Author Topic: Best Villains (Read 35695 times)

Holden · **on:** July 10, 2007, 11:03:09 PM

Who are your top 5 favorite villains of all time? Looking for individual villains here, not entire races or classes of beings.

Mine, in order...
5. Doctor Doom
4. Dracula
3. Judge Death (Judge Dredd)
2. The Master (Doctor Who)
1. Darth Vader

jrderego · **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2007, 12:19:41 AM

Todd Bowden
Ming the Merciless
Lady MacBeth
Count Dracula
The Joker

Planish · **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2007, 02:00:22 AM

1. Dennis Hopper as Frank Booth in Blue Velvet
2. Darth Vader
3. Alan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves
4. The much-imitated Ernst Stavro Blofeld, with his white persian cat, and "violet-scented breath".
5. A tie, between Gul Dukat of ST:DS9 and the Borg Queen.

AarrowOM · **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2007, 01:44:12 PM

5 - Tie: Apophis or Anubis (both from Stargate SG-1 and depending on which seasons one prefers)
4 - Alfred Bester (from Babylon 5)
3 - Professor Moriarty
2 - The Borg Queen
1 - Hal 9000

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #4 on:** July 11, 2007, 04:26:28 PM

In no particular order:

Lady Cassandra (from Dr. Who): No agenda. No sinister secrets. Just frankly, unabashedly selfish, like real people you know.

Johnny Dread (from Otherland): Wow, is this dude evil! He's a serial killer, but he's not crazy: He's adopted megalomania as a life philosophy.

Samara Morgan (from The Ring): A monster that can scare the socks off you and evoke pity at the same time.

Agent Smith (from The Matrix): Self-righteous disdain for human vermin brings out emotion in even the most disciplined computer program.

Matilda Shunlov (my own character): She's not evil. She deserves to rule the world! If people don't recognize her genius, it's their problem.

DKT · **Reply #5 on:** July 11, 2007, 05:17:25 PM

1. Darth Vader -- my childhood terror. Nobody can top him.
2. Samara (the Ring) -- Gotta go with Mr. Tweedy on this one. She's one of the few movie characters that's terrified me as an adult.
3. Dracula
4. Ben (TV's Lost) -- dude just creeps me out.
5. Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) -- I haven't seen the new movie but I just reread the book. I think I hate her more than Voldermort.

Listener · **Reply #6 on:** July 11, 2007, 05:22:50 PM

Best Villains EVER is a pretty hard list to put together without limiting it to a subgenre.

5. Seymour Guado (Final Fantasy X) -- if only for the scene where Yuna defies him and jumps off the building. I swear I cried.

4. G'mork (Neverending Story) -- that wolf scared the crap out of me. In the book he's even more sinister, but less scary.

3. Lucius Malfoy (Harry Potter) -- Voldemort may be the big bad dude but Malfoy is the one who schemes and plots and plans.

2. The Operative (Serenity) -- one of the most well-rounded villains I've ever seen.

1. General Zod (Superman II) -- you will kneel before him.

I wish I could've fit a Discworld reference on here, but really, in those books everyone's fighting against stupidity and somewhat two-dimensional villains, not actual super-villains.

I think before someone puts the President at #1 we should qualify that we're talking about fictional villains, not real-life ones.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #7 on:** July 11, 2007, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 11, 2007, 05:17:25 PM

5. Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) -- I haven't seen the new movie but I just reread the book. I think I hate her more than Voldermort.

Word, DKT!

Quote from: Listener on July 11, 2007, 05:22:50 PM

I think before someone puts the President at #1 we should qualify that we're talking about fictional villains, not real-life ones.

Lame, Listener. Very lame.

ClintMemo · **Reply #8 on:** July 11, 2007, 06:34:25 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 11, 2007, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 11, 2007, 05:17:25 PM
5. Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) -- I haven't seen the new movie but I just reread the book. I think I hate her more than Voldermort.

Word, DKT!

Quote from: Listener on July 11, 2007, 05:22:50 PM
I think before someone puts the President at #1 we should qualify that we're talking about fictional villains, not real-life ones.

Lame, Listener. Very lame.

Seriously....W could only be #2 - at best.

eytanz · **Reply #9 on:** July 11, 2007, 06:36:51 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 11, 2007, 06:22:00 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 11, 2007, 05:22:50 PM
I think before someone puts the President at #1 we should qualify that we're talking about fictional villains, not real-life ones.

Lame, Listener. Very lame.

I agree. It's totally biased and partisan to claim that the president isn't fictional.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #10 on:** July 11, 2007, 07:24:33 PM

As tempting as it is to explain why many of us feel zero shame or regret in having voted for said President, that isn't at all what this thread is for. This is for listing the baddest villains of fiction, and it was quite fun while it was that, but it will not be fun if we descend into bickering predicated on the statement that a particular person is evil. So please, let the bashing of W end here and let's get back to the fun stuff.

