KMC Movie Awards: Villain of the decade.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Darth Martin
Who does the villain of the decade title go to. I believe their are 3 main contenders in The Joker, Anton Chigurgh, and Hans Landa. Have I missed anyone?

Honorable mention to Michael Myers, Alonzo Harris, and Patrick Bateman but they just simply are not on par with the above three.

Takers? Opinions?

Nephthys
Who's the second one? I'd say The Joker, just becuase he didn't make such a massive miscalculation as Landa did at the end.

Impediment
Of the decade? From your list, I'd have to definitely go with Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz knocked it out of the park.

Other nominees would have to be Sergi Lopez as Cpt. Vidal from Pan's Labyrinth, Yu Ji-tae as Lee Woo-jin from Oldboy, and "Addiction", the main antagonist, from Requiem for a Dream.

Gideon
What's the criteria?

IMHO, in terms of achievements, impact, influence, and sheer badassery, Palpatine takes the cake.

Nephthys
He sadly loses for having a shitty actor.

MildPossession
Myers? Myers was not in this decade, and we don't count the shitty remake version or the thing that appeared in Resurrection. stick out tongue

SnakeEyes
I definitely agree with the Joker, Landa and Chigurgh. Loved all three of those characters/the performances/the films!

Some others that came to mind (some of their villainry is debatable):

- Gollum (The Lord of the Rings)
- Bill the Butcher (Gangs of New York)
- Daniel Plainview (There Will Be Blood)
- Commodus (Gladiator)
- Agent Smith (The Matrix films - the second two came out this past decade)
- Bill (Kill Bill)
- Vincent (Collateral)

Dr Will Hatch
Originally posted by Nephthys
He sadly loses for having a shitty actor. WTF? What was wrong with him?

Gideon
N
He sadly loses for having a shitty actor.

McDiarmid wasn't flawless by any means, but he was hardly a shitty actor; given the subpar dialogue from Lucas, the man worked miracles. His performance was among the very few accolades given to the prequel trilogy.

A lot of it comes down to preference, of course, but in terms of something measurable, Palpatine wins in every conceivable arena.

Nephthys
'Noe! Noe! You have Lost!'

In short: Lots of Ham.

edit: Fine, the performance, which may or may not have to do with the actor among other things, was decidedly shitty.

Gideon
Nephthys
Who's the second one? I'd say The Joker, just becuase he didn't make such a massive miscalculation as Landa did at the end.

The Joker's up there, but I personally have to deduct points for Nolan's wankery regarding the character: the idea that Dent actually swallowed that bullshit logic (You don't want to kill me for causing your woman's death, you wanna kill Batman and Gordon for trying like hell to save her and simply failing to do so) is utterly and completely retarded on monstrous levels. Of course, the fact that Nolan was deepthroating Ledger and his character didn't stop me from enjoying the rest of the movie, but a credible villain should be menacing or intelligent without overactive writer's fiat.

1. Palpatine
2. Landa
3. Joker

Cutler Beckett's up there, too.

Gideon
N
'Noe! Noe! You have Lost!'

In short: Lots of Ham.

edit: Fine, the performance, which may or may not have to do with the actor among other things, was decidedly shitty.

no expression

One line transforms an entire performance into a trainwreck? I don't disagree: McDiarmid's inflections in that scene and a few others from Revenge of the Sith were absolutely and utterly hammy, but I disagree that it ruins the entire portrayal.

Edit: And unless we saw two different movies, I have to say that Ledger was as hammy and as theatrical as McDiarmid.

Darth Martin
LOL at placing Palpatine on par with the top 3 in my OP. Those 3 give you goosebumps when they appeared onscreen.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Gideon
The Joker's up there, but I personally have to deduct points for Nolan's wankery regarding the character: the idea that Dent actually swallowed that bullshit logic (You don't want to kill me for causing your woman's death, you wanna kill Batman and Gordon for trying like hell to save her and simply failing to do so) is utterly and completely retarded on monstrous levels. Of course, the fact that Nolan was deepthroating Ledger and his character didn't stop me from enjoying the rest of the movie, but a credible villain should be menacing or intelligent without overactive writer's fiat.

