#this is what i'm talking about

[sernhuh]

Fav trope in fics Nureyev thinking something SO DOWN BAD about Juno and going "Let's file it away for future consideration."

[userautumn]

you know how sometimes i'll be like, "man that person is not a good actor" and then you guys get mad and start yelling in my inbox, and then i snark back because i didn't call them terrible, i just said they aren't Good? well, now we can skip all that! introducing the actor chart, where i judge hollywood's ability to act as objectively as possible and you can't get mad at me about it unless they are the Actual worst.

the rankings are:

masters of the arts | fantastic | really great | good | average | subpar | bad | terrible | fundamentally untalented

some additional notes:

do NOT yell at me until you've read this entire post

i don't make judgements about an actor until i've watched at least three (3) of their projects. in the rare instances where that isn't the case, it's because i've followed a single performance for years (i.e. a multi-season television show) or their performances left a lasting impression, either positive or negative

i'm not interested in an actor's politics, controversies, allegations or anything else. i'm just concerned with whether or not they can act

this is the scale I PERSONALLY use. as in, when i watch movies or tv shows, i am judging actors according to my own set of criteria (more below). this is NOT universal, this is just how i do things

every actor in hollywood falls into one of these categories. don't shoot the messenger, i just grade 'em

i made this on microsoft paint. heehee

ok, now you can continue

so, you've gotten this far (yay!). now, the question is, how do i judge whether an actor is good or not? the answer is, i have a little questionnaire :3

ahem.

question #1: does this actor use their full body (including face + eyes + micro-expressions to embody the character they're meant to play? question #2: does the way they act in [role a] completely make me forget the way they act in [role b] or [role c]? (to put it simply: if i'm watching dylan o'brien in american assassin, am i spending the whole time thinking "omg hiii dylan from my werewolf show <333" or am i like "holy shit, mitch rapp is kind of unhinged") question #3: does the way they deliver their lines completely convince me that they believe what they're saying or are they just saying words?

it's a short questionnaire, but it's very effective in separating the talented from the less talented. the masters of the arts meet the golden standard set by the questionnaire with ease. everyone else struggles, to varying degrees.

so. now that that's out of the way, here's the actor chart:

masters of the arts: actors such as cillian murphy, denzel washington, viola davis. these are actors whose performances are 10/10 across the board. every show or movie they're in is elevated by their presence, depth, passion, and talent. they've never had (or have rarely ever had) a bad performance and their mere presence is enough to get me to watch anything because i know they will immerse me in the viewing experience.

fantastic: actors such as robert pattinson and idris elba are on the trajectory to becoming masters of the arts. they're not there yet, but on average, their performances are enrapturing and dynamic, notwithstanding hiccups or moments that keep them from being perfect.

really great: actors such as zendaya, kenneth choi, and dylan o'brien. these are actors who, on average, deliver incredible performances. the only thing that keeps them from being masters is that, sometimes, the directors either rely too much or too little on their presence (as in, their physical presence) resulting in instances where they don't have enough opportunity to shine and thus are just kind of there OR the movie / show feels like [title] starring [actor] rather than the actor becoming the character they're meant to play. these actors have range and are very good at what they do.

good: actors such as jake gyllenhaal and keke palmer are strong. they have a good grasp on how to command attention in a scene, they know how to play to the camera, how to embody their characters, and how to take the best parts of a script and make them their own. they're good. not perfect, not masters, but good and enjoyable to watch. THIS CATEGORY IS NOT AN INSULT.

average: actors such as chris hemsworth, nicholas galitzine, and daisy edgar jones are all okay. they're fine. nothing about their performances as full pieces of art stand out even if they have moments where they do. most hollywood actors fall into this category. actors in this category are entertaining, they just aren't always memorable. things that can land actors in this category: too much comfort within a long-term role that translates into lack of effort (oliver stark), playing the same role but finding ways to diversify within that role (chris hemsworth), or consistently working in projects that do not present a challenge (robert downey jr). THIS CATEGORY IS NOT AN INSULT.

subpar: actors such as chris evans and dwayne "the rock" johnson skirt the line between being bad and being average. their acting is unpredictable and you can never tell whether they're going to deliver a powerful performance or whether they're going to leave you wanting for more. this category isn't an insult. it's not positive, but it's not an insult.

