Jade Bahr

Now that's a pair of men I could happily accept LOL 🌈 'You know when you just get a vibe with someone': Idris Elba is determined to work with 'incredible actor' Leonardo DiCaprio after the pair got to know each other at a party Idris Elba is determined to work with Oscar-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio after the pair felt a 'vibe' between one another at a party. Actor Idris, 49, has just finished shooting a big-screen version of BBC crime drama Luther, and he is setting his sights on where he wants his career to move next. He told the Daily Mail's Richard Eden: 'I went to a friend's party recently and he was there, and we got into a conversation. 'It just felt like, you know what, I would love to work with this dude. 'He's a really nice guy and obviously he's an incredible actor but you know when you just get a vibe with someone, and you're, like, 'OK Leo, let's go at it'.' Watch this space.' Source Also speaking of cinematic parallels which I love 🎬 #seeing red heads #loving Kate Speaking of Kate

At least Cami seems in a good mood 💓

For the sake of Danny 😍

Sounds... man-heavy lol

I already posted this article but some people do need a reminder that they have no clue about a) climate change b) climate change numbers c) numbers of Leos personal carbon footprint compared with those of the industries d) THE MEANING OF THE WORD HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! e) the main goal of Leos environmental work f) criticizing others while doing absolutely nothing for the main cause is the real problem u) policy is in the main responsible here and not one single hollywood actor Mr Bolsonaro You're welcome. Rich climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio lives a carbon-intensive lifestyle, and that's (mostly) fine At the 2016 Academy Awards, Leo DiCaprio accepted his Best Actor trophy with a speech that included a passionate call to action on climate change. As inevitably as night follows day, social media was flooded with people attacking DiCaprio as a hypocrite for living a carbon-intensive lifestyle. This kind of thing has been around for as long as I've been writing about climate change. People never tire of pointing out that Al Gore lives in a "mansion" or that scientists fly all over the world to climate conferences, spewing CO2. Any time I mention a vacation online I am immediately scolded as a hypocrite by at least one of the trolls who follow me around waiting for such opportunities. It's not just conservatives or climate skeptics, either. There have always been plenty of environmentalists and liberals who scorn Gore and other climate leaders for their supposed hypocrisy. There's clearly something powerful in the critique. It elicits strong, intuitive reactions, which is rare with arguments related to climate change. But I don't think it holds up. In particular, I think it runs two different arguments together. Argument 1: Climate advocates who don't reduce their emissions are hypocrites This is the claim that really grabs people at a gut level. And it makes a certain sense: If you say carbon emissions are bad, and you emit lots of carbon, and you don't work to reduce your own carbon emissions, then either a) you don't really think carbon emissions are bad, or b) you're a hypocrite. But there's a hidden premise here, which lots of people take for granted but shouldn't. The premise is that personal emission reductions are an important part of the fight against climate change — if you take climate seriously, you take on an obligation to reduce your own emissions. Is that true? Not necessarily. It is entirely possible to believe, as many people do, that voluntary emission reductions are pointless vanity, that the only efficacious solutions to climate change involve extended, coordinated action by governments. They view the moralism around personal emissions as a distraction, a way of diverting environmentalist energy and alienating non-environmentalists. People who believe that are not engaged in hypocrisy if they fly, or buy an SUV, or eat a hamburger. They are not advocating sacrifice or asceticism; they don't believe it would do any good. They believe people will take advantage of the options available to them until some combination of regulation and innovation makes cleaner options available. If they advocate for, and are willing to abide by, taxes and regulations designed to reduce emissions, then such folks are being true to their beliefs. You might think they are wrong about the value of personal behavior, but they are not hypocrites. Is there any evidence that DiCaprio has advocated personal emission reductions or told anyone they ought to forgo planes or boats? If so, I haven't seen it. Perhaps he has done the math and realized that the emissions of any single rich person are insignificant to the big picture on climate. Here are the per capita carbon emissions of the world's top 10 overall carbon emitters: More recent data has shifted slightly, but we don't need to be all that precise. The world average is around 7 metric tons a year per person. In the US, it's around 20 metric tons. Let's say that by flying and yachting all over the world, DiCaprio is responsible for 500 times the emissions of the average American — 10,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases a year. How much is that? Here are some annual greenhouse gas emission figures, in metric tons (years range from 2010 to 2013): Global: 46 billion US: 6.673 billion California: 459.3 million Walmart: 21 million Los Angeles: 18.595 million California film industry: 8.4 million Even if extravagant by mere mortal standards, DiCaprio's personal emissions are a fart in the wind when it comes to climate change. If he vanished tomorrow, and all his emissions with him, the effect on global temperature, even on US emissions, even on film-industry emissions, would be lost in the noise. Climate change is extremely large. No single human can directly generate enough emissions to make a dent. And all indications are that DiCaprio knows that. That's why he said: "We need to support leaders around the world who do not speak for the big polluters, but who speak for all of humanity, for the indigenous people of the world, for the billions and billions of underprivileged people out there who would be most affected by this." He didn't say, "We need to buy LED lightbulbs. And avoid yachts." His focus is on political leadership. So the "hypocrisy" charge fails. You're not a hypocrite for not doing things you haven't said anyone else should do either. (Note: There are certainly people who think reducing one's personal emissions is a moral obligation, for everyone, and that high-profile climate leaders ought to lead the way. I disagree, but it's a legitimate claim. But even if you accept the claim, the conclusion is that DiCaprio is wrong, not that he's a hypocrite.) Argument 2: Public figures ought to do more climate signaling You could agree that voluntary personal emission reductions are irrelevant to the big picture on climate change and still think that high-profile public figures like DiCaprio are in a unique position to signal. Their choices and habits have outsize effects on culture. People look to them for indications about what is and isn't important, so they have an obligation to send the right signals. There's definitely something to this argument. But there are two important things to remember about it. First, if signaling is the issue, well, DiCaprio is supporting electric cars and pushing for clean energy in the film industry and building eco-resorts and supporting clean energy campaigns and starting a friggin' climate charity. Oh, and making heartfelt appeals in front of 9 million people at the Academy Awards. That's a lot of signaling! Read this piece in Rolling Stone or this one in the Guardian. DiCaprio has a long history of serious work on this issue. By any measure, he's doing better on signaling than the vast majority of wealthy, influential people. Do pictures of him on a yacht undo all that? No one's provided any evidence to support that claim. Second, note that this argument applies to all wealthy, influential people, not just the ones who advocate for action on climate change. If it is a moral good for influential people to signal that low carbon is a priority, then it is a moral good for all of them. Those who speak up about climate change are under no special obligation over and above that. All that said, yes, conspicuous consumption is a kind of signaling too — a bad kind, for reasons that go far beyond climate change. Generally, parading your hyperconsumption is corrosive to social solidarity. (Oddly, very few of the conservatives who yell at DiCaprio make this argument.) So if there's any grounds for complaint against DiCaprio, it's the same complaint fairly directed at any wealthy hyperconsumer: Signaling restraint is a gesture of social solidarity. They should all do more of it. Including the ones who never say a word about climate change. To sum up We've got to stop using fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. Doing that will mean some mix of technological, political, and social change. Undoubtedly lifestyle changes will come along with any such transition. I wouldn't presume to predict what those lifestyle changes will be. But insofar as progress on decarbonization proceeds at the pace it needs to, it will do so because lower-carbon alternatives are cheaper or more convenient, or offer features and benefits their dirty competitors can't. I have trouble envisioning voluntary restraint catching on at any scale that makes a difference. Cleaner energy will be more fun, more prosperous, better, or it won't happen. So sure, maybe DiCaprio ought to rein it in with the yachts and personal jets. But only for the same reasons all rich people ought to, not because he's advocating for better climate policy. Everyone ought to advocate for better climate policy! Policy is the big picture. If we get that right, both income inequality and emissions will decline and more people will be better off. If we get it wrong, the size of DiCaprio's boat won't matter one way or the other. Source