1. Palpatine
2. Landa
3. Joker

Cutler Beckett's up there, too.

But imo he wins massive points for actually having a fantastic delivery of the performance, a non-retarded and by all means amazing director and a brilliant actor as opposed to hammy over-acted tripe. Plus I could say the same thing about Palpatines plan only surviving becuase all the other characters were braindead. 'What! How could Palpatine, the one person benefitting from everything thats happened in all 3 movie Possibly be a Sith Lord!? That just plane re-dunkuous!' And Dent was pretty darn insane at that point. Aaaaand Joker arguably won in the end anyway, which Palpatine didn't.

So there. stick out tongue

Beckett's Ok, but he was kind of a dweeb.

Nephthys
no expression

Ledger was Fan-****ing-tastic, and if I could fly to America I'd do so to slap you for putting him on the same level as Mcwhatshisface. I was merely giving an example of the terrible ham which spewed forth from betwixt his lips, just as you did about Joker.

Dr Will Hatch
Originally posted by Gideon
The Joker's up there, but I personally have to deduct points for Nolan's wankery regarding the character: the idea that Dent actually swallowed that bullshit logic (You don't want to kill me for causing your woman's death, you wanna kill Batman and Gordon for trying like hell to save her and simply failing to do so) is utterly and completely retarded on monstrous levels. Of course, the fact that Nolan was deepthroating Ledger and his character didn't stop me from enjoying the rest of the movie, but a credible villain should be menacing or intelligent without overactive writer's fiat.

1. Palpatine
2. Landa
3. Joker

Cutler Beckett's up there, too.

That's not what Dent bought. Dent thought that it was pointless to kill the Joker since he(the Joker) would have been useless without the mass corruption in law enforcement. Dent went insane, you see?

Gideon
Nephthys
But imo he wins massive points for actually having a fantastic delivery of the performance, a non-retarded and by all means amazing director and a brilliant actor as opposed to hammy over-acted tripe.

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.



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.

A far cry from the blatantly insane Joker, whom Palpatine has bested miles in terms of subtlety and patience.



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.



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



I'm afraid not.



I'll address this later.

Dr Will Hatch
Originally posted by Gideon
no expression

One line transforms an entire performance into a trainwreck? I don't disagree: McDiarmid's inflections in that scene and a few others from Revenge of the Sith were absolutely and utterly hammy, but I disagree that it ruins the entire portrayal.

Edit: And unless we saw two different movies, I have to say that Ledger was as hammy and as theatrical as McDiarmid.

QFT

From what I know about him, McDiarmid is a good stage actor. Stage actors have to be more emotive or poetic with their dialogue since they only have the stage to work with. If you have to blame anyone for him being hammy, blame Lucas.

Gideon
OriginDr Will Hatch
That's not what Dent bought. Dent thought that it was pointless to kill the Joker since he(the Joker) would have been useless without the mass corruption in law enforcement. Dent went insane, you see?

?

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.

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.

Dr Will Hatch
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.

Dr Will Hatch
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. No, but that wasn't his fault. The way Palpatine is written in the Matthew Stover novelization is chilling. If they had used that guy's script...ROTS would have been up there with TESB.

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



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.

§P0oONY
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.

Gideon
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 had to lie to .

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.

Gideon
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.

Robtard
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.

Dr Will Hatch
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.

§P0oONY
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. I did say he was over rated...

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

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.

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



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.



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

Also, see above.



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.

Gideon
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.

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.

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

Robtard

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

Gideon
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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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

.

Stop quoting from RedLetterMedia, please.



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



I did. I'm unimpressed.



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?

Rogue Jedi
Hans Gruber. And Rickman in Robin Hood.

§P0oONY
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Hans Gruber. And Rickman in Robin Hood. Neither of those are this decade....

Gideon
Rogue Jedi
Hans Gruber. And Rickman in Robin Hood.

Wrong decade.

Rogue Jedi
Oh well.

Gideon
RJ
Oh well.

