Jump to content
270soft Forum

Tier Presidential Ranking


Wiw
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Based on the acting:
 

my-image (1).png

I only watched the first season and the first episode of season 2. So I don't know who most of these people are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, vcczar said:

Here's a non-political one I made:

 

Office1.png

I generally agree with this list.  Except...

Moved to MAKE MANAGER: Charles, Holly, Bob Vance - Vance Refrigeration, Michael, Jan
Moved to HIRE BUT NOT MANAGER: Darryl, Roy, Andy
Moved to HIRE BUT NOT COMPLICATED: Kelly, 
Moved to WOULD NOT HIRE: Jim, Dwight Jr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Actinguy said:

Based on the acting:
 

my-image (1).png

You don't think Lena Headey has done a better job with her performance than Richard Madden? I'd switch those two around for sure. I mean, I thought Richard's Robb Stark was generic as heck, where I think Cersei is excellently portrayed. I'd much rather watch a Cersei scene than a Robb scene.

 

Love that you have Prince Oberyn in the top category. Most underrated character and a masterful performance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

You don't think Lena Headey has done a better job with her performance than Richard Madden? I'd switch those two around for sure. I mean, I thought Richard's Robb Stark was generic as heck, where I think Cersei is excellently portrayed. I'd much rather watch a Cersei scene than a Robb scene.

 

Love that you have Prince Oberyn in the top category. Most underrated character and a masterful performance. 

It's possible that it's the writing rather than the acting.  But Cersei is extremely one-note.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

It's possible that it's the writing rather than the acting.  But Cersei is extremely one-note.  

That's a good point, I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing though. The writing in the most recent seasons hasn't exactly been as good as the earlier seasons and a lot of the characters suffer from it, as does the overall story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

It's possible that it's the writing rather than the acting.  But Cersei is extremely one-note.  

 

48 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

That's a good point, I don't know if that's necessarily a bad thing though. The writing in the most recent seasons hasn't exactly been as good as the earlier seasons and a lot of the characters suffer from it, as does the overall story.

Have any of you ever seen the movie "Excalibur," made in 1982. It's the only movie version of the Arthurian myths to be slapped with an R-Rating, for blood, gore, nudity, and sex (no course language, of course) - the Battle of Slaughter Bridge at the end, for instance, truly lived up to it's name in this portrayal. Despite having relatively early appearances in full-length, feature films (as opposed to the theatrical stage) by Patrick Stewart as Leodegrance, Liam Neeson as Sir Gawain, and Helen Mirren as Morgan Le Fey, virtually every other actor or actress therein did a really phoned-in, bad acting job, throughout most of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Patine said:

Have any of you ever seen the movie "Excalibur," made in 1982. It's the only movie version of the Arthurian myths to be slapped with an R-Rating, for blood, gore, nudity, and sex (no course language, of course) - the Battle of Slaughter Bridge at the end, for instance, truly lived up to it's name in this portrayal. Despite having relatively early appearances in full-length, feature films (as opposed to the theatrical stage) by Patrick Stewart as Leodegrance, Liam Neeson as Sir Gawain, and Helen Mirren as Morgan Le Fey, virtually every other actor or actress therein did a really phoned-in, bad acting job, throughout most of the film.

I have not. Would you say despite some of the bad acting, and being from 1982,  it is still worth watching? 

I don't mean that being from 1982 is a knock against it but some films just don't age well in terms of film quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

I have not. Would you say despite some of the bad acting, and being from 1982,  it is still worth watching? 

I don't mean that being from 1982 is a knock against it but some films just don't age well in terms of film quality.

I did quite enjoy it for many other reasons. The acting didn't detract as much from it as it would a much more intimate, low-budget, character-based movie. And, I'll be frank - some of my favourite movies of all time are from the '80's, whereas I think only a handful after the year 2000 I'd give any sort of glowing review to. But, my standards to judge movies is probably quite different than many here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I did quite enjoy it for many other reasons. The acting didn't detract as much from it as it would a much more intimate, low-budget, character-based movie. And, I'll be frank - some of my favourite movies of all time are from the '80's, whereas I think only a handful after the year 2000 I'd give any sort of glowing review to. But, my standards to judge movies is probably quite different than many here.

That's fair. I'll check it out. It certainly sounds interesting. Everyone has their own flavor when it comes to film and the likes of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...