If anybody wants to start a "George Bush Sucks!" thread, I won't complain, but that's not this thread.

wakela · **Reply #11 on:** July 11, 2007, 11:30:51 PM

Thank you, Tweedy.

In no particular order.

Sauron
Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs
The girl from The Ring was an excellent choice
The Alan Rickman character from Die Hard
The Kurgen from Highlander

This is probably against the spirit of this list, but the Borg, The Cylons, The Reavers, and of course Romero Zombies are all great leaderless villains.

I found the Borg Queen very disappointing. The Star Trek universe has a dearth of interesting aliens. Most of them are humans with a particular personality type and a piece of rubber glued to their forehead. The Borg were maybe the only really thought provoking alien the Star Trek writers had ever come up with, and the appearance of the Borg Queen reduced them to just another army of robots with a megalomaniacal leader.

I'm conflicted regarding Darth Vader. As far as giving off an evil vibe, no one can beat him. But he doesn't do that much evil stuff, and then at the end of Jedi all is supposed to be forgiven. He seems to be more of a thug. The Emperor is the real villain, but he lacks Vader's presence. Vader is a bully who can do magic tricks...*cough*...collar getting tight...hard to breathe....

AarrowOM · **Reply #12 on:** July 12, 2007, 03:02:05 PM

Quote from: wakela on July 11, 2007, 11:30:51 PM

This is probably against the spirit of this list, but the Borg, The Cylons, The Reavers, and of course Romero Zombies are all great leaderless villains.

Presumably one could also add the Daleks, Cybermen, Shadows, Replicators, and Photino Birds to the above list of good leaderless villains.

However, the ultimate leaderless sf villain is probably human nature.

ClintMemo · **Reply #13 on:** July 12, 2007, 03:59:18 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 11, 2007, 07:24:33 PM

If anybody wants to start a "George Bush Sucks!" thread, I won't complain, but that's not this thread.

I think any thread on that topic would quickly invoke "Rule #2"

Holden · **Reply #14 on:** July 12, 2007, 07:20:35 PM

Quote

Presumably one could also add the Daleks, Cybermen, Shadows, Replicators, and Photino Birds to the above list of good leaderless villains.

The Daleks had a leader - Davros. He wasn't exactly five star villain material, though.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #15 on:** July 12, 2007, 07:55:58 PM

I agree with wakela about the Borg Queen and Darth Vader, and for his reasons.

The cool thing about Sauron was that we never see him, not once, ever, and what he looks like isn't even described by anyone (that I recall; it's been a while since I read LOTR). He's the ultimate example of idea that things are usually scarier when you don't see them. Reading the books, you get this potent yet totally amorphous feeling of dread, like Sauron is malice and lust and hubris, not so much that he has those qualities as that those are the things he's made of. Being in his presence doesn't sound so much like being in front of a big scary guy as being enveloped in this cloud of evil, like the psychic equivalent of mustard gas.

The fact the Tolkien never describes his appearance is masterful. The thing, I think, that makes Samara such a scary monster is that there is nothing you can do to escape her. Once you've seen The Tape, you're in her power. You can become her servant or you can die: There isn't any third option. Some slasher with a knife you can fight, you can defeat. You can check in your closet to see if he's in there. Supernatural baddies always have some weakness that you can use to fight them. Not Samara. Even being nice to her doesn't work. Because Sauron is never described, he maintains that same kind of menace. You can't imagine anyone fighting him or struggling to defeat him. He hasn't got a body, just a presence, once you're in it, you're screwed no how big your sword is.

Hey, it just occurred to me that Sauron putting his essence in the Ring to stave off death is very similar to Voldemort making horcruxes in Harry Potter. In either case, you can kill the villain's body, but his soul is safely stowed away somewhere, waiting to be reborn.

DKT · **Reply #16 on:** July 12, 2007, 08:19:40 PM

I hear the arguement against Darth Vader but a thug? That's Boba Fett. I saw Vader on the big screen as a kid and he was the epitome of evil. If I saw the movies now instead of when I was 3, I might think differently -- he's definitely one of those tragic characters, like King Lear or (IMO) Severus Snape. But him cutting off Luke's hand *and* freezing Han Solo all in about 20 minutes? Scarred me for life

The Emperor in Jedi -- he was absolute evil. He was a close runner-up on the list. I remember being freak out when I saw him electrocute Luke on the big screen.

Did anyone see the Ring 2? Was it any good? I keep meaning to see the Japanese movies, but haven't yet.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #17 on:** July 12, 2007, 08:58:22 PM

DO NOT SEE RING 2!!! IT SUCKS!

It is the epitome of the cheap knock-off sequel that exists solely to cash in on the popularity of the original. It's so bad that its cheese will rub off on your memory of Ring 1 and diminish it.

The Japanese version (Ringu) is decent, but not half as good as the Gore Verbinski version we know and fear. Its script and execution and almost identical, but not as good. See it if you're curious: It's interesting but no great.

