So as the ongoing glut of super hero movies have shown, but didn’t start? Compelling villains are quite the rarity in media.
Whilst a moustache twirling Git is good fun, the writers all too often get lazy and have the baddie just sort of tell the goodie what they’re up to. And even on occasion exactly how to stop them.
But when they get it right? Oh my are we the audience in for a treat. And I don’t just mean earthly human villains. I’m meaning pretty much any antagonist of charisma and charm. We needn’t empathise with their goals, but we should, on some level, be darkly tempted to sympathise with them and even respect them.
By no means exhaustive, here are my first two. And they’re in no particular order.
Crowley, Supernatural\
Oooooooh what a cad! But a charming and intelligent one. He’s smart as you like, and tends to play his cards close to his chest. And thanks to Mark Sheppard’s acting chops, always has a twinkle in his eye which tells us he knows waaaaaay more than he’s telling the heroes. He’s a big old Richard, yet…..also kinda cool.
Magua in The Last of the Mohicans.
Gul Dukat in DS9. He was probably the best "true" villain in a long running series that I have seen.
Alfred Bester cast an oversized shadow on Babylon 5. There were several good villains on that show, but he was the best of them.
Xykon Order Of The Stick He's a lich. He literally tore his own skin off when he became undead, and massacred everyone who ever dared mock him. But god-DAMN, he's just so charming! He's slick, he's funny, and unrepentantly evil.
Relatedly, Redcloak is pretty good. My favorite moment is when he brutally murders Tsukiko, and then when asked where she is...
Xykon: "Ok then, let's cast off, ye evil mateys! Where's what's-her-name, the chick with the pigtails?"
Jirix: "Tsukiko? She was here when the sewer team reported..."
Xykon: "Anyone seen her since?"
Jirix: "No."
Assorted Others: "No."
Redcloak: "Not since I brutally murdered her ten minutes ago, no."
...
Redcloak: "Does that count? I guess that counts."
Now you mention it, I think that’s an important ingredient in a Good Villain.
They need to clearly believe that they are, in fact, in the right. Or are at least entitled to what they’re after.
This is definitely where Dukat falls. Like all the major Cardassian characters we’re treated to, he’s an opportunist, but with a pretty singular goal - him in charge, Cardassia flourishing.
OK that’s not exactly singular, but it is what makes him so interesting and compelling. Underneath the moustache twirling lurks a genuine morality, albeit one us humans find at least a bit off, and struggling to see. But it is there.
It’s kind of the same with Loki, where even his brother can never be quite sure if Loki is being a big ol’ phallus for lols, and just pretending to help. Yet….mischief is his nature. Even when pretty much all the Avengers get the better of him, we still feel for him. Especially after Hulk’s turn.
Gustavo Fring (and arguably Walter White to an extent given that the premise of the story is the gradual birth of a villain) from Breaking Bad. Succeeds in dismantling and defeating Don Eladio's cartel and only loses because of a personal vendetta from the past.
Yoshikage Kira really stands out as a great villain in Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. He really does just want to be left alone and I love how he's not the kind that wants to take over the world or anything and how he deliberately aims to be relatively average in everything so as to not stand out. He'd be really chill guy if it wasn't for his occasional murder boners for hands.
Lex Luthor and The Joker from the DCAU. Each one absolutely steals the scene each time they're on screen and each can be frighteningly competent . Hell, Luthor's technically the reason why Darkseid was even beaten at the end of the Justice League Unlimited, and Joker's legacy continues even far into Gotham's future.
Dr. Doom, especially of the proper comic book style variety and not the god-awful movie version. This clip really sums up how above so many superheroes and their "trivial" conflicts in fighting supervillains.
Hannibal Lecter stands out as another major villain done well. Methodical and able to really play with the minds of his captors, it's the eery calmness and eloquence of how he approaches people that makes him stand out compared to the boisterousness of a lot of other villains.
Hans Gruber. Charming, great plan, gonna steal umpteen million dollars of bearer bonds and conceal it as a terrorist attack so he can fake his death and get away clean. If not for a renegade New York cop coming to visit his estranged wife Gruber's plan would have worked flawlessly.
Another good one. Ares, from Wonder Woman. A perfectly understandable motive. Terrible endgame, but his plans had been working just fine for millennia!
Sabertooth in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Brought the snark and personality to the character that had been missing in previous presentations.
