KMC Movie Awards: Villain of the decade.

Originally posted by Gideon
?

I guess I need to watch the Dark Knight again: I was fairly certain that his motives for killing Gordon and Batman were solely out of revenge, and have a rather hard time believing otherwise. Especially since he kidnapped Gordon's kids son with the intent to kill him.

Hardly what I'd call a self-righteous systematic attempt to end the corruption in Gotham City.

If Dent only did what he did out of revenge, he wouldn't have bothered with the old "50-50 chance of dying" coin flip with the Joker. Dent went after Gordon's kids because...well because he was insane. He didn't think Gordon did enough to stop corruption within the police department.

Originally posted by Darth Martin
As far as importance, feats, and intelligence sure Palpatine is the best. But this isn't the MVF. Palpatine simply doesn't grip you the way Joker, Landa, or Chigurgh did.

DM
As far as importance, feats, and intelligence sure Palpatine is the best. But this isn't the MVF.

You specified absolutely zero criteria for the selection process, so I'm providing my own opinion.

DM
Palpatine simply doesn't grip youme the way Joker, Landa, or Chigurgh did.

Corrected.

I found Palpatine to be just as frightening and as intimidating as any of the villains you've listed, because of the reasons I provided. He was smarter, stronger, more patient, and he won: there is a sense of realism to the character, the danger of a nation turning itself over to a dictator.

That's terrifying to me.

Hahahahaha... Palpatine? Hahahahah. Not a chance.

As much as I hate to say it (as the film and the character are overrated) the Joker is obviously the villain of the decade.

My personal favourites are Bill (Gangs of New York) and Colonel Hans Landa (Inglourious Basterds)

And Jigsaw for the horror genre.

Dr Will Hatch
If Dent only did what he did out of revenge, he wouldn't have bothered with the old "50-50 chance of dying" coin flip with the Joker. Dent went after Gordon's kids because...well because he was insane. He didn't think Gordon did enough to stop corruption within the police department.

It's been a year since I've seen the film, but I seem to recall a quote from Dent telling Gordon to lie to his son, to tell him everything was going to be fine, just as [Gordon] had to lie to [Rachael].

It seems pretty clear to me that Dent was motivated by revenge, else he wouldn't have taken Gordon's son hostage - he simply would have killed Gordon himself.

Insanity simply seems to be an excuse offered to shield a gross error in the script. I'm not buying it.

Jigsaw's another good one.

As far as Harvey's motivation is concerned, the script pretty much sides with me:

"You wouldn't dare try to justify yourself if you knew what I'd lost. Have you ever had to talk to the person you love most, wondering if you're about to listen to them die? Have you ever had to lie to that person? Tell them it's going to be all right, when you know it's not? Well, you're about to find out what that feels like. Then you'll be able to look me in the eye and tell me you're sorry."

It was revenge; a pretty basic open-and-shut-case of it, too. But that's all I really have to say on that particular subject.

When will the Ledger-Joker masturbation end? When!?

Anyhow, not a great movie, but Stanley Tucci's pedophile-murderer character in 'The Lovely Bones' was top-notch, the guy oozed creepiness, in look, expression and mannerisms.

Well, revenge was part of it, yeah, but he needed an excuse on which to focus his revenge. If he was just angry at the people who killed his girlfriend, he wouldn't have gone after all those other cops and the mob boss Maroni. Dent was pissed at Gordon several times earlier in the movie for not doing more about corruption(for example, letting Batman run around even though he helped out).

The insanity excuse I could take or leave, but I bought it. Eckhart is a g ood actor. "Two Face" is ridiculous, but I could buy an insane vigilante/rage filled murderer. They are a dime a dozen in real life.

Originally posted by Robtard
When will the Ledger-Joker masturbation end? When!?

Anyhow, not a great movie, but Stanley Tucci's pedophile-murder character in 'The Lovely Bones' was top-notch, the guy oozed creepiness, in look, expression and mannerisms.

When picking awards though you have to go for the obvious.