Avoid Ring 2 like a cursed video.

ClintMemo · **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2007, 11:42:12 AM

I'll just add Captain Nemo

You sympathize with him. You understand him. But you still hate him.

BrandtPileggi · **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2007, 01:47:23 PM

5. Gargamel - using Smurf blood to make gold since 1959

4. Skeletor - How exactly is a skeleton THAT yoked? Are there steroids for skeletons? Did just his facial muscles decompose leaving the rest of his body in peak physical condition?

3. Count Chokula - Made his way on to many of our childhood tables. A blood sucking monster instilling fear into us every morning as our parents made us eat his puffy chocolate balls

2. Hamburgler - Little known fact: The hamburgler is a diabolical mastermind. His public hamburger malfecence is in fact a ruse; a use of misdirection from his true crimes as... The headburgler. (story coming soon)

1. Satan - With the exception of South Park's interpretation, pretty much the worst of everything, incarnate. AND!... He's eternal. Can't beat that.

Zathras · **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2007, 06:13:49 PM

Wow, tough to narrow down to five. Here's my list:

5. HAL 9000 from 2001
4. T-1000 Robot (Robert Patrick) from T2
3. Gaear Grimsrud (the quiet villain played by Peter Stormare) from Fargo
2. Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper) from Blue Velvet
1. Mr. Morden (Ed Wasser) from Babylon 5

Zathras · **Reply #21 on:** July 13, 2007, 06:20:04 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 12, 2007, 08:58:22 PM

DO NOT SEE RING 2!!! IT SUCKS!

It is the epitome of the cheap knock-off sequel that exists solely to cash in on the popularity of the original. It's so bad that its cheese will rub off on your memory of Ring 1 and diminish it.

I agree. There were a couple of scenes that I liked but overall it not good, just a way to squeeze a bit more money out of folks like myself that loved the original. I liked the scene where Rachael and crazy Aidan were driving through the woods and encounted the deer herd. I also thought Sissy Spacek was spooky good as Samara's mom.

I am sorry to report that Dreamworks has announced that there will be a Ring 3.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #22 on:** July 13, 2007, 06:44:02 PM

Quote from: Zathras on July 13, 2007, 06:20:04 PM

I am sorry to report that Dreamworks has announced that there will be a Ring 3.

slic · **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2007, 03:33:49 PM

5. Joker
4. The Governor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Walking_Dead)
3. Verminaard (Dragonlance)
2. Dr. Doom and the Red Skull
1. Sauron and Voldemort - both essentially came back from the dead, have great power and powerful underlings

I apologize for dissing someone else's list, however, Vader was a serious badass in movies 4 and 5 -he'd be #1 villian in my book based on those movies - however, in 6 and 1-3 they really wussified him.

Mr. Morden was definitely evil, though I rank him with say Wormtongue (from LOTR). I thought Bester (Walter Koenig) was far more villianous.

slic · **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2007, 03:40:32 PM

Quote from: BrandtPileggi on July 13, 2007, 01:47:23 PM

5. Gargamel - using Smurf blood to make gold since 1959

Is he really evil if he never actually accomplished his goal - in all the books and cartoons, he never actually gets it done, does he? Not one drop of blue smurf blood is ever spilled - he even created Smurfette.

Reminds me of this story where evil Dr. Sivana (arch nemisis of Shazam-Capt. Marvel) gets a Noble Prize (for peace I think) after a huge cache of his invenstions is discovered. He considered them failures because they were so helpful to humanity - a Calming Ray (stress reduction), a Weather Machine that only made pleasant weather (a Light refreshing rain, a warm breeze, etc).

BrandtPileggi · **Reply #25 on:** July 14, 2007, 04:01:45 PM

Perhaps not but wouldn't you consider anyone bent on killing inocent kittens for 50 years to be evil? Smurfs are just as helpless regardless of how inept he is. God forbid Gargemel to ever discover pesticide. It'd be genocide! The end.

By Brandt Pileggi

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #26 on:** July 16, 2007, 02:17:57 PM

Quote from: BrandtPileggi on July 14, 2007, 04:01:45 PM

Perhaps not but wouldn't you consider anyone bent on killing inocent kittens for 50 years to be evil? Smurfs are just as helpless regardless of how inept he is. God forbid Gargemel to ever discover pesticide. It'd be genocide! and genocide is evil and wrong unless it's against spikey penis fish. Those things serve no purpose and must die! and mosquitos. The end.

By Brandt Pileggi

I think the "spiky penis fish" can also attack people who lack penises. Better to call them "the fish of ultimate suffering" or something else androgynous.

---------------

I saw "Harry Potter" over the weekend, and I must amend my villains list, because Delores Umbridge is far more evil than the rest of them combined. I'm booting off "Johnny Dread" and replacing him with this pink-clad, sweet-voiced, kitten-loving sadist.