Hal Stewart from Megamind. What happens when you gve a normal guy who's a bit of a loser super powers? You get this. Brilliant.
Dr. Belloq from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Well executed, well acted, and he actually pulls his plan off. It literally takes divine intervention to stop him!
Darth Vader, one of the best movie villain entrances in cinematic history?
And who can forget Khan Noonian Singh? Ricardo Monteban, not Benedict Cumberbatch; Benedict did a good job with what he had, but you can only do so much with that script. Monteban, on the other hand, played the role perfectly in one of, if not THE, best Star Trek movie script to date.
I quite like Grand Admiral Thrawn from the Zahn books. Urbane, competent, knows what he wants and has the strategic chips to get it, but unfortunately is up against the biggest clown car full of lucky plot armoured heroes known to literature. Every single time he pulls off an amazing trick, there just happens to be the one person in the galaxy present that has been exposed to the preceding plot points and therefore can foil his schemes. He only fails due to Vader’s schemes being foiled by massive happenstance.
Most of the 'old' Marvel villians had tremendously complex motivations, Magneto and Dr. Doom being standouts.
But my favorite will always be Auric Goldfinger. Perfect combination of planning, preening, and OCD. Odd Job was the perfect henchman for this character, Bond the perfect foil.
PotC's Davy Jones is criminally underrated (as are the two films he appears in, but that's another conversation). It honestly baffles me a bit that he doesn't sit alongside Vader and Thanos in the rankings more often, because for the generation that grew up between those two, he's comfortably one of the best baddies going. A superb design, wonderful script work, tragic enough while still terrifying, and a frankly stunning performance from Bill Nighy that should go alongside Serkis' Gollum as a marvel of early mo-cap work. What's more, he's got an absolutely killer theme (something of a dying art these days) and in both Dead Man's Chest and At World's End, he's pretty much competent and threatening throughout, undone not by his own folly but by the heroes' cunning, skill and sacrifice.
I'm also going make my claim that Palpatine is Star Wars' greatest villain. Possibly controvertial, but as awe-inspiring and threatening as Vader is, that says just as much about his boss as it does about him. With ANH you get a relentless, murderous and supremely competent figure in Vader, but then ESB introduces the guy holding his leash and to my mind, that's even more terrifying. I also have a huge soft spot for uncomplicated villains with immense power and goals and abilities that verge on the impossible, the 'force of nature' villains that exist in the name of unrepentent, capital-E Evil, the arch-villains, and Palpatine is the best of them.We don't know much about where he came from, or what drove him to darkness, or even really what he wants beyond absolute (or perhaps UNLIMITED) power.
We just know he's the greatest evil, and therefore will only be beaten by tne greatest good, and thus when Luke and Rey defeat him, it cements them as THE heroes, risen to their greatest heights. Ian McDiarmid's performance gives him enough characterisation to be enthralling, and for me, simply his place in the narrative does the rest. Villains exist to show us the quality of our heroes, and the bigger and badder the villain, the greater the heroes have to be.
Ironically, his appeal for me is summed up in the much derided line from RoS, 'Somehow Palpatine returned...' Because that's all we need! It doesn't matter one jot how he did it, or why, and to explain that would ultimately cheapen him, I think. What matters is that the greatest force for evil the galaxy has ever known is back for round two, so it'a go-time for our new generation of heroes to rise to the challenge... It's simple it's effective, and it raises the stakes like nothing else.
Lance845 wrote: Mysterio, aka Quentin Beck, aka we have no idea what his actual name is.
He was so well done in Far From Home that I STILL have conversations with people who think he is dead. It's amazing.
Gyllenhaal's Mysterio was awesome. I loved Dafoe's Goblin and Molina's Octopus as well, both from the Raimi's movies and the last Spiderman's episode.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: Hans Gruber. Charming, great plan, gonna steal umpteen million dollars of bearer bonds and conceal it as a terrorist attack so he can fake his death and get away clean.
A lot of people mention him as one of the best villains ever seen on screen. And I definitely agree. But also his brother from Die Hard With A Vengeance always seemed pretty solid to me, I watched that movie a hundred times.
It does help that both Jeremy Irons and Alan Rickman are both among the best actors of their generation
I’m going to drop in a mention for Gary Oldman as any of his bad guys, but primarily from 5th element and Leon. There is no scenery without teethmarks in their films, but he does crazed but charming so well.
