Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather
LaBeouf says his last three big films sucked. Hardy says there's little artistic challenge for an actor making a huge blockbuster. The two are barely comparable.
Agreed. Hardy is basically saying that while he is under more constraints creatively on a big picture like The Dark Knight Rises, such a project is still worthwhile to him in a variety of ways (financially, heavier exposure, working with stars, etc.). While it might sound like a negative comment, he is still being polite and professional about it. In the end, I don't think it is going to hurt him. Right now, his career is going nowhere but up. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, This Mean's War, The Wettest Country In The World, The Dark Knight Rises, Cicero, the new Mad Max trilogy, etc. He's on the new Hollywood hot list and will likely stay there for quite awhile.
LaBeouf, on the other hand, is basically flatout calling Transformers 2&3 and Indy 4 pieces of shit. Considering the fact that practically nothing he has done outside of either franchise has been profitable (with the exception of Disturbia) and the fact that almost every project he has tried to set up for himself post-Transformers has fallen apart (The Associate, Necessary Death of Charlie, Young Republicans, Hell's Angels, etc.), things are not really looking bright for Shia outside of his participation in John Hillcoat's The Wettest Country In The World. I won't be surprised if he tries to come crawling back to Indy 5 and Transformers 4 if and when they happen. The question is will Steven Spielberg allow it?