Speaking of picture perfect side profile + man bun goals Also same era puppy Amsterdam 😍

New pics. How men don't feel silly with such a big thing in their mouth is truly a mystery to me LMAO

According to cinemablend KOTFM will get a full theatrical release. I think the question how apple will handle the cinema/streaming thing came up here at one point. Not only will this film get the film festival premiere treatment, but will acquire a theatrical release from Paramount who will also cover the marketing costs and get a distribution fee based on box office earnings. Considering Scorsese’s new movie will be hitting Apple TV+ streaming as well, this will be the first Apple TV+ original film to get a full theatrical release compared to it only being released in select theaters for award eligibility purposes. Full article

For no other reason but hotness 🔥 Source 2006 Leo is peak Leo to me. That's all. Source

This comment from goldderby LOL But Leo never was one of the "much working actors" around. For me his filmography is the classic quality over quantity. Also nothing seem to be really "official" right now

Just posting because Leo looks hot and I need some comfort after the KOTFM bummer 😪💔

Source

Little KOTFM update (even though the article is from July 1): no fall festivals Set to skip the fall festivals: Martin Scorsese’s “Killers of the Flower Moon,” David Fincher’s “The Killer”, David O. Russell’s “Amsterdam”, Guillermo Del Toro’s “Pinocchio”, Sam Mendes’ “Empire of Light”, Steven Spielberg’s “The Fablemans,” and (possibly) Damien Chazelle’s “Babylon”. Source

Not really Leo related but he won his first award.