ClintMemo · **Reply #27 on:** July 16, 2007, 03:15:28 PM

I saw it Friday night.
She was great.
The kittens were hysterical!

not to sound to fanboyish, but I think that series has done one of the best casting jobs ever.

DKT · **Reply #28 on:** July 16, 2007, 04:12:50 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 13, 2007, 06:44:02 PM

Quote from: Zathras on July 13, 2007, 06:20:04 PM
I am sorry to report that Dreamworks has announced that there will be a Ring 3.

Well, judging from what you two are saying, there's nowhere for them to go but up.

I hope.

DKT · **Reply #29 on:** July 16, 2007, 04:35:21 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 16, 2007, 03:15:28 PM

I saw it Friday night.
She was great.
The kittens were hysterical!

not to sound to fanboyish, but I think that series has done one of the best casting jobs ever.

I totally agree. She made me very happy (in a very sick way), even though she looked a lot different from what I had in my mind. And the supporting cast in these movies are amazing. It's a testament that people like Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Waters, David Thewelis, and Jason Isaacs continue to appear for bit parts even though I'm sure there's ways they could've wormed out of their contracts.

The only casting job I'm not 100% sold on is Dumbledore (played by Harris or Gambon). But to be fair, I think after seeing Lord of the Rings, it will be hard for me to ever see anyone else playing the wise wizard after Ian McKellan's Gandalf.

Right, I guess that's a bit off-topic...

ClintMemo · **Reply #30 on:** July 16, 2007, 04:42:05 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 16, 2007, 04:35:21 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 16, 2007, 03:15:28 PM
I saw it Friday night.
She was great.
The kittens were hysterical!

not to sound to fanboyish, but I think that series has done one of the best casting jobs ever.

I totally agree. She made me very happy (in a very sick way), even though she looked a lot different from what I had in my mind. And the supporting cast in these movies are amazing. It's a testament that people like Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Waters, David Thewelis, and Jason Isaacs continue to appear for bit parts even though I'm sure there's ways they could've wormed out of their contracts.

...and Alan Rickman. I remember reading the first book and thinking "that has GOT to be Alan Rickman in the movie."

I read last year the Jason Isaacs was pleading with JK Rowling to write Lucius Malfoy into the last book so he could play him again.

DKT · **Reply #31 on:** July 16, 2007, 05:10:56 PM

Oh, yeah. Alan Rickman is Severus Snape. I love every frame of the movies he's in. I'll be sad if Lucius is completely left out of the final book. It was awesome to see Sirius punch him in the face in OotP, though.

ClintMemo · **Reply #32 on:** July 16, 2007, 05:15:22 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 16, 2007, 05:10:56 PM

It was awesome to see Sirius punch him in the face in OotP, though.

I think everyone in the audience wanted to do that!
People actually cheered. You don't see that too often.

Listener · **Reply #33 on:** July 16, 2007, 07:24:54 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 16, 2007, 04:35:21 PM

The only casting job I'm not 100% sold on is Dumbledore (played by Harris or Gambon). But to be fair, I think after seeing Lord of the Rings, it will be hard for me to ever see anyone else playing the wise wizard after Ian McKellan's Gandalf.

Right, I guess that's a bit off-topic...

I found Richard Harris to be quite good as Dumbledore, but Michael Gambon... eh. He's a good actor, but he's not good for that role... especially as in the fourth film, when Harry's name is pulled, they go into the anteroom, and he manhandles (wizardhandles) Harry. What was up with that?

I'm hoping they get Patrick Stewart to take a role in the 6th or 7th film.

Of the Harry Potter villains, I still put Lucius Malfoy at #1. Voldemort is evil, but in that sort of master-bad-guy way. Malfoy is more insidious.

ClintMemo · **Reply #34 on:** July 16, 2007, 07:53:10 PM

Quote from: Listener on July 16, 2007, 07:24:54 PM

Quote from: DKT on July 16, 2007, 04:35:21 PM

The only casting job I'm not 100% sold on is Dumbledore (played by Harris or Gambon). But to be fair, I think after seeing Lord of the Rings, it will be hard for me to ever see anyone else playing the wise wizard after Ian McKellan's Gandalf.

Right, I guess that's a bit off-topic...

I found Richard Harris to be quite good as Dumbledore, but Michael Gambon... eh. He's a good actor, but he's not good for that role... especially as in the fourth film, when Harry's name is pulled, they go into the anteroom, and he manhandles (wizardhandles) Harry. What was up with that?

I'm hoping they get Patrick Stewart to take a role in the 6th or 7th film.

Of the Harry Potter villains, I still put Lucius Malfoy at #1. Voldemort is evil, but in that sort of master-bad-guy way. Malfoy is more insidious.

I did like Richard Harris better. Michael Gambon is OK. He's better in three and five than he was in four. Four is my least favorite of the series. Three is my favorite.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #35 on:** July 16, 2007, 08:02:16 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 16, 2007, 07:53:10 PM

Four is my least favorite of the series. Three is my favorite.

