KMC Movie Awards: Villain of the decade.

By little emotive quality what I meant was that there is little quality in his character that inspires genuine emotion in the audience. He is not written/performed in such a way that strikes genuine fear into the heart of the audience, or genuinely inspires hatred of his character or anger towards his actions (at least to the extent that storyline escapism reasonably allows).

To what extent is this explored within the film? At best, we can add another dimension to his motivations in that he wants the continued survival and success of the order he belonged to regardless of his involvement in it, but again I fail to see the complexity in that, relatively speaking of course. There are numerous characters, the above two I mentioned as examples, that possess a far greater number of layers and dimensions to their motivations.

Not to the extent that they are explored within the films. His methods are presented in an entirely simplistic fashion and any real complexity there is is entirely assumed rather than demonstrated.

👆

Though Bane wasn't really all that.

I think this will be my final response to you on this subject, N; I lost my reserve of patience for dishonest posters around the time of HWKA.

N
Whilst imo TDK Joker was far more powerful in his scenes becuase he was so blatantly insane. And he still cake-walked through the movie despite that. He was so charismatic that even when acting butt**** crazy he had absolute command of the situation. And thats interesting. Its unique. Palpatine on the other hand came of as more of a lame characature of a villian. A complete stereotype through and through. Crazy Hitler-expy lying through his teeth with transparent plans of universal dominence. Yawn.

And you're way biased.

I refer you to my numerous references of chemical balance. You see, N, I'm not some socially awkward emo kid, which is to say that while I find the Joker to be badass and cool, I certainly don't find him charming or charismatic, for the same reason that I don't find Palpatine charismatic when he's deformed and ranting about unlimited power. Why? Because both these individuals are entirely blatant about their sadism and personality defects, so I neither trust them nor wish to befriend them nor support them.

In his guise as Senator and Supreme Chancellor, Palpatine seems to be an ideal politician with democracy's best interests at heart. I find that to be a little more persuasive than a psychopath ranting about his scars.

N
Its neither. Its you. Batman didn't kill Ra's, he just didn't save him from the mess he'd gotten himself into. Batman doesn't kill anyone directly in the movies. Except when he tackles Dent off a ledge becuase he had to.

Nonsense. Batman's ability to act and cold decision not to resulted in Ra's' death.

NJoker didn't care about petty things like galactic dominance, so I really don't care about that either. He achieved one thing: prove that even the best of men can be corrupted. Dent went insane and homicidal, Batman broke his One Rule.

Palpatine on the other hand? You say he achieved all his objectives. This is blatantly false. Palpatine tried to eliminate the Jedi, which he failed miserably (sp?) at, which directly lead to his defeat him Ep6. Palpatine tried to secure himself an Empire, which again, he failed at. Organa and crew immediately began plotting his downfall, which lead to the Rebel Alliance, which lead to his defeat in Ep6.

So personally I'd rank Jokers achievement in one movie, over Palpatines achievement in 3.[/b]

Your dishonesty enters the field again, I see. Just in case you've forgotten, Palpatine was conducting two simultaneous operations: the first was conquering the galaxy; the second was an act of corruption as well.

Palpatine, in fact, pulled it off twice: he corrupted an idealist who was publicly endorsed by Mace Windu and Yoda, testament to his once noble nature, and second, he corrupted Anakin Skywalker, who started off as a selfless idealist easily on par with Dent.

Palpatine's abilities as a corrupter far outstrip the Joker's, much as you pretend otherwise.

N
I'm disregarding it becuase this is about movie Villains. I'm judging him on what the movie shows us of him, which is a transparent Smug Snake douche with a poor performance backing him up. He only has one decent scene in the whole trilogy (you know the one).

The movie in which Palpatine is defeated is not germane to this thread; it was filmed in '83. Let it go.

N
Thats a real stretch. I highly doubt most viewers would connect the two. One throwaway line that 'merely implies that there might be a connection perhaps' doesn't cut it.

Right. So "most viewers" don't know that the Jedi use the Force to sense the Force in others and that, if their ability to use the Force was being diminished, naturally that would extend to their senses?

You have a very poor estimation of people, N. I think anyone who isn't stupid would be able to pick that up quickly.

N
You mean his one scene of 'You're the most powerful Jedi I've ever met and I would know, being MostdefinatelynotaSithLord yet able to tell for some reason even though I don't have Force senses of any kind.' Yeah, fantastic manipulation. And yeah the opera scene is decent, and merely decent.

Right, because regular people can't see Force users in action over the years and make an opinion as to who possesses greater strength? Or hear of their exploits and do the same? And regular people certainly can't dish out bullshit compliments for the sole purpose of inflating their target's ego?

We have their discussion in Attack of the Clones, the scene with Dooku in Revenge of the Sith, the scene in which Palpatine elects Anakin to be his representative on the Council, the opera scene, the scene in which Palpatine reveals his Sith allegiance, his telepathic communication to Anakin as Windu was confronting him, and the scene in which Anakin finally converts.

7 scenes to Dent's one. I win.

N
You know, I don't believe that you meant that last part. And as for the first, well then you should be bowing before my 'awesomeness', becuase I'm apparantly an amalgamation of you and Palpatine.