Camis Gonzo Girl look

David Warner (Titanic) and Paul Sorvino (Romeo & Juliet) passed away.

Stumbled about this article not sure if it was already posted. What can we expect from the new Martin Scorsese film 'Killers of the Flower Moon'? It’s been three years since the release of Martin Scorsese’s previous cinematic outing, The Irishman, featuring Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci and Al Pacino, with the acclaimed director set to return with the new crime drama, Killers of the Flower Moon. An early prediction for the Best Picture Oscar category in 2023, Scorsese’s forthcoming film deals with injustice and crime based on the non-fiction story Killers of the Flower Moon: The Osage Murders and the Birth of the FBI by David Grann. Sure to be dense and intricate, in line with his celebrated filmography, Martin Scorsese’s new film has become one of the most anticipated films of 2022. Speaking to Sight and Sound about the film in 2019, the iconic filmmaker explained his status on the film, stating, “I’ve been working with Eric Roth on the script for a few years now, and…we’re knocking away at this script, and restructuring it, rethinking it. Because it’s convenient to do a sort of detective story, but we all know what it is”. So with the release of the new Scorsese movie through Apple TV+ expected to hit cinemas later this year, let’s dive into what we can expect. What is Killers of the Flower Moon about? Focusing on the treatment of the Osage tribe in northeast Oklahoma, along the Kansas line in Pawhuska, the 27th feature film from the veteran director tells the tragic story of Mollie Burkart, one of the city’s wealthiest individuals. The plot of Killers of the Flower Moon follows Mollie’s life after her relatives, and fellow members of the Osage tribe are murdered under mysterious circumstances, forcing the involvement of the F.B.I and J. Edgar Hoover. Spiking the true story is the fact that the Osage land was rich in oil in 1897, making the tribe so wealthy it almost caused their own demise, as throughout the early 20th century, they were often violently attacked by outsiders looking to claim the black gold. Eager to avoid the detective angle to the story, Scorsese further told Sight and Sound, “I want to explore something else, and that is the nature of a whole way of thinking as being complicit in genocide. It’s dehumanising people”. Who is starring in Killers of the Flower Moon? Collaborating with Martin Scorsese for the tenth time, Robert De Niro will once again work with the director in the role of the cattleman and convicted murderer, William Hale. Meanwhile, Lily Gladstone will head up the cast as Mollie Burkart alongside Leonardo DiCaprio, who collaborates for the sixth time with the filmmaker, as Mollie’s husband, Ernest Burkhart. In addition, Oscar-nominee Jesse Plemons will play special agent Tom White and John Lithgow will feature as Prosecutor Leaward in the impressive ensemble cast. Whilst the likes of DiCaprio and De Niro are no doubt massive names on the cast list for the new film, it is The Mummy star Brendan Fraser who is attracting the most amount of publicity. Undergoing a career resurgence, Fraser appeared in the Steven Soderbergh movie No Sudden Move in 2021 and is set to work with Scorsese and Darren Aronofsky in the near future. Playing politician W.S. Hamilton in the upcoming movie Killers of the Flower Moon, time will tell just how significant Fraser’s renaissance could be. When will Killers of the Flower Moon be released? After Martin Scorsese’s previous film was released through the streaming service Netflix, the filmmaker is sharing the load by loading up his 27th movie to be released on Apple TV+ later this year. With a release date yet to be confirmed, we can expect the film to arrive online toward Christmas 2022, with a potential appearance at the Cannes Film Festival 2022. As always, this Scorsese movie will be a must-watch when it eventually arrives, grabbing the attention of audiences and critics alike. Yet to release a trailer for the new film, all that Apple has gifted to fans is a mere still from the movie which you can find, below. Source

camilamorrone Mama girl. ❤️

Leo probably since he started his foundation 1998 (oh and before I forget I'm being SARCASTIC - since some people seem to dumb to recognise sarcasm)

More from deux According to this fan account Leo is back in LA

I don't get the first sighting. Leo cozied up with that oligarchs daughter?

@MagicalI was more talking about how the public (especially men) sees Leo and not how Leo is seeing himself. Most of my 🍆 comment was also meant sarcastic in case someone didn't figured it out lol But did you ever hear Leo denying the rumor his dick is bigger than Tommy Lee Jones? I haven't 😄 It's like Alec Baldwins character said in The Departed. It's just important for a man the world knows his dick is working. It's nothing bad it's just their nature lol Once I read men who awakes in a hospital (after some trauma, unconsciousness, coma or whatever) guess what's the first thing they check?

Also this is one of Leos BEST LOOKS/HAIR EVER an no one can convince me otherwise. Source Love this 💘 Source

Things you do to sell a movie LOL Not quite sure about the jealous part though. At least they had AN AMOUNT of chemistry Gosling/Evans can only dream of.