You're entitled to your opinion.

But I'm not one of Ledger's estrogen brigade; I do not consider him the second coming or the greatest actor ever OMG!!1! Likewise, McDiarmid is nothing special in the grand scheme of things, either.

This thread, you see, is not about which actor is better, but which villain is better. And while performances certainly are a factor, I don't see how the Joker's pathetic track record can compare to a man of Palpatine's achievements.

And as you said a villian should be menacing. Palpatine wasn't the slightest bit menacing. He made me laugh at how awful and hammy the portrayal was. I could not take him seriously as a threat at all. LJoker on the other hand was brutally menacing, charismatic, engaging to watch and when he made me laugh, did so on purpose, not by being shit.

Joker lived through his movie, proved his point and defeated the hero. Palpatine got his ass thrown down a shaft and got morally pwned.

You could, but it really wouldn't be valid. Palpatine was utilizing a technique that shielded his sensitivity to the Force and had spent decades crafting a cult of personality around him; it's one of the most intricate and realistic (in its depth) takeovers in cinematic history.

No it isn't. In the EU, maybe, but in the movie 1) Hiding his Force presense was never explained. In fact, I don't recall why, from a movie stand point, they didn't know it was him. 2) His take-over is ridiculous and filled with more holes than a triple-c***ed hooker.

Movie 1: The racist aliens know what he looks like and his voice! They would know who he is. And they would obviously start pointing fingers the moment they were captured. And how did he get the Trade Federation to stop trade? Isn't that the very last thing they'd want to do? And why did he insist on the Treaty being signed? Forcing someone to sign a treaty kind of invalidates the signiture as a whole, you might as well just forge the damn thing. Movie 2) Oh wow, thank God these clones were mysteriously here so that we need to give me emergency powers so that I can approve their creation, this isn't surspicious at all! Oh Gee wizz, if only Senator Amadala was here to give me emergancy powers obvious-hint obvious-hint. Movie 3: I can't be bothered to mock Ep 3, I think you get it now.

Insane? No more, IMHO, than Anakin Skywalker, whose fall I'm sure you eschew.

The fact remains that the Joker's manipulation of Dent was utterly one dimensional and defied all reason and basic sense. If Dent really were insane, he would have killed the Joker and then probably went on to kill Batman and Gordon. But sparing the man who engineered the death of his beloved?

That's just crap writing.

Dent was way crazier than Annie. Waaaay crazier. And Palpatines manipulation of him was equally one-dimensional, 'Do IT!' [Slow sarcastic clap]

Also, see above.

Did we see different prequel trilogies? Palpatine won in a way that the Joker could never dream of.

By taking over the universe? Why would anyone want to rule the universe? What a crap job that would be. Plus he died in the end. Joker didn't. Plus he was above such 'crude matter' as Yoda put it. The True Villain doesn't give a crap about winning physically, only low-brow thugs do that, the real threats face the hero with their minds and their souls. The true fight between good and evil is a spiritual one, which Joker won. In the end, Palps didn't.

Tucci's a superb character actor; I wish his sojourn to primetime TV had worked out better.

But, yeah, I stand by my opinion: while there are plenty of villains who are more memorable in the public conscious and who are far more iconic, Palpatine's arguably the greatest villain ever, IMHO. George blundered a lot in the prequel trilogy, but nailed the Emperor's rise to power with stunning depth and dimension.

Another one was Commodus, from Gladiator.

I really hated that guy and wished him dead, such a conniving prick. When an actor can portray a villain that draws that emotion from you, that's a ****ing villain of worth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another one was Commodus, from Gladiator.

I really hated that guy and wished him dead, such a conniving prick. When an actor can portray a villain that draws that emotion from you, that's a ****ing villain of worth.

Originally posted by §P0oONY
Yeah, he is one I could happily see myself punching.

That's a villain.

And yet you have the tiniest amount of pity for the douche. I agree, great villain.