The only thing you've accomplished here is persuading me that you're dishonest in your comparisons.

And I'm not interested in taking it further. You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's agree to disagree.

Nebz, I'll get to you later.

Hans Landa
Clyde Shelton
Alonzo Harris
Anton Chigurh
Leslie Vernon
Bill "The Butcher" Cutting
John "Jigsaw" Cramer (and despite what others say, no, the Saw saga does not suck, nor, like Final Destination, is it an excuse plot for showing cool deaths. The entire series ties in to a compelling overarching plot)
Bane/Smith
I guess I have to add the obligatory TDK Joker

Palpatine indeed does not deserve to be on this list. I understand what some are saying, as indeed he was a very skilled manipulator and chessmaster, but the thing was that his villain did not have the personality compel the audience

Magnificent Bastard
Complete Monster
These should help anyone who is looking for contenders

Lestov16
Palpatine indeed does not deserve to be on this list. I understand what some are saying, as indeed he was a very skilled manipulator and chessmaster, but the thing was that his villain did not have the personality compel the audience

I disagree. Incidentally, Palpatine's on both of the lists you provided. 😐

Originally posted by Gideon
I disagree. Incidentally, Palpatine's on both of the lists you provided. 😐

Everyone has their own opinion 🙂

Lestov16
Everyone has their own opinion 🙂

Which is why I said "I disagree" instead of "yer rong and u sux!"

But it's not my opinion and simple fact that.... he's on the TVTropes lists you provided. 😐

Originally posted by Gideon
Which is why I said "I disagree" instead of "yer rong and u sux!"

But it's not my opinion and simple fact that.... he's on the TVTropes lists you provided. 😐

I was obviously directing my statement to the first part of your sentence 😛

Lestov16
I was obviously directing my statement to the first part of your sentence 😛

I know.

Like I said, though, I just consider the Emperor to be the greatest villain in cinema history. Did he have the greatest actor? No, but the character is what matters.

Originally posted by Gideon
I know.

Like I said, though, I just consider the Emperor to be the greatest villain in cinema history. Did he have the greatest actor? No, but the character is what matters.

I do see where you are coming from, but I simply can not agree

Nebz,

No offense, but I get the feeling that you're b1tching for the sake of b1tching on something that is ultimately a matter of opinion. It's my understanding that you do this elsewhere (video games?). For example, I refer you to this little nugget:

Nebz
His achievements as a villain only matter to the extent that they add to the emotive qulity of his character or what it means in the context of the story, which in both cases are quite mediocre regardless.

This doesn't seem to make any sense at all, really, and if it does, you've done a terrible job of explaining it. You see, the Star Wars films tell two stories: the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker and the rise and fall of the Empire; a micro and macro tale, respectively.

Palpatine's character is somewhat essential to both of these stories, as is his success, so you can't exactly call it mediocre in terms of its importance to the context of the story.

So I'm afraid until you explain more cogently, we'll just agree to disagree.

Lestov16
I do see where you are coming from, but I simply can not agree

Acceptable.

Though I'd personally enjoy your reasons why.

On paper Palpatine may be a great villain, but unfortunately for him a movie uses a visual format. And Palpatine simply fails full stop to impress in a visual format. He's not compelling, he's not chilling, he's not terrifying etc etc. He fails to invoke feelings or thoughts in the audience. In a movie setting, Palpatine is merely mediocre.

Thats how I see it.

Originally posted by Nephthys
On paper Palpatine may be a great villain, but unfortunately for him a movie uses a visual format. And Palpatine simply fails full stop to impress in a visual format. He's not compelling, he's not chilling, he's not terrifying etc etc. He fails to invoke feelings or thoughts in the audience. In a movie setting, Palpatine is merely mediocre.

Thats how I see it.

These are my views on the character also

Originally posted by Gideon
Nebz,

No offense, but I get the feeling that you're b1tching for the sake of b1tching on something that is ultimately a matter of opinion. It's my understanding that you do this elsewhere (video games?). For example, I refer you to this little nugget:

This doesn't seem to make any sense at all, really, and if it does, you've done a terrible job of explaining it. You see, the Star Wars films tell two stories: the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker and the rise and fall of the Empire; a micro and macro tale, respectively.

Palpatine's character is somewhat essential to both of these stories, as is his success, so you can't exactly call it mediocre in terms of its importance to the context of the story.

So I'm afraid until you explain more cogently, we'll just agree to disagree.

What I'm essentially saying is that not only is Darth Bane more important to the Dark Side but that he also possesses a significantly larger penis.

Originally posted by Aede Madavan
What I'm essentially saying is that not only is Darth Bane more important to the Dark Side but that he also possesses a significantly larger penis.

emphasis on the "significantly" 😉

Originally posted by Lestov16
These are my views on the character also

Mine too.

As you can see Gideon you are significantly outnumbered. I will give you approximately 17 minutes to submit before us before we begin posting links to your humiliating defeat here all over the internet.

Originally posted by Lestov16
emphasis on the "significantly" 😉

Indeed. 😄

N
Thats how I see it.

Yes, we get it: you're emo.

What we get is that you're a sore loser. 😛