Same here. I liked 3 for it's tight focus, intense story and great look. None of the others were so "together."

But I also really liked 5 for its unsubtle social and political commentaries. During one of Umbridge's lessons, my wife learned over and whispered "It's just like real school." And it is. (That comment coming from someone who was still in high school five years ago.) I love when fantasy tackles real issues.

DKT · **Reply #36 on:** July 16, 2007, 08:41:55 PM

Richard Harris was cool but he just seemed so...frail. I like that Gambon brings that edge with him but sometimes it doesn't work so well, like in the 4th movie. I thought he did a great job in 3.

I don't think I want them to recast the roll, personally. Not with the rest of the cast being so consistent.

I actually enjoyed the 4th film for the most part. I watched it again last night and it might have some pacing issues, but the parts about teen angst/love (the Yule Ball) worked really well for me. And I thought the kid who they cast as Cederic was great.

I'm not sure which is my favorite of the movies, at this point, I think I'd say either 3 or 5.

ClintMemo · **Reply #37 on:** July 17, 2007, 12:01:33 AM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 16, 2007, 08:02:16 PM

But I also really liked 5 for its unsubtle social and political commentaries.

You might enjoy this review
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/07/harry_potter_and_the_order_of.html

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #38 on:** July 17, 2007, 02:27:45 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 17, 2007, 12:01:33 AM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 16, 2007, 08:02:16 PM
But I also really liked 5 for its unsubtle social and political commentaries.
You might enjoy this review
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/07/harry_potter_and_the_order_of.html

I do. I might could have written most of those words, although the reviewer's evident bias leads him to make a few statements that are inaccurate and nonsensical. Voldemort does where wizard robes. (Hello!) And while a correlation between Voldemort and Osama B. might be apt, it makes zero sense next to an insinuation that Fudge represents the chief executive of the US. Bush critics claim that he inflates the threat posed by Al Qaeda in order to justify his own excesses. Fudge (in contrast) is intent on pretending Voldemort does not exist.

Of course, I don't think the movie is intended as a one to one allegory of anything: It's broader than that, broad enough to be timeless, I think. I doubt that Rowling intended any HP character as an allegory for any specific real person. I'm just saying that the correlations of Voldemort=Osama and Bush=Fudge do not make sense sitting next to each other.

ClintMemo · **Reply #39 on:** July 17, 2007, 07:50:08 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 17, 2007, 02:27:45 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 17, 2007, 12:01:33 AM
You might enjoy this review
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/07/harry_potter_and_the_order_of.html

I do. I might could have written most of those words, although the reviewer's evident bias leads him to make a few statements that are inaccurate and nonsensical.

He's a she.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 17, 2007, 02:27:45 PM

Voldemort does where wizard robes. (Hello!) And while a correlation between Voldemort and Osama B. might be apt, it makes zero sense next to an insinuation that Fudge represents the chief executive of the US. Bush critics claim that he inflates the threat posed by Al Qaeda in order to justify his own excesses. Fudge (in contrast) is intent on pretending Voldemort does not exist.
Voldemort is shown in a business suit in at least one scene.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 17, 2007, 02:27:45 PM
Of course, I don't think the movie is intended as a one to one allegory of anything: It's broader than that, broad enough to be timeless, I think. I doubt that Rowling intended any HP character as an allegory for any specific real person. I'm just saying that the correlations of Voldemort=Osama and Bush=Fudge do not make sense sitting next to each other.
The Bush=Fudge correlation is not as far off as you say. Yes, they are acting from opposite opinions, but Fudge was doing what Bush is accused of doing - trying to set up a totalitarian state. In that sense, there is a definite similarity.

I read a lot of her reviews. I don't always agree with her opinions but I think she's a good writer. She absolutely has her own POV and she's not shy about saying what that is. I frequently go and check her opinion on her "2007 movies ranked" page to see of she liked or hated particular movies. I always enjoy reading her reviews of movies that she liked (Grindhouse) that I expected her to hate (anything by Quentin Tarentino) or vice-versa.

I think I posted it before, but if you get time, dig up her review of Tomb Raider - that's particularly funny.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #40 on:** July 17, 2007, 08:17:31 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 17, 2007, 07:50:08 PM

Voldemort is shown in a business suit in at least one scene.

He wears a suit when Harry is hallucinating. When we actually see him, he's wearing robes. I took the suit to be a symbol of Harry's paranoia: Seeing Volemort everywhere, lurking in every shadow, every stranger possibly being Voldemort in disguise. Seeing it as a metaphor for "corporate malice" is quite a stretch, I think.

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 17, 2007, 07:50:08 PM

Fudge was doing what Bush is accused of doing - trying to set up a totalitarian state.

Bush is trying to set up a totalitarian state... Um, right, okay, and Bush also sacrifices a changeling child on an obsidian alter every second Tuesday of the month in order to channel the spirit of Hitler. Cheney draws the necessary pentagrams with stolen crude oil.

