Jade Bahr

^And yet DLU is one of his most successful movies ever. Or at least one of netflix most successful movies ever. So I'm not really convinced his private love life/enviromental behaviour is overshadowing his reputation as an actor. I think the real question is if things would be really different if he were dating someone else (what's literally none of our business I didn't even understand why people so obsessed with the age of his girlfriends LOL) and staying away from yachts? I mean in the end of the day he would be still Leonardo. Honestly I think most people don't even know the meaning of the word hypocrite. They just see something inappropriate without ANY research and spreading the word to describe their indignation. Here is an interesting article about the stretch Leo have to made as the rich climate activist he is and his carbon intensive lifestyle and that he's far away from being a so called 'hypocrite'. 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

I can't handle criticism about Leo? 😀 Give me a break. Ok. So that's really funny because I tease him every time I have the oppurtunity. Just read my posts or ask some other members here. Lots of heat discussions are going on my bank account. I just don't like to judge a person without having any proof or personal expierence. That's something different. You on the other hand makes me wonder: Why do you believe some strangers you know literally nothing about more than you believe in Leo especially as "longtime" fan? (your words) What has Leo done you lost faith in him and put bad words from others - who don't know him either - over him? (now I sound like a shrink but whatever) I don't think you're a bad person. I don't even know you. What is exactly my whole point lol

It's at least confirmed for this year by actress Cara Jade Myers:

First poster

^Beside from this I also could write you a sex story about Leo asap you could never tell it's true or not LOL So just someone is saying some shit about him in the internet doesn't mean it's true for christ sake.

I don't even get your point. Do you want him delivering "killer skills in bed"? Being not gay? More six packed? Less yachting? Less controversial? More transparent about his private life? If so I have big news for you: It's literally nothing of your business LOL

What ‘Don’t Look Up’ and ‘House of Gucci’s’ Robust BAFTA Hauls Say About the Oscar Race With SAG Awards nominations and now the BAFTA longlist, two critical groups that overlap with Oscar membership have weighed in on the awards season. First, not to be confused with actual nominations, the BAFTA Awards released its longlists across 24 categories, each having varying numbers and methods to determining them, depending on the voting chapter. Proving once again that critics and journalists don’t have the last word, despite its divided reception, Netflix’s “Don’t Look Up,” alongside the acclaimed musical “West Side Story” from 20th Century Studios, co-led the field of possible nominations still in play with 15 each. “Don’t Look Up” by Adam McKay landed among the best film, director, and original screenplay races. In addition, many of its sprawling ensemble — Leonardo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lawrence, Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep and Mark Rylance — made the top 15 in their respective categories. With film critics divided and vocal about the movie’s themes, which McKay and his co-writer David Sirota began to respond to on social media, this shines a light again on the differing opinions between critics and actual major awards voters. We don’t know how many noms for McKay’s film it will translate into, but this shows that passionate responses to movies can create waves of support, whether good or bad. You can point to films like “Green Book” (2018) as an example. The film, which also became No. 1 on Netflix after its release, was recognized by the SAG Awards for its ensemble. The actors’ branch is the largest of the Academy, and that group can have a substantial impact when they coalesce around a movie. (...) Round two voting, to determine the nominations in the member-voted categories, will open between Jan. 14-27. Nominations will be announced on Feb. 3. This will be followed by round three voting to determine the winners, which will open between Feb. 9 and Mar. 8. Full article

I mean... Bye, bye humanity

It's becoming a little frustrating sometimes I have to say.

I didn't mean I believe Leo contracted every woman in his life I rather mean I don't understand why people have everything turn into ugly when it's necessarily not.

Remember that particular time (like a frickin decade) when it was the fantasy of million of women to sign such a contract??? Just saying.

Bit disappointed Leo being snubbed but still...