Ah there’s nowt wrong with pouring hot sauce on the scenery and having a feast.
I mean, take Mr Rickman in the other wise fairly turgid Robin Hood Prince of Thieves! He makes that film, with such style and panache. The Sheriff of Nottingham via Dr Frank’n’furter!
Actually, Frankie must get a shout out. He’s not evil as such. He’s just really really hedonistic.
Oh that reminds me. It’s not evil bad guy related, but the kids are still deep in phineas and ferb land, and the dad is voiced by Richard O’Brien and every now and then rocky horror references bubble to the surface. It’s awesome
Ramsey Bolton is an incredible shout. Joffrey and Cersie can also be included, any character that makes you actually despise them is always a villain well done IMO.
The Joker from the Batman Arkham series games specifically.
Sephiroph from Final Fantasy.
Finally, a 40k villain, I personally think Pontius Glaw is an outstanding villain.
He's like Gul Dukat. He tricks you into thinking he might be a hero sometimes, but really he's just a monster all the time.
And now that I think of him; Gul Dukat. The guy is such a perfect example of how charismatic and sympathetic narcissistic egomaniacs can be. He was so well written and acted, the audience needed to be slapped in the face with how much the bad guy he's supposed to be and still people argue he's not a villain.
Tannhauser42 wrote: To go with something a little different: Michael Corleone.
He is one of those characters, like Hannibal Lecter, that despite being evil/criminal he's not really a villain. Or at least I never considered as such.
Which reminds of a couple of characters from my favorite tv series, Battlestar Galactica: Number 6 and 2, portrayed by Tricia Helfer and Callum Keith Rennie, who defintiely start as villains, but in the end are they really villains? Both amazing characters IMHO.
Homelander from The Boys.
John Smith and inspector Kido from Man in the high castle.
Sebastian Shaw from X-men: First Class.
Half of the characters in Black Sails.
OK, this is low hanging fruit but I'm going to recommend Killmonger from Black Panther. There was a lot of things wrong with that film, but at least there was motivation for the bad guy and we got a cracking performance. Not as intense as Heath Ledger's Joker but surely as heart felt.
Gowron, leader of the Klingon High Council!
Robert O'Reilly is amazing and despite Gowron being not evil like Dukat or Duras, he's still only out for himself and will step on anyone who gets in the way of power.
Henry wrote: OK, this is low hanging fruit but I'm going to recommend Killmonger from Black Panther. There was a lot of things wrong with that film, but at least there was motivation for the bad guy and we got a cracking performance. Not as intense as Heath Ledger's Joker but surely as heart felt.
Racist black villian in the age of politically correct, and Marvel/Disney is the pinnacle of politically correct, is certainly unique and deserves to be highlighted. Marvel did show some courage for once, and Jordan's performance was very intense, indeed.
The Terminator. Schwarzenegger's T-800 is probably the only character in the history of cinema that was an iconic villain in a movie and then an iconic hero in its sequel. Techincally it's not the same guy and certainly Schwarzenegger did an incredible job, managing to portray two very different characters, both unforgettable. I prefer the villain though, but probably because I vastly prefer the first movie.
I’m also going to put forward the various Star Wars Moffs.
Well. Tarkin and Gideon, anyway. Both are just short of moustache twirling, with only Gideon having the slightest nibble of the scenery.
Never mind Vader, it’s Tarkin that I wouldn’t like to tangle with. He’s supremely confident, and utterly in control. We barely see his icy calm break, and that’s when he orders Leia’s termination.
Gideon is a worthy successor on screen. A strong display of exactly what sort of folk Palpatine put his trust in,
Colonel Hans Landa from Inglorious Basterds. The banality of evil personified.
Terri in Santa Baby 2. Again, I have run into this type of villain so many times in my life, and this one is delivered as an almost perfect caricature of the type.
The Master in Dr. Who is always a good, interesting match-up.
Paint it Pink wrote: One villain that impressed me in a TV series was Dr. Harrison Wells from the first season of The Flash played by Tom Cavanagh was totally chilling.
Yeah, which makes where he goes even more cringey.
