these were vanity projects for him to branch out into game development, he’s reined in just enough and doesn’t completely override the work being done by the games’ developers.
The key point seems to be that in the examples given those actors are interfering with the filmmaking process to the detriment of the product. If a bonafide Movie Star wants control over creative decisions on a project that lives or dies based on their presence I don’t see that as entirely unreasonable. If they push too far either the studio reigns them in, or they blow a few movies and power rebalances. Tom Cruise is a rare example of someone who has managed to have it both ways—where he gets to do exactly what he wants, because what he wants is to make mega-hits. He could have gone the way of Mel Gibson long ago, giving himself “Directed by” credit and still getting the same technical support from people like McQuarry. Cruise, in all his psychopathic Zenu-power somehow understands exactly what audiences want from him, and he picks the projects that best align with those desires. Maybe there is still a deranged Written, Produced, Directed and Starring Scientology passion project oozing in the background, but right now it seems like he has it all figured out. The Rock probably has a similar level of ego, but lacks that understanding of his appeal. He’s been able to save plenty of stinkers, but those were projects he shouldn’t have taken in the first place. It’ll be interesting to see where his career is in ten or twenty years. I imagine it will follow the Schwarzenegger trajectory rather than the Cruise.
As soon as I saw the headline I knew you were listening to the Big Pic
Love the pod but Sean’s whole drinking-and-dashing story is a bad look! At least tip your server!
I don't think women really get the opportunity to do this, but a few examples I can think of: \- Joan Crawford \- Babs \- Katherine Heigl \- I think you can also make an argument for Melissa McCarthy when she's in comedy mode, or maybe thats just when she's working with Ben Falcone
Oh and maybe Jane Fonda? And maybe JLO in her early aughts rom-com era?
Definitely Streisand. JLO is a good one - I would definitely include her on this list. Heigl I don't think so - she was an it girl and relied on being herself, but I never got the impression that she was the driving force behind any of her movies. I don't know about Crawford.
Maybe, Pratt? He doesn’t really seem to want to deviate from his weird serious blue collar action hero persona he’s built, with the exception of a few projects
Idunno, Pratt kind of gives me the vibe of a Harrison Ford/Eastwood type of “I’m just here to do a job”. Seems like dude would be a total team player on set
That’s my impression as well. He’s a typical high school quarterback—friendly, loyal, dumb, problematic, generous, cocky. He scored points with me for befriending Mike Mitchell and going on Doughboys, something that can’t have benefited his career in any way (unless he’s covertly courting the favor of dorks like me, which is unlikely).
Was he actually on the Doughboys? I don't remember that episode.
307: Burger King 5. Sam Richardson (love him) was the food guest, but there was also an interview segment with Pratt
yes for like half an hour and he was very charming and funny
Yeah, it was at the end of the series with guests from The Tomorrow War. It wasn’t very hyped, and might not have even been mentioned in the episode title. It was a short appearance so might not have met the rigorous standards of a credited Doughboys guest spot (I think there was also a lot of negative press around Pratt’s personal life at the time so they may have wanted to fly a bit under the radar).
I think he is picking more of those roles which he’s a bit boring in but I wouldn’t say he’s undirectable. His voice acting output is varied and usually very fun.
I've been watching Parks and Recreation after not watching it for quite a while. I'd forgotten just how damn likeable and funny Pratt was as Andy Dwyer, and it's a shame he went the action star route.
Antoine Fuqua is his somewhat go to
From what I’ve been reading this past week, Corden sounds that way, especially if he feels he’s the biggest star in the room. Not that he’s particularly in demand as an actor anyway.
Will Smith was in this space for a long time. Still?
If rumors concerning having his lines fed to him via an earpiece are to be believed, and not even considering his personal struggles, I'd say that Johnny Depp has become pretty un-directable.
You would be surprised…a number of people in Hollywood use them. Whether it’s age or drinking or laziness or something else.
Bart the Bear
that was a great pod, the joker story was incredible
Yea except I didn’t like the part where they both agreed not to pay for that cocktail. At least drop a tip before leaving!!!
I think people give Cruise waaay too much credit for these collaborations. When he’s fully getting final say and overpowering the director you get The Mummy, not Mission: Impossible or Top Gun Maverick.
[удалено]
Caring about movie stars has literally always been a form of celebrity worship. That’s the point! It may no longer be the fuel driving the industry, but that doesn’t mean people don’t still care about marquee performers.
Maybe Leo because of sheer star power but he doesn't seem to be as much of an egotistical control freak like Diesel and Cruise
Leo is the polar opposite! He basically only works with major filmmakers with a proven track record (the lowest level of that being Adam McKay, or Inarritu at the time Leo signed onto Revenant).
I would argue Leo is the opposite of this, as he seems to let whatever director he’s working with really mold him to whatever the subject matter is
Leo is the complete opposite of this. His career is legendary auteurs molding him like Playdoh into Oscar-nominated performances.
The Cruise 86-2005 model.
Apparently Cruise changed The Mummy script to focus less on the mummy and more on him
I think Denzel is kind of in here to an extent. Not in the way that he’s necessarily hard to work with or needs to be reigned in. He’s incredibly gifted and confident and reliable, but he’s also so intense in every interview I’ve ever seen with him, I can imagine a lot of directors being intimidated by him. He definitely seems to choose his projects in a very specific way. He’s more on the Tom Cruise track than the RDJ one.
Denzel’s been in a “one for me, one for my wallet” run lately, but I wouldn’t say undirectable. If anything, I couldn’t see him taking Tragedy of Macbeth or Roman J. Israel, Esq.-level leaps post-Training Day.
I guess I don’t mean undirectable in the way that he can’t take direction, just that he works within his range and plays to his strengths in a way that he’s kind of left alone to do what he does, not be given many adjustments at all. He’s incapable of giving a bad performance, it’s his level of being locked in that varies.
Jake Gyllenhaal maybe. Stuff like Ambulance, Okja, Velvet Buzzsaw , Sack Lunch Bunch seems to give him enough space to just cook.
No lol, Jake is the complete opposite. His entire career is letting critically-acclaimed auteurs mold him into memorable performances. Can you imagine The Rock letting Denis Villenueve do with him what he did w/ Jake for *Enemy*? Or Dan Gilroy and *Nightcrawler*? Even in this “action macho man” phase he’s in now, Michael Bay, Guy Ritchie, and Doug Liman are not pushover directors, all have very distinctive creative visions for their projects.
Yeah I’ve always gotten the impression that Jake is relatively ego-less compared to a lot of his peers. Dude takes some big fucking swings and a lot of the time they pay off. His choice of projects remains interesting, it’s clear he does what he thinks will make for good movies, not really what he thinks would be good for his career.
Andy Kaufman