Rickman's performance in Robin Hood was seriously underwhelming, IMHO. I just watched it for the first time the other day.

Gruber was by far more menacing. I also rather liked Jeremy Irons' performance as Gruber's brother in the third one.

Rogue Jedi
TDK Joker.

§P0oONY
Sy from One Hour Photo (although not really a villain, he is a great character with a few screws loose)

Idi Amin from Last King of Scotland

RE: Blaxican
Gonna go with Golum from Lord of the Rings for sure.

Maybe Palpatine after that.

Then... uh...

Rogue Jedi
Voldemort, there I said it. Lex Luthor.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Gideon
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.

What? Did we watch the same movie, becuase personally, Palpatine came of as just as insane as the Joker. Maybe you missed the scene where he was screeching with insane laughter in the middle of a fight. Or those silly faces he made while he was fighting Mace. Or 'Hey watch as I melt my own face!'





Ledger made Batman kill Harvey Dent. Dude rugby-tackled him of a ledge. Batman broke his one rule, so Joker won the argument.



He still won and I'm right and your wrong so neh!



I'm counting it becuase everone watching knows he dies in the end anyway. You can't be that chilling if everyone knows you get taken out like a punk.





IIRC All that was said was that 'their ability to use teh Force had diminished.' Nothing about actual concealment.





Again, IIRC you just see the federation with the Seperatists, its not explained what he said, who he said it to, what happened, how they got off or anything. I'm not even sure its the same people. Are you sure you aren't talkinga bout a deleted scene perhaps?





That doesn't explain why they didn't just shoot her and forge the thing. Heck, he's get way more sympathy thet way. The senate can't ignore the death of a monarch. And elected monarch btw.






Well he obviously didn't. Theres zero chance of that treaty being legal ever.
.



But he makes such good points! Just becuase you know he's right.




It was the sum of what we were shown at that point. And it was obviously very persuasive as it made Annie kill an unarmed (LOL!) man but seriously Palpatines an alright man and totally not a Sith Lord at allllllllll!'





I'm not moving anything, that is seriously the measure of a true villain. Sam Jackson said so in Unbreakable, so its 100% garuanteed to be right and awesome. And Palps was never in a war with Dooku. Him screaming 'Do it!' proved no points whatsoever, except that Dooku was gullible. Howin Merlins saggy ballsack does that even begin to compare to what TDK Joker did. Becuase I'm not seeing jack.

I'm just getting warmed up. I havn't even quoted Master Crimzon yet.

Edit: Yeah, Gollum was pretty damn good.

Gideon
N
What? Did we watch the same movie, becuase personally, Palpatine came of as just as insane as the Joker. Maybe you missed the scene where he was screeching with insane laughter in the middle of a fight. Or those silly faces he made while he was fighting Mace. Or 'Hey watch as I melt my own face!'

If you'd been paying attention, you'll notice I never denied that Palpatine had moments of absolute malice and sadism, but in fact mentioned that McDiarmid had scenes in which he was undeniably hammy.

The difference, of course, is that Palpatine was not acting in such a manner the entire time. He only unleashed his megalomania the moment he had no reason not to, which is why he is far more charismatic, charming, or what have you than the hideously blatant insanity of the Joker.

But again, I'm chemically balanced.



The only question here, of course, is which of the three (Batman, the Joker, or Nolan) is more inept: if any of them had been aware of the events of the first film, they would have realized that Batman had and would kill when necessary -- Liam Neeson, anyone?



He achieved a single objective while being placed in police custody; Palpatine achieved all of his objectives while claiming his place as ruler of the galaxy.

Palpatine's victory was many order of magnitudes greater than the Joker's single moment of triumph.



Unfortunately, it has no bearing on the actual thread or its contents, especially since you're inclined to disregard the EU. Do me a favor and at least try to curb your dishonesty and double standards, please.



...Which would include their superhuman senses afforded by the Force, yes?



It was said that Gunray was basically let off with a slap on the wrist after four trials in the Supreme Court, but you're correct: it wasn't explicitly mentioned within the movie that Palpatine had arranged the affair (it was later confirmed in Labyrinth of Evil).

