Author Topic: Top 100 actors/actresses  (Read 5127 times)

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #10 on: November 21, 2009, 03:33:56 PM »
Alright, I've been thinking about this all day, thinking about rankings and stuff, and I'm gonna try and get a performances one started. Give me a bit of time and I'll post a thread for this.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Stay gold.
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #11 on: November 21, 2009, 03:38:32 PM »
it seems like a performances list would have way too much to consider. Whoever is counting all the votes up will probably see some actors get nominated for over 20 different movies!

It would also be a nightmare sorting out what is lead and what is supporting for every performance that might be nominated (if that is going to happen).

If it goes down, I don't think we should separate lead from supporting like how we didn't exclude short films from the Top 100 Movies.  Sometimes the best performance of the year is a supporting one, and it would be unfortunate to exclude great performances.  Plus, the debate about whether or not a performance is in a supporting role or not would be a headache.

Also, I don't think that having lots of performances to consider is much of an issue.  Actors and actresses usually have larger filmographies than directors, definitely.  But there's no guarantee that there are going to be more nominated performances than nominated films for the Top 100.  Likely, but not guaranteed.  Still, it's only a nuisance for the compiler of the list  :)
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 03:40:17 PM by Verite »
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #12 on: November 21, 2009, 03:44:07 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Stay gold.
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #13 on: November 21, 2009, 03:53:59 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?

I'm for including both.  If we only go with leads, there is still going to be debate on whether or not a role is actually a lead and not supporting.  Including both will eliminate debate, headaches, and perhaps bickering that might get personal.
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #14 on: November 21, 2009, 04:19:53 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?

I'm for including both.  If we only go with leads, there is still going to be debate on whether or not a role is actually a lead and not supporting.  Including both will eliminate debate, headaches, and perhaps bickering that might get personal.

True, but I think it won't be the best to meld the two together, it might also cause confusion. It's also very a very different job ding supporting or Lead. Supporting just has to make an impression most of the time, while a lead carries the film.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Stay gold.
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2009, 04:27:33 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?

I'm for including both.  If we only go with leads, there is still going to be debate on whether or not a role is actually a lead and not supporting.  Including both will eliminate debate, headaches, and perhaps bickering that might get personal.

True, but I think it won't be the best to meld the two together, it might also cause confusion.

About?

Supporting just has to make an impression most of the time,

That's a misconception, I think.  That's something that an actor who wants to show off, steal the scene, or be noticed thinks.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 04:37:12 PM by Verite »
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #16 on: November 21, 2009, 04:48:12 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?

I'm for including both.  If we only go with leads, there is still going to be debate on whether or not a role is actually a lead and not supporting.  Including both will eliminate debate, headaches, and perhaps bickering that might get personal.

True, but I think it won't be the best to meld the two together, it might also cause confusion.

About?

Sorry, maybe not confusion is right way of putting it, but melding the two together seems a bit strange, and it might be easier to seperate them.

Supporting just has to make an impression most of the time,

That's a misconception, I think.  That's something that an actor who wants to show off, steal the scene, or be noticed thinks.

That's true, actually, a great supporting actor is subtle and knows not to overplay a scene. I do think, however, that the lead has much more of a responsibility of holding the film together, or an ensemble if that's the case.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Stay gold.
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #17 on: November 21, 2009, 05:14:21 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?

I'm for including both.  If we only go with leads, there is still going to be debate on whether or not a role is actually a lead and not supporting.  Including both will eliminate debate, headaches, and perhaps bickering that might get personal.

True, but I think it won't be the best to meld the two together, it might also cause confusion.

About?

Sorry, maybe not confusion is right way of putting it, but melding the two together seems a bit strange, and it might be easier to seperate them.

Has someone ever asked you who was amazing or who gave the best performance in a movie?  Do you usually stop yourself and consider which performance was in a lead role or in a supporting role before answering?

I don't see how it would be easier to separate them.  In that case, that's when we'll have all the debate about whether a not a performance should be included.


Supporting just has to make an impression most of the time,

That's a misconception, I think.  That's something that an actor who wants to show off, steal the scene, or be noticed thinks.

That's true, actually, a great supporting actor is subtle and knows not to overplay a scene. I do think, however, that the lead has much more of a responsibility of holding the film together, or an ensemble if that's the case.

I think an actor or actress in a lead role may feel that way if they have a feeling that the movie they are in is sucking or will suck because of perceived shortcoming by the director, producers, studio, cast, or whoever.  I don't think a lead role carries more responsibility in every case.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2009, 05:16:09 PM by Verite »
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May

'Noke

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 11799
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #18 on: November 21, 2009, 05:17:51 PM »
I was going to go with lead performances only, so the question is, shall we combine them or stick to lead?

I'm for including both.  If we only go with leads, there is still going to be debate on whether or not a role is actually a lead and not supporting.  Including both will eliminate debate, headaches, and perhaps bickering that might get personal.

True, but I think it won't be the best to meld the two together, it might also cause confusion.

About?

Sorry, maybe not confusion is right way of putting it, but melding the two together seems a bit strange, and it might be easier to seperate them.

Has someone ever asked you who was amazing or who gave the best performance in a movie?  Do you usually stop yourself and consider which performance was in a lead role or in a supporting role before answering?

I don't see how it would be easier to separate them.  In that case, that's when we'll have all the debate about whether a not a performance should be included.

No, I agree, it would be much easier to keep them together and to not have to deal with whether a performance is supporting or lead. It will make life a lot easier. But I think afterwards it would be nicer to have the two different lists. That's all I'm saying.
I actually consider a lot of movies to be life-changing! I take them to my heart and they melt into my personality.

Verite

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4439
  • Stay gold.
Re: Top 100 actors/actresses
« Reply #19 on: November 21, 2009, 05:21:44 PM »
No, I agree, it would be much easier to keep them together and to not have to deal with whether a performance is supporting or lead. It will make life a lot easier. But I think afterwards it would be nicer to have the two different lists. That's all I'm saying.

I'm just putting it out there.  I have a feeling my reasoning won't have much support.
"When in doubt, seduce."
                   -Elaine May