I think if Leo managed a SAG nomination today his chances for another oscar nomination aren't that bad. https://www.instagram.com/sagawards/ And since SAGs loves him... We will see

What's always wonder me the most all those people who probably never met Leo knowing his sexual orientation where from exactly??? Beside from this I don't see any sense in "outing" people who cleary want their private shit private. What's coming straight to my mind when I listen to people like this Stephen Trask: I wrote briefly with that podcast lady last night via tumblr btw, she doesn't know any shit about Leo or anyone else LOL

At least according to her Leo isn't gay. Just everything else

Not lying. They both agreed to that story to cover their "true" sexuality. I think she called Taylor queer lol

Obsessed with this cover!!! 😍

edit Just leave this here because of the truth.

This comment from tumblr Kinda true lol

DO LOOK UP, LEO! Leonardo DiCaprio can’t keep his eyes off girlfriend Camila Morrone on Caribbean beach Source

Lots of backlash for Leo again these days at least this article is a bit funny with starting categorising the article under "transportation" lmao Just Try to Keep Leonardo DiCaprio Off a Yacht, I Dare You You can’t! Why would you want to?! Did you have a nice little New Year’s holiday? Did you watch the whole of Real Housewives of Salt Lake City in one big gulp? Maybe you drove somewhere new since flying is so complicated these days. Off to a ski resort a few hours north as the interstate flies, hm? Spent a couple precious hours on this earth drying out cold, wet socks from the last run down the mountain, maybe? Well, that all sounds lovely, but unfortunately for mere mortals everywhere, it will never be as lovely as what Leonardo DiCaprio is up to. Leonardo DiCaprio! He of the movies fame. You know, Titanic. What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. Catch Me If You Can. The Revenant. Most recently, the Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up. This guy, would you believe it, was on a yacht. Of course you believe it. This guy loves yachts. The man simply cannot get enough of them. He is like an oenophile, traversing the lands, grabbing up whatever fermented grapes Dionysus has left us down here. Like, if there is a rare and elegant wine, he’s tried it or wants to try it—but with yachts. So this week he’s been chartering Swiss billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli’s yacht, which is called Vava II, in St. Barts. The Vava II has its own Wikipedia page. It’s reported to cost $150 million and sleep about 50 guests and crew members, and frankly, that’s a lot for a boat! Those things are on water! Friend and capo of the fabled Pussy Posse Lukas Haas was there, as was DiCaprio’s girlfriend, 24-year-old Camila Morrone. Per the Daily Mail, they even went shopping with the editor in chief of British Vogue, Edward Enninful, which I imagine is something like shooting hoops with LeBron James. Before all the shopping and the lounging on deck chairs with Haas and the strolling around St. Barts, DiCaprio celebrated New Year’s on the island alongside Jeff Bezos and partner Lauren Sanchez, Drake, and yacht owner himself Bertarelli. It is where this historic photo was taken. Anyway, hope those socks dried out okay. Source

So happy for him and so well deserved In other news which included Leo and Andrew again... kinda: ‘Spider-Man’ Passes ‘Titanic’ On All-Time Box Office List

I watched -beside of DLU- a couple of other "oscar contenders" on netflix when the forum was down and I had lots of free time. Let's go. THE POWER OF DOG (Jane Campion) 1. Can't help but loved this scene, so aesthetic among a couple of others. Also this movie gave me strong J. Edgar lost in Brokeback Mountain vibes clearly nothing I've expected. Actually I thought it was a movie of hate and not love. I liked it a LOT BETTER than Dune lmao Great chemistry between Cumberbatch and Kodi Smit-McPhee. So if Benedict wins Best actor I would be fine with it, I think he nailed the role just beautifully even though I have to agree the movie was a bit slow sometimes. 6/10 TICK TICK...BOOM! (Lin-Manuel Miranda) 2. I'm in love with both of them For me Andrew Garfield is one of a few actors who comes near to the emotional range of Leo and he did have a lot of emotions in this musical. Love him since Never let me go. Alexandra Shipp is so beautiful I could watch her for the rest of my life and be happy with it. So if Andrew would win that little golden fucker of an oscar HELL YES he deserves everything good in this world after those Sony motherfuckers treated him like crap still my favorite spider man. 9/10 THE LOST DAUGHTER (Maggie Gyllenhaal) 3. Now this was a little weird movie. But I like weird and the stacked, beautiful cast around the great Olivia Colman, jeez I'm still sobbing -Dakota Johnson, Jessie Buckley, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Paul Mescal, Peter Saarsgard, Ed Harris- circeling around the though topic of troubled motherhood was intense to watch. 7/10 In short: 2021 was a blessed year for Netflix.