I'm not even going to begin to discuss your selective lack of imagination or ability to infer, but I am thinking rather mean thoughts about it.



One can assume that it's a little more complicated than a mere signature.



Only if the circumstances surrounding its signing were released; presumably, Palpatine would delay that.



He's funny; but he's not right.



That's an outright lie: Palpatine fostered a lust for power in Anakin during several scenes throughout the last two movies. Pretending otherwise is pointless, most of us have seen them.



What you see and what is there are apparently two separate things. Let's recap: you've been completely dishonest, horribly biased, and transparent as hell.

With all due respect. wink

the ninjak
Long posts damn!

Frank Booth from Blue Velvet.......by a longshot!

General_Iroh
A few top competitors imo
Joker (TDK)
Chigurh (No Country for Old Men)
Ozymandias (Watchmen)
Mr. Creedy (V for Vendetta)
Also if you include animated films:
Vincent (Cowboy Bebop)

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by the ninjak
Long posts damn!

Frank Booth from Blue Velvet.......by a longshot!

Again, the 80s isn't... now.

Kazenji
TDK- Joker
Kick-Ass- Frank D'Amico
Inglorious Basterds- Col. Hans Landa

the ninjak
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
Again, the 80s isn't... now.

Joker then this decade sucks in villains.

Aede Madavan
As far as deep and intruiging motivations, detailed backstories, and great character exploration goes, I'd probably give it to Jigsaw.

Palpatine probably wouldn't even qualify for the top 100 in all honesty. Little emotive quality in the character, unoriginal motivations lacking in depth, complexity and intruige, no visual merit, little presence, mediocre dialogue, and of course he acted as villain within the confines of a mediocre story. He was smart and achieved a lot but that matters little when judging his merit from a storytelling perspective.

Now if we were to consider all of the events in the PT as an extension of Darth Bane's character and the long term effects of his planning and manipulation (including the set of instructions he left for his employee, Darth Palpatine), then he would quite possibly make the top 5.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Long posts damn!

Frank Booth from Blue Velvet.......by a longshot!

Best villain of all time right there!

Kazenji
Originally posted by the ninjak
Joker then this decade sucks in villains.

Then i guess you have'nt seen many movies this decade.

the ninjak
Originally posted by Kazenji
Then i guess you have'nt seen many movies this decade.

Seeing films with villians on the calibre of Frank Booth.....no.

Maybe the Red Dragon, but we didn't see enough of him.

Gideon
Nebaris
As far as deep and intruiging motivations, detailed backstories, and great character exploration goes, I'd probably give it to Jigsaw.

I've only seen the first movie and half the second, but from what little I saw I was very impressed. Alas, I heard the sequels sucked.



laughing out loud laughing out loud laughing out loud

You're crazy. In all honesty.

no expression



That depends on what you mean. He doesn't tear up at the sight of flowers or get butterflies when watching romance movies, but that's not the point. Palpatine, in Lucas's own words, is meant to represent Satan: basic emotions are meant to be artificial, a guise that enables him to achieve his true goals. He's meant to represent the absolute worst in people and be the dark end of a moral spectrum.

Pretty compelling, if you ask me.



What motivations are original, then? Palpatine's motivation is a lust for dominance and authority, which is as realistic as it gets.



This is utterly subjective: Palpatine not only sought ultimate power, but also (initially) sought an apprentice who would eventually succeed him to perpetuate the Sith legacy. This is a complex set of objectives, since they clash: Palpatine simultaneously wants to be the galactic ruler, but acknowledges (again, initially) that he is mortal and thus seeks an individual who can eventually replace him. Not to mention his methods provide any complexity that his motivation may lack.



This sounds an awful lot like pulling criteria out of your ass. no expression



Again, this is utterly subjective: as Darth Sidious, he is commanding and imposing. As Palpatine? He's meant to provide little presence: he's unassuming, remember?



For the most part, Palpatine's dialogue was satisfactory within the movies. (Probably because he didn't have a love interest.)



The story is superb; it's execution is what's shakey.