Nephthys
And as you said a villian should be menacing. Palpatine wasn't the slightest bit menacing. He made me laugh at how awful and hammy the portrayal was. I could not take him seriously as a threat at all. LJoker on the other hand was brutally menacing, charismatic, engaging to watch and when he made me laugh, did so on purpose, not by being shit.

But this is all utterly and completely subjective. Personally? I'm not wooed by blatantly insane and homocidal clowns, so I don't find Ledger's Joker (or Curry's Pennywise, for that matter) the least bit charismatic. Meanwhile, a calm, patient, and seemingly benign idealist is far more likely to impress me as a person.

...

But then again, I'm chemically balanced.

N
Joker lived through his movie, proved his point and defeated the hero. Palpatine got his ass thrown down a shaft and got morally pwned.

First, I'm not interested in Ledger fanwankery. Ledger accomplished his objective, yes, but he certainly did not defeat Batman. They weren't battling over Dent's soul, they were battling over the damn boats. Ledger's gambit failed (just like Palpatine's initial scheme in the Phantom Menace), but he managed to accomplish another objective through other means.

Suffice it to say that Palpatine was granted unlimited war powers while the Joker was taken into custody.

I'm not Harvey Dent; you can't tell me what is contrary to the obvious and expect me to believe it.

Second, Return of the Jedi was 1983. Reread the title of this thread.

N
No it isn't. In the EU, maybe, but in the movie 1) Hiding his Force presense was never explained. In fact, I don't recall why, from a movie stand point, they didn't know it was him. 2) His take-over is ridiculous and filled with more holes than a triple-cunted hooker.

The movie explained that Palpatine was clouding the Jedi's senses. There's your explanation. Avoid dishonesty in the future.

N
Movie 1: The racist aliens know what he looks like and his voice! They would know who he is. And they would obviously start pointing fingers the moment they were captured.

This was explained in Attack of the Clones: Palpatine was arranging for the Trade Federation to remain operational and, in fact, enhance the size of its armies during the trials in the Supreme Court.

N
And how did he get the [b]Trade Federation to stop trade? Isn't that the very last thing they'd want to do? And why did he insist on the Treaty being signed?[/b]

Because he wanted the treaty to be validated so he could continue to milk the sympathy from the invasion. Amidala escaped and he was forced to adapt.

N
Forcing someone to sign a treaty kind of invalidates the signiture as a whole, you might as well just forge the damn thing.[b]

The treaty would have eventually been invalidated due to duress, but who said Palpatine wanted it to last forever?

N
[b]Movie 2) Oh Gee wizz, if only Senator Amadala was here to give me emergancy powers obvious-hint obvious-hint. Oh wow, thank God these clones were mysteriously here so that we need to give me emergency powers so that I can approve their creation, this isn't surspicious at all! Movie 3: I can't be bothered to mock Ep 3, I think you get it now

Stop quoting from RedLetterMedia, please.

N
Dent was way crazier than Annie. Waaaay crazier. And Palpatines manipulation of him was equally one-dimensional, 'Do IT!' [Slow sarcastic clap]

I'm becoming bored with your dishonesty. That wasn't the sum of Palpatine's manipulation of Anakin and you very well know it.

N
Also, see above.

I did. I'm unimpressed.

N
By taking over the universe? Why would anyone want to rule the universe? What a crap job that would be. Plus he died in the end. Joker didn't. Plus he was above such 'crude matter' as Yoda put it. The True Villaan doesn't give a crap about winning physically, only low-brow thugs do that, teh real threats face teh hero with their minds and their souls. The true fight between good and evil is a spiritual one, which Joker won. In the end, Palps didn't.

I appreciate your attempt to move the goalpost. And if you insist in being obtuse, I can point and say Palpatine won the spiritual war with Dooku, which nullifies any victory for the Joker.

Surely you can do better?

Hans Gruber. And Rickman in Robin Hood.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Hans Gruber. And Rickman in Robin Hood.

Rogue Jedi
Hans Gruber. And Rickman in Robin Hood.

Wrong decade.

Oh well.