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.
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.