That matters quite a bit, actually. Palpatine is the embodiment of an archetype: the single manifestation of pure evil, the physical incarnation of temptation, a lust for power, and manipulation. He exists as an idea and force of nature. I agree, he's not, as I say, a villain who cries during the Notebook. He is the ultimate representation of villainy because he's thoroughly evil.

Palpatine's triumphs are critical to his role as a successful villain, and serve to emphasize how very dangerous he is.

It's a sad day when an ideal villain is neither successful, intelligent, or dangerous: this seems to defy the very purpose of a villain.

But, as mentioned before, no criteria was listed, so I go by what I value in cinema characters.

ADarksideJedi
The Nazi in the movie "Basterds" is the best and deserves an award.along with Brad Pit for that same movie.

Gideon
ADarksideJedi
The Nazi in the movie "Basterds" is the best and deserves an award.

To my knowledge, Christoph Waltz won quite a few of them.

Nephthys
Originally posted by Gideon
If you'd been paying attention, you'll notice I never denied that Palpatine had moments of absolute malice and sadism, but in fact mentioned that McDiarmid had scenes in which he was undeniably hammy.

The difference, of course, is that Palpatine was not acting in such a manner the entire time. He only unleashed his megalomania the moment he had no reason not to, which is why he is far more charismatic, charming, or what have you than the hideously blatant insanity of the Joker.

But again, I'm chemically balanced.

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.




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.





Joker 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.



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). roll eyes (sarcastic)




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.





So I was right. Movie only please btw.



Ha, good luck maintaining your anger at adorable me for any length of time.





When you assume you make an ass out of u and me. Plus its always just mentioned as a signiture 'I want that treaty signed!'




He is right actually. A lot.





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.



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.

Aede Madavan
Originally posted by Gideon
I've only seen the first movie and half the second, but from what little I saw I was very impressed. Alas, I heard the sequels sucked.

The sequels are quite possibly the most underrated films out there. The fourth in particular was pretty amazing and my personal favorite of the series (you actually get to see Jigsaw's methods at recruitment first hand, and it has one of my personal favorite movie plot twists of all time as well as the most thrilling sequence of events in the series). 5 and 6 did see a pretty large drop in quality however but are still decent films.



laughing out loud laughing out loud

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).



Well, Jigsaw's, for one. The idea that defines his motivations: that people who take life for granted don't deserve to live at all, and his desire to test people by placing them in extreme situations where they're in a position to save themselves but only through such extreme measures that Jigsaw determines that they really do cherish their lives.

Another example would be (don't read if you plan on watching the incredible Memento (one of the best films ever made); in fact, watch Memento and then go read this big grin) Leanord in Memento (probably a bit of a stretch to refer to him as a villain but he does technically count), who suffers from short term memory loss (after a certain amount of time his memory always reverts back to how it was the moment of the accident that caused the memory problem; he can no longer store new memories into his long term memory) and is after the man who raped and murdered his wife, and uses notes and photographs and tatoos on his body to record information for every time his memory would revert back to its original state. Upon being informed at one point that he had already found and killed the man he was after years before, he realises that he wants to continue hunting this man down, that it's all he really wants to live for, and so he tricks and manipulates himself by recording false information into going on a hunt that would lead to the false revelation that "Teddy" (someone who had been helping him) was the guy he was after.

Palpatine's motivations are essentially the destruction of his enemies (The Jedi Order) and his own rise to power (ruling the Galaxy). They're generic and simplistic, and don't really possess an element that's at all intruiging. That doesn't necessarily break him as a character; Frank Booth who I'd rate as the greatest movie villain of all time didn't have especially original or intruiging motivations either, but the emotive quality in his character was second to none. Palpatine doesn't excel in either area. 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.



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.

Nephthys
thumb up

Though Bane wasn't really all that.

Gideon
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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

Gideon
Nebz, I'll get to you later.