But I don't think Fudge was trying to set up a totalitarian state, or set up anything, really. His sin is not his desire to dominate, but rather his refusal to acknowledge the facts. His intentions are good: He wants to preserve the freedom and safety of the wizarding world, but he is too fearful and weak to take the necessary steps to get that done. He'd rather pretend that everything is fine and hope that Voldemort will just go away if everyone avoids looking at him. When Fudge gets nasty is when other people refuse to accept his delusion. Because it is a delusion, it cannot withstand criticism, and hence criticism becomes a crime. That is certainly an important theme in the HP series: Wrong ideas cannot bear criticism, and so, reason being against them, those who cling to delusions must resort to force.

Anyway, what I said was that Voldemort=Osama and Bush=Fudge are not compatible analogies. If you say Bush=Fudge, then Voldermort has got to be somebody else. But I doubt Rowling meant to comment on any particular person in her writings. I don't think she was going for allegory.

Russell Nash · **Reply #41 on:** July 18, 2007, 11:00:58 AM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 17, 2007, 08:17:31 PM

His sin is not his desire to dominate, but rather his refusal to acknowledge the facts. His intentions are good: He wants to preserve the freedom and safety of the wizarding world, but he is too fearful and weak to take the necessary steps to get that done. He'd rather pretend that everything is fine and hope that Voldemort will just go away if everyone avoids looking at him. When Fudge gets nasty is when other people refuse to accept his delusion. Because it is a delusion, it cannot withstand criticism, and hence criticism becomes a crime. That is certainly an important theme in the HP series: Wrong ideas cannot bear criticism, and so, reason being against them, those who cling to delusions must resort to force.

I was with you until this. I don't think Rowling was going for any comparision (in the books, I haven't seen the movie and probsbly won't until I can borrow the DVD off of a friend (I haven't liked the movies at all)).

However if we go back to Bush's comments of how he is a "War time commander" and how you can't criticize him because of it. Or we look at Cheney's (and others) comments that ,"anyone who criticizes this president is unamerican", We can definately see a direct parallel to how you described Fudge.

Again, I don't think Rowling was trying to do this. Maybe the director of the movie was. The last time I heard Rowling talk about the movies she said they make the movies and she hopes people like them. At that time (I don't know if it has changed or not) she was in no way involved in the films.

ClintMemo · **Reply #42 on:** July 18, 2007, 11:37:42 AM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 17, 2007, 08:17:31 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 17, 2007, 07:50:08 PM
Voldemort is shown in a business suit in at least one scene.

He wears a suit when Harry is hallucinating. When we actually see him, he's wearing robes. I took the suit to be a symbol of Harry's paranoia: Seeing Volemort everywhere, lurking in every shadow, every stranger possibly being Voldemort in disguise. Seeing it as a metaphor for "corporate malice" is quite a stretch, I think.

maybe, but I could see either way. Yes, Harry was seeing Voldomort everywhere, from paranoia (and other reasons), but why in a business suit? Why not a conductor's uniform? I think that image was carefully chosen.

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 17, 2007, 08:17:31 PM

Bush is trying to set up a totalitarian state... Um, right, okay, and Bush also sacrifices a changeling child on an obsidian alter every second Tuesday of the month in order to channel the spirit of Hitler. Cheney draws the necessary pentagrams with stolen crude oil.

Whether Bush is or is not trying to set up a totalitarian state is a side issue that I won't get into, but Bush has definitely been accused of it. I seem to remember some totalitarian imagery in the ministry of magic - especially the big giant portrait of Fodge. Their motivations (Bush and Fudge) may have been different, but there is a similarity. I don't remember that bing in the book, so I suspect it was added by the director.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #43 on:** July 18, 2007, 01:33:43 PM

My final comment about Bush: Bush has been accused of absolutely everything. You name the vile deed, character flaw or ill intention, and someone has publicly accused him of it. I regularly listen to a podcast called "Blast the Right" (therationalradical.com/podcast.html), just to keep up on what's being said, and Bush is blamed, personally, for every problem that exists in the world. He's a busy man, it seems.

-----------------------

I'm curious, Russell, why haven't you liked the movies? You're the very first person I've heard say that they liked the books but not the movies.

I liked how the Ministry of Magic was portrayed, and I thought the giant Fudge banner was an especially nice touch. It's funny because Fudge is such a lumpy, unimposing figure. It looks like you could knock him down with a firm poke, but there he is, 100 feet tall, trying to look like some charismatic dictator. It's scary and absurd at the same time.

DKT · **Reply #44 on:** July 18, 2007, 04:06:07 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on July 18, 2007, 11:00:58 AM

Again, I don't think Rowling was trying to do this. Maybe the director of the movie was. The last time I heard Rowling talk about the movies she said they make the movies and she hopes people like them. At that time (I don't know if it has changed or not) she was in no way involved in the films.