bad: actors such as lindsay lohan, taylor zakhar perez, and keira knightley are the disappointments. they're the little engines that could, but didn't. actors in this category struggle to rise to the occasion. rarely do they transform the script and make it their own; they struggle to embody their characters in a way that feels natural, and often feel like they (the actor themselves) are just going where the director tells them to go, and saying the lines the director tells them to say. this doesn't mean that they are incapable of good performance, it just means that, more often than not, their films / shows leave you wanting for more.

terrible: the only thing separating actors such as ezra miller and stephen amell from being irredeemably bad is minimal effort. visible effort is put into their characters even if the delivery often falls flat. make no mistake, these actors are bad. really bad. but there's enough substance to their effort that makes one think that, maybe, maybe, with the right leadership + opportunities + (additional) education, they could become talented one day. maybe. holding one's breath is unadvised, though

fundamentally untalented: yeah. these "actors," if we can call them that, have got to pack it up. they've gotta go home. actors in this category such as jared padalecki, joey king, and madison bailey do not perform well, and if they have a good performance, it is a matter of happenstance. most of their performances feel like they just rolled out of bed, walked onto set, and started reading lines. badly. actors in this category are either a product of nepotism (phoebe dynevor), pretty privilege (madison bailey), or just good ol' fashioned directionlessness and inability + refusal to grow (jared padalecki). these actors are an embarrassment to the craft and should step out of the way so that new talent can take their place.

[petit-papillion]

Charles and Carlos in Milan | September 2022

📷 martii_eva

[gaythemayaway]

If Crowley doesn't look like a caveman in S3, I'm calling bullshit, dis unrealistic, my dude is losing it.

(Not my edit)

[aaliyahhves]

[betty-bourgeoisie]

what are the stations of the cross and why are they being depicted in graphic detail on signs outside the Lutheran elementary school

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

this is the way

[lilysundragon]

This might be my favorite visual to come out of any MV ever

[szczekaczz]

Stanisław Witkiewicz, Las (1892)

[tyrannuspitch]

i think part of the reason that one time travel AU (in which loki is a viking-age human trapped in the modern day) itches my brain so much is like. hmm. something about Story again. loki is in a mundane-ish world, living a "normal" "rational" life where he's shed almost all of his individual identity to survive, and he longs for a life which was in many ways objectively harder but still home. and he hates how the present caricaturises it, but he also puts it on a pedestal himself. but when he was in the past he was probably still not happy at all, knowing the character, and he was deeply religious and he aspired even closer to the myths because loki-the-person was a priest of loki-the-god... but now that he is in the present he can't see his religion the same way because he's so rapidly undergone the nihilism that science encroaching on the spiritual can inspire, and because nothing he does ever changes the time travel phenomenon trapping ppl in the modern day... but he ALSO thinks of norse pagans as His People and the christian-secular modern world as the enemy... but he was ALSO born into christianity and "saved" from it by odin... i'm getting away from the point here but. oh god it's so chewable. so many overlapping narratives of identity and narratives on which one bases one's identity. and he doesn't even know he's in a fanfiction of a movie adaptation of a comic adaptation of a myth!!! it's been like a year and i'm still gnawing on this like a bone

[stjohnstarling]

Oh, are we offering up names of our priest characters? Because I got a good one - Father Gideon Valentine - coffeewritesfiction

10/10 👌✨ Exactly.

[dkbtho]

you guys ever listen to a song and experience the music so viscerally that you're literally shaking

[theslybrownfox]

Oh, I'm sorry... where was this particular colour palette when my teenage self was trying to find themselves?!

@lovesdaya

[marypsue]

Keep seeing that post where OP starts like 'Thinking about...grieving the undead' and then adds on about like. Real life situations where people have not died but have left your life and you would have reason to grieve them.

All respect, that's an important concept, but that is not what I am thinking about when I read 'grieving the undead'.

[captainjonnitkessler]

You know I used to think "tumblr's absolute refusal to actually engage with the Trolley Problem in favor of insisting that there must be a third, morally pure option that doesn't require them to make a hard decision and anyone who asks them to make a binary choice is just a short-sighted idiot is really fucking annoying, but I guess it's not actually doing any harm".

Anyway that was before we asked tumblr at large to decide between "guy aiding a genocide but making progress elsewhere" and "guy who would actively and enthusiastically participate in a genocide and would also make everything else much, much worse for everyone elsewhere" and the response was that there must be a third, morally pure option that doesn't require them to make a hard decision and that anyone who asks them to make a binary choice is a short-sighted idiot.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Hey now, Let her cook!