Lestov16
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

Gideon
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. no expression

Lestov16
Originally posted by Gideon
I disagree. Incidentally, Palpatine's on both of the lists you provided. no expression

Everyone has their own opinion smile

Gideon
Lestov16
Everyone has their own opinion smile

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. no expression

Lestov16
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. no expression

I was obviously directing my statement to the first part of your sentence stick out tongue

Gideon
Lestov16
I was obviously directing my statement to the first part of your sentence stick out tongue

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.

Lestov16
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

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.

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

Acceptable.

Though I'd personally enjoy your reasons why.

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.

Lestov16
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

Aede Madavan
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.

Lestov16
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" wink

Aede Madavan
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.

Aede Madavan
Originally posted by Lestov16
emphasis on the "significantly" wink

Indeed. big grin

Gideon
Yes, we get it: you're emo.

Nephthys
What we get is that you're a sore loser. stick out tongue

Lestov16
Originally posted by Gideon
Yes, we get it: you're emo.

Just surrender, dude. It's over

Gideon
Lestov16
Just surrender, dude. It's over

The thread isn't closed yet.

Rogue Jedi
What about Rourke Jr from Sin City?

Nephthys
Was he the yellow guy? That guy was a ****ing douche. So yeah, he was good.

NemeBro
You guys are a bunch of losers. erm

"NO!!! Your opinion is WRONG!!!"

Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Nephthys
Was he the yellow guy? That guy was a ****ing douche. So yeah, he was good. What are we basing qualifications on?

Impediment
Yellow Bastard was a throw away villain.

Hartigan pummeled his ass, ripped off his dick, and then turned his entire head into liquid matter.

He deserves no honorable mention, IMO.

Rogue Jedi
Impediment.

Lestov16
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Impediment.

Yeah. I think he's a great contender. A sadistic, schizophrenic child rapist, despised by everybody. You can't help but cheer when he is thrown into a woodchipper

Wait, are we talking about the same guy here?........

Rogue Jedi
ninja

Darth Martin
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.

Thank you. Statistically speaking, Palpatine should be the GOAT villain but a Nazi officer, hired assassin, and psychotic terrorist all dwarfed him as far as chilling the audience(me). There were moments in TDK, IB, and NCFOM when I was in complete suspense or got scared out of my seat. Star Wars movies are just incapable of giving the viewer(again, me) that kind of impact emotionally.

If were arguing credentials in the MVF then Palpatine is the GOAT. But, your going to sit there and tell me Palpatine scared you in the film?

Landa, Joker, and Chigurgh are icons that held the audience(most) at their mercy when we first watched them.

Lestov16
Originally posted by Darth Martin
Thank you. Statistically speaking, Palpatine should be the GOAT villain but a Nazi officer, hired assassin, and psychotic terrorist all dwarfed him as far as chilling the audience(me). There were moments in TDK, IB, and NCFOM when I was in complete suspense or got scared out of my seat. Star Wars movies are just incapable of giving the viewer(again, me) that kind of impact emotionally.

If were arguing credentials in the MVF then Palpatine is the GOAT. But, your going to sit there and tell me Palpatine scared you in the film?

Landa, Joker, and Chigurgh are icons that held the audience(most) at their mercy when we first watched them. thumb up

Rogue Jedi
I'm gonna nominate the Rourke brothers from Sin City (Hauer and Boothe.)

Both had unprecedented levels of power, and both were evil, sick, corrupt bastards.

NemeBro
Landa scared you?

Darth Martin
Suprised no one has nominated Kevin from Sin City.

Lestov16
Originally posted by Darth Martin
Suprised no one has nominated Kevin from Sin City.

He did steal the scenes he was in, didn't he. smile

Darth Martin
I didn't think so. Not a big fan of the film. I just know this site has alot of fans of that film so was just curious.

§P0oONY
I have to give some props to Light Yagami from Death Note. Although you're sort of rooting for him he's a great character. His tactical game of cat and mouse with L is brilliant.

General_Iroh

§P0oONY
Originally posted by General_Iroh
Yeah Light was epic, however I don't think this is including anime television characters is it? I suppose there was the Death Note movie version of light, but he didn't measure up imo I saw the films before I watched the anime or read the manga so I don't have the same view. I think the films are wonderful adaptations and Tatsuya Fujiwara does a very reasonable job as Light.