Some people don't see the magic of Leo I don't see anything special about Dwayne Johnson. Fight me.

Goldderby about Leos oscar shots for DLU and his star power. Oscar Experts Typing: Who will round out the Best Actor lineup? Christopher Rosen: Hello, Joyce! We’re back with Best Actor on the brain. Between today and Christmas, the final two top contenders for an Oscar nomination will make landfall — albeit in a pair of supremely limited releases: Peter Dinklage in “Cyrano” and Denzel Washington in “The Tragedy of Macbeth.” Those actors have been hanging around the consensus since September and join Will Smith, Benedict Cumberbatch and Andrew Garfield to make up what feels like the chalk list of Best Actor nominees. But at the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into the proceedings — and with due respect to relative underdog contenders like Leonardo DiCaprio, Joaquin Phoenix, Javier Bardem, Nicolas Cage and Jude Hill — is it possible we’ve all been focused on the wrong Bradley Cooper performance when it comes to Oscar bona fides. Out in a much wider release on Friday is “Nightmare Alley,” and while we’ve talked about how the Guillermo del Toro film should clean up in the crafts categories, I can’t help but feel like I’ve shortchanged its above-the-line chances — particularly here in Best Actor. Cooper has already gotten some of his best reviews yet for the film and his performance, as we’ve noted, ends with a bang: it would be easy to suggest Cooper has never been better than in the closing moments of “Nightmare Alley.” That work, coupled with his stellar comedic plus-sized cameo in “Licorice Pizza” suggests to me that Cooper will make a serious run at one of these five slots. (In this equation, Cooper’s “Pizza” performance is akin to “Greg sprinkles.”) But if Cooper ends up getting nominated — and I end up changing my Best Actor predictions to get him in — who will wind up snubbed? Looking at that top five, it’s hard to pick someone to leave off. I guess the smart bet would be either Dinklage or Washington, but both of them have gotten their best reviews ever as well. What do you make of this scrum, Joyce? And once you untangle that web, who do you think will come out on top? joyceeng: Is that a Spider-Man reference? Because obviously Tom Holland will come out on top this weekend. It’s funny how everyone was predicting two acting nominations for Cooper at the beginning of the season and now there’s a pretty realistic chance he might go 0-2. He is very good in “Nightmare Alley,” but at the same time, I’m not quite sure that’s the kind of performance the academy gravitates towards. It’s a controlled and skilled turn, and yes, his best stuff is in the very last scene (if his “Licorice Pizza” cameo is Greg sprinkles, then this final moment is “Boo, souls!”). Perhaps in a weaker year he’d stand a better chance. I have not had Cooper in my five for a while and have not added him back in since seeing “Nightmare Alley” (on the contrary, I just took him out of supporting too). With Garfield coming on strong, there’s a consensus quartet of him, Smith, Cumberbatch and Washington. Denzel can make it just for being Denzel, and we all remember the “Roman J. Israel, Esq.” nom. It feels like the final spot is between Dinklage and DiCaprio, and this will be a test of Leo’s power. “Don’t Look Up” has been savaged in reviews, but I can see the industry backing the film, and DiCaprio is great in it with a meaty “Network”-esque rant. And while Dinklage does not hit a false, uh, note in “Cyrano,” are we really gonna get two musical performances in here? Christopher Rosen: I guess the reason I’m slightly more bullish on Dinklage is that I think he’s all but assured of a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination — this despite the fact that “Cyrano” is an extremely late entry into the race and it’s hard to even gauge how many people even know it’s coming. But at Telluride, way back when, Dinklage received a big tribute. He’s worked with everyone, has a great reputation, and is already an acclaimed star and award winner thanks to “Game of Thrones.” It feels like he could get in at the SAG Awards before even