I know Rowling is involved in the movies. She may not be involved as much as a director or some of the producers, but she definitely has some kind of script approval. I heard in a recent interview that in the OotP movie she'd read the script and realized one of the characters had been cut (not a first, obviously) but this time she said, "You might want to rethink that. That character has an important role in the 7th book." So the character was written back into the script.

Russell Nash · **Reply #45 on:** July 18, 2007, 05:40:50 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 18, 2007, 01:33:43 PM

I'm curious, Russell, why haven't you liked the movies? You're the very first person I've heard say that they liked the books but not the movies.

To start with the kids can't act. The first two were just Home Alone with wands. Hermione's actress (forgot her name) has learned how to act a little bit, but I don't think the set up of the films would really let any of them be spectacular.

The series just comes across as re-enactments of selected scenes. If you didn't read the book, you can't really follow them. When they change something from the books, they gut the wonder and intention of the scene.

In #3 (I think) Hermione has this whole part about how a werewolve is different from a real wolf, but when we see the werewolve he looks more like a furry Golum then a wolf.

I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it with this. The books are mostly good story telling and the movies are just mediocre spectical.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #46 on:** July 18, 2007, 08:04:23 PM

Ha! Wow! I guess tastes really differ. The girl who plays Hermione is the only member of the cast who I think isn't very good. She seems too forced and deliberate, like she's obviously trying to remember lines. I've thought so since the first movie. And I think Harry is really good, good enough that I'm already curious what kind of stuff he'll do post-Harry. Go figure.

Russell Nash · **Reply #47 on:** July 18, 2007, 09:12:03 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 18, 2007, 08:04:23 PM

Ha! Wow! I guess tastes really differ. The girl who plays Hermione is the only member of the cast who I think isn't very good. She seems too forced and deliberate, like she's obviously trying to remember lines. I've thought so since the first movie. And I think Harry is really good, good enough that I'm already curious what kind of stuff he'll do post-Harry. Go figure.

I said she can act a little. He can't act at all. After these movies are over, they'll both embarrass themselves in a couple of awful things and then do B-movies the rest of their careers. I hope their parents invested their money well.

He at least is doing some stage acting and such. That's a good way to learn.

ClintMemo · **Reply #48 on:** July 19, 2007, 11:33:36 AM

I thought I saw somewhere that he got really good reviews for his performance in Equus.

Whatever they do professionally, I just hope they don't end up as tabloid fodder. There are so many stories here in the US of child actors growing up to be adult trainwrecks, I'd really hate to see that happen to them.

Russell Nash · **Reply #49 on:** July 19, 2007, 02:49:35 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 19, 2007, 11:33:36 AM

I thought I saw somewhere that he got really good reviews for his performance in Equus.

Whatever they do professionally, I just hope they don't end up as tabloid fodder. There are so many stories here in the US of child actors growing up to be adult trainwrecks, I'd really hate to see that happen to them.

Whether or not they turn into trainwrecks, the tabloids will write that they did.

ClintMemo · **Reply #50 on:** July 19, 2007, 03:30:06 PM

Quote from: Russell Nash on July 19, 2007, 02:49:35 PM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 19, 2007, 11:33:36 AM
I thought I saw somewhere that he got really good reviews for his performance in Equus.

Whatever they do professionally, I just hope they don't end up as tabloid fodder. There are so many stories here in the US of child actors growing up to be adult trainwrecks, I'd really hate to see that happen to them.

Whether or not they turn into trainwrecks, the tabloids will write that they did.

Unfortunately, that's probably true, but I'd hate to see them be right.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #51 on:** July 19, 2007, 05:33:16 PM

I doubt it. I think you have to give the tabloid some kind of fodder. Even if the tabloid accounts are wildly exaggerated and even if they're 90% made-up, there is still some kind misbehavior required to fuel them. I think if a person really did just live a decent life and didn't make a fool of themselves, the tabloids would move on to more interesting prey.

It's something I've thought about a little, since I intend to be quite famous someday.

I don't think paparazzi would follow me around: I'm too boring. "Today Josh Hugo spent 8 hours on set, directing an episode of his serial. Then he went home. Later on, a friend came over. The played go and Halo 3. Then he went to bed, with his wife." You've got to do something that at least looks scandalous, otherwise the tabloids have nothing to embellish. I think if you just did your thing and didn't court the press, they'd probably leave you alone, even if you were famous.

ClintMemo · **Reply #52 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:31:50 PM

Quote from: Mr. Tweedy on July 19, 2007, 05:33:16 PM

It's something I've thought about a little, since I intend to be quite famous someday. I don't think paparazzi would follow me around: I'm too boring. "Today Josh Hugo spent 8 hours on set, directing an episode of his serial. Then he went home. Later on, a friend came over. The played go and Halo 3. Then he went to bed, with his wife."