Saying this I do prefer the anime, simply because the running time is naturally longer... So we get better character development as well as a broader story arc.

Gideon
Darth Martin
Thank you. Statistically speaking, Palpatine should be the GOAT villain but a Nazi officer, hired assassin, and psychotic terrorist all dwarfed him as far as chilling the audience(me). There were moments in TDK, IB, and NCFOM when I was in complete suspense or got scared out of my seat. Star Wars movies are just incapable of giving the viewer(again, me) that kind of impact emotionally.

If were arguing credentials in the MVF then Palpatine is the GOAT. But, your going to sit there and tell me Palpatine scared you in the film?

Landa, Joker, and Chigurgh are icons that held the audience(most) at their mercy when we first watched them.

Acceptable.

Nephthys
Well if we're going by pure achievements Palpatine still isn't at the top. The Anti-Spiral from the Garren Lagann movie ruled the universe as an apparantly omniscient, omnipresent force for 1000 years, putting Sidious' measly 20 years to shame. And in the final battle was throwing galaxies around as frisbees and tanking the force of the Big Bang.

Gideon
Nephthys
Well if we're going by pure achievements Palpatine still isn't at the top. The Anti-Spiral from the Garren Lagann movie ruled the universe as an apparantly omniscient, omnipresent force for 1000 years, putting Sidious' measly 20 years to shame. And in the final battle was throwing galaxies around as frisbees and tanking the force of the Big Bang.

This is the movie forum, not the anime forum.

Nephthys
Animated movies are still movies.

Gideon
Nephthys
Animated movies are still movies.

no

Nephthys
Yes.

Gideon
No times infinity.

Nephthys
Yes times one more than you can ever say.

Gideon
I...

Damn.

Nephthys
jokawer

Gideon
I'm still thinking it. shifty

Nephthys
Well I'm thinking it precisely one times harder.

Gideon
You think you are, but you're really not. shifty

Nephthys
Damn, all my come-backs to that sound dumb.

ADarksideJedi
Originally posted by Gideon
To my knowledge, Christoph Waltz won quite a few of them.

Must had missed that on the awards.Anyway he deserved it.

The Nuul
Javier Bardem - Anton Chigurh
Christian Bale - Patrick Bateman
Denzel Washington - Alonzo Harris

Some different picks.

Lestov16
Since Anton Chigurh has the most votes, and seems to be unanimously favored, shouldn't we just give it to him?

The Nuul
I just keep seeing this SW crap.

Gideon
The Nuul
I just keep seeing this SW crap.

Easy there. mad

The Nuul
wooerm

My robot would so kick your cyborgs ass!

Gideon
The Nuul
wooerm

My robot would so kick your cyborgs ass!

My cyborg will meet your robot out near the flagpole after school....

unless it's chicken

no expression

Rogue Jedi
YuLaw. He's no one *****.

jinXed by JaNx
yeah, he's his own b*tch lol

Gideon
The Operative from Serenity.

steverules_2
Joker
Dude in Avatar

Bouboumaster
Chiurgh, in "No Contry For Old Men" would scare the shit out of most named previously. I think he's what Hannibal Lecter was in the past decade.

Honorable mention goes to Hans Landa, who was a superb, superb villain.

Gideon
steverules2
Dude in Avatar

He was awesome. Quarich? Quartich?

§P0oONY
As a Newcastle Utd supporter all I see when I see the evil guy in avatar is Paul Gascoigne.

http://www.scene-stealers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/avatar-stephen-lang-as-colonel-quaritch.jpg

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/gascoigne2.jpg

The Nuul
I love Philip Seymour Hoffman as Owen Davian. That character is bad ass.

Lacan Grahf
Originally posted by The Nuul
I love Philip Seymour Hoffman as Owen Davian. That character is bad ass.

Great choice. Definitely the most formidable villain of Ethan Hunt's rogues gallery, though the decision to make Davian a badass fighter was an ill-conceived one.

ADarksideJedi
Palpatine

Lacan Grahf
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Palpatine

thumb up

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.