accounting for the performance, which is stellar. So if he’s in at SAG and momentum starts to build (he’s already among the nominees at the Critics Choice Awards), I think Dinklage would have the inside track ahead of DiCaprio. But I remain curious to see if Washington can make it all the way through. To be clear, it seems likely: with Daniel Day-Lewis retired, I think you could make the argument Washington is the best male actor currently working and his reviews for “Macbeth” are off the charts. So if I’m going to put Cooper in, and Dinklage is in too, and Cumberbatch and Garfield feel locked, does that mean it’s between Washington and Smith? And if that’s the case, does that mean Smith — the presumed favorite — is actually an underdog? joyceeng: I hesitate to call Dinklage a lock at SAG — sure, they nominated him for “The Station Agent” pre-“Game of Thrones,” but Leo is still the biggest movie star on the planet and holds the SAG record for most individual nominations among males on the film side. “Don’t Look Up” also hits Netflix — SAG’s favorite streaming service — on Christmas Eve so it could take off then, and SAG voting ends Jan. 9. I guess you can also wonder if three Netflix stars are gonna make the Best Actor Oscar lineup. It would be hilarious if Cooper got in at the expense of DiCaprio though since the latter was initially circling “Nightmare Alley.” I think people entertained a Washington win in the fall — including us! — but this may just be a contest between the top two of Smith and Cumberbatch. “The Power of the Dog” is clearly the strongest out of all of these guys’ films and Cumberbatch has been crushing the critics awards circuit. Smith can absolutely turn the tide at the televised awards — I don’t think anyone expected him to dominate the critics awards, but I also don’t think anyone expected him underperform as he has either. There’s also the X factor of Garfield, whose Tick, Tick… Boom!” performance seemingly has more passion than that of all of the other contenders. You can even argue that maybe he has monopolized the inspirational, feel-good corner that Smith’s “King Richard” turn is going after. Garfield’s also now in third place in the odds. I’m not going to go as far to say he’ll win the Oscar yet, but I can see him winning over a populist group like SAG-AFTRA. Am I onto something or should I come to my senses? Christopher Rosen: Joyce, if you’re looking for me to stop the clock or take time out, you’ve come to the wrong place. I’m basically two weeks or less away from pushing Garfield into the top of my Oscar predictions. I really think he can win the whole thing! When was the last time there was this much passion for an actor and a performance in this category? Seriously, I’m asking. Maybe Matthew McConaughey for “Dallas Buyers Club”? Maybe? I don’t even know. Sure, this could be anecdotal. Perhaps my highly curated Twitter feed and conversation group is not really indicative of broad Oscar support for Garfield as a potential winner. But when I see “Tick, Tick… Boom!” getting legitimate Best Picture buzz basically on the back of enthusiasm for Garfield, I have to wonder if he’ll just waltz to a victory. In fact, what if the comp here is the 2014 race, when both Cooper and Cumberbatch were nominated, Michael Keaton stood for months as the seeming veteran favorite who was going to win a long-deserved Oscar, and Eddie Redmayne upstarted his way to victory? joyceeng: If you’re suggesting that Keaton should have an Oscar by now, I wholeheartedly concur (tell Leo). Stephen Hawking is as baity a role as you can get, so ultimately Redmayne’s victory isn’t that shocking. He turned the tables on Keaton at the SAG Awards, so maybe Garfield can start his late surge there too. Jonathan Larson’s plight in the musical — an ambitious creative struggling to keep at it — is also highly relatable to the those in the industry, and the fact that we all know he tragically, cruelly ran out of time and never tasted his success adds an extra layer of poignancy. There could also be some other external factors at play in both Garfield’s and Cumberbatch’s campaigns, but perhaps that’s a web to weave another day. Source