"After spending eight grueling hours on the set of his new controversial serial, Director Josh Hugo, a.k.a. 'Mr Tweedy' went home in frustration. After brooding for hours at his home, a friend arrived to help comfort him. Upon leaving, the friend, who wished to remain anonymous, denied rumors that they were engaged in any romantic relationship, insisting that they spent the time playing ultra-violent video games. Not long after, Josh was seen seeking solace in the arms of his long suffering wife. At this point, it's not clear how or if his controversial serial will conclude, but the strain is obviously taking it's toll on the one time up-and-coming producer."

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #53 on:** July 19, 2007, 06:43:03 PM

Ha ha! That's not bad.

ClintMemo · **Reply #54 on:** July 19, 2007, 07:18:26 PM

Thanks.

But imagine what a pro could do....

Planish · **Reply #55 on:** July 20, 2007, 06:00:26 AM

Quote from: ClintMemo on July 19, 2007, 06:31:50 PM

"After spending eight grueling hours on the set of his new controversial serial, Director Josh Hugo, a.k.a. 'Mr Tweedy' went home in frustration. After brooding for hours at his home, a friend arrived to help comfort him. Upon leaving, the friend, who wished to remain anonymous, denied rumors that they were engaged in any romantic relationship, insisting that they spent the time playing ultra-violent video games. Not long after, Josh was seen seeking solace in the arms of his long suffering wife. At this point, it's not clear how or if his controversial serial will conclude, but the strain is obviously taking it's toll on the one time up-and-coming producer."

For starters, change "they spent the time playing ultra-violent video games" to "they spent the time playing ultra-violent games", and then "Not long after, Josh was seen seeking the arms of his suffering wife" just to make you wonder how violent the games were.

Mr. Tweedy · **Reply #56 on:** July 20, 2007, 08:54:23 PM

So, now that this thread has gone completely and utterly off topic (due in no small part to myself), I'm back to wondering:

What makes a great villain? We've got probably ten lists, and there's a lot of variety. You've got genocidal murderers (like Darth Vader) to people who don't kill anybody (Dolores Umbridge). Beings of supernatural malevolence (Samara, Sauron, Dr. Doom) to plain old bad people (Hans Gruber).

What makes these people/monster stand out from the pack?

DKT · **Reply #57 on:** July 20, 2007, 09:18:34 PM

Not to be flip, but quite simply, they scare me/creep me out.

All the ones I mentioned creeped me out at some point (Vader no longer does, but he terrified me as a kid). It also helps, at least for me, if they have a flicker of humanity to them.

ClintMemo · **Reply #58 on:** July 20, 2007, 11:55:55 PM

I think it depends on how much time they get in the story.
Sauron is just an evil menace in LOTR, but he's not actually in the book all that much, and that works fine. The story isn't about him. If the villain gets lots of page/screen time, they need to be fleshed out and I need to understand why they are the way they are. They have to have talents, skills or abilities that I can admire. Hannibal Lector (I've only seen the original movie) is a good example. I admire his ability to control his emotions, his keen intellect and his ability to manipulate people, but, (Holy Crap!) he is one scary, evil guy. He's like the evil Sherlock Holmes from the other universe in Star Trek. (hmmm, there's an idea in there I think - hang on, let me run to me writer's notebook.)

Listener · **Reply #59 on:** July 23, 2007, 08:57:17 PM

I hit on this in the "how do you write a villain" thread. I think the most important part of a villain is that he's a round character. That's why I never really was frightened by Sauron in LOTR, but Saruman I believed as a bad guy. (Also Wormtongue.) It's like, okay, Sauron's evil, but... uh... okay... whatever.

The Borg are an exception because while they don't grow as characters (except for the Queen and Hugh's offshoots) they change nonetheless in their acquisition of new technology.

Voldemort, also... to me, not such a great villain. I mean, okay, once we get to Book Six we start to understand him and he becomes a better villain, but in the first four books he's just sort of this specter of evil, and in the fifth, he's a more evil presence but we just have to take on faith that he is, indeed, evil.

It's like... okay, take Slytherin. Supposed to be evil. All the students are pretty much drawn as flat, though the teachers are round (ie: Snape, Slughorn -- literally and figuratively). So you feel more worried about Snape than Malfoy.

The problem with film is that you often don't have the opportunity to face a fully rounded villain, at least not in a major motion picture. Most people don't want to think that much, or at least, studio execs think they don't. In Transformers, none of the bad guys except the CD player dude were really round characters, but on the TV show, Megatron and Starscream were both fully-formed characters.

On TV, you have the luxury of a story arc to really establish a good villain -- the opera guy from Highlander (series), for example, appeared in several episodes, and we got to know him and why he hates MacLeod from the flashback sequences.

IMO, the best villains are the ones that are the protagonists or the pragmatists -- books/movies/shows about a villain, like Day Watch or Dexter; books/movies/shows with Lawful Evil characters... they are doing what we consider "evil" because they think it's the right thing to do.

(Think about good guys killing bad guys... killing a bad guy is good, because you've gotten rid of him, but bad, because you killed him... so are you good or evil?)