The Netflix Marvel series had a couple outstanding villains I felt:
Wilson Fisk (Vincent D'Onofrio) in Daredevil - not typically a big fan of this actor but he did a great job here I thought and his Fisk was scary but nicely developed
Killgrave (David Tenant) - just awful evil character here though the Jessica Jones show overall wasn't too great IMHO I thought as a villain there have not been too many others I have flat out hated as much as this guy
Max Von Sidow as Ming the Merciless (Flash Gordon)
James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom (Conan)
Jack Nicholson Joker
Jack Nicholson Jack Torrance (The Shining)
What a wonderful villain. Total egomaniac. Totally his own worst enemy. Still never gives up.
Sure his appearances are….uneven. But just to watch Genesis of the Daleks shows the genius of his conception as a villain. Completely and utterly round the bend, pants on head, box of frogs, barking at mice loopy.
Captain Barbosa, specifically in the first Pirates movie, before his switch to villain protagonist.
The man has charm, and the charisma to pull off being the captain, but also the intelligence, skill and steadiness to KEEP being the captain, unlike (CAPTAIN!) Jack Sparrow, whose just too unpredictable, for all his skill and luck, to be a good leader.
the way he spends most of the 2nd act charming the audience with the tragedy of his backstory and the hell of his current existence, and making us want him to succeed in his quest to become human again....right up until this moment:
(paraphrasing form memory here)
Sparrow: ok, so we've caught up to them, why do i go over, get the final piece of the treasure, and we can be on our way?
Barbosa: See, thats the kind of thinking that lost you the Pearl, Jack. People are so much easier to search when dead.
wham. that charming, charismatic man with the tragic backstory....cool motive, still a murderer, pirate and general Bad Dude.
Henry wrote: OK, this is low hanging fruit but I'm going to recommend Killmonger from Black Panther. There was a lot of things wrong with that film, but at least there was motivation for the bad guy and we got a cracking performance.
He was one of those villains that is only perceived as the bad guy because the script forces him into random nonsensical violence to make him "evil" despite him being 100% correct.
Oh, I see this is not movies or shows only. Alright, well.
Jack Gleeson as Joffrey Baratheon in Game of Thrones. Every second he is on screen increases my hatred for him 10 fold. Jack does an amazing job being a pompous little twit and just kills it every scene. He was so good, he often stole the scene from characters I actually liked. Which made me hate him more.
Peter Blomquist as Micah Bell in Red Dead Redemption 2. Another character you just grow to hate as time goes on. Everything he does benefits himself above all. He always needs your help and he always complains while you are doing it. He is a sneak and a thief. Doesn't do half of what he says he does. American Venom.
Logan Cunningham as Hades in Hades. Your dad whips your ass over and over until you finally manage to beat him. Perfect villain.
It is definitely tricky to portray a character with zero redeeming features, let alone someone as young as Jack Gleason.
Joffrey definitely has some of the best scenes. Whilst he absolutely grows more vicious, he remains at his core little more than a spoilt brat. A nasty kid who’s never been disciplined by his parents.
His various scenes with Tyrion really demonstrated this. The second anyone stands up to him, one on one, Joffrey crumbles. He can only shriek, cry and threaten to tell his Mummy. And it’s both the actors that make those bits so good.
My favorite villains from GOT were Little Finger. Cersei and... Daenerys. Yes, she was the character I hated the most since season 2-3 and to me her fate was the only one possible. Ruthless tyrant since the beginning, never had someone she really cared, only servants or allies, despite having people that could have been close to her. Se chose to be like that. I couldn't understand why people didn't see it.
Although I liked how Joffrey and Ramsay were portrayed I've never really been a fan of psychopaths like them, I prefer characters with much more shades as villains.
Ramsey had "style." despite being a hoffic person.....also he was not a coward like Joffrey - Joffrey was just a spoiled brat IMO not the psycopath that Ramsey was..
Daenerys was betrayed by pretty much everyone throughout her life and despite this was certainly no worse than any other ruler, in fact mostly better but of course she has to be judged in a different way to the male rulers - but we have had this discussion before. If she had followed the example of the first Targaryians to take control n Westros she would still be ruling but she had awful advisors and traitors to deal with. Her mercy mostly just resulted in betryal and pain....better a bit of Blood and Fire at the beginning....
The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.
I mean, throughout her time over the sour sea, we see someone who perhaps naive, isn’t necessarily a wrong’un. Certainly not compared to the total melts in Westeros.
When she executed the Tarleys, she let everyone who bent the knee live, despite them being Bannermen of her sworn foe. But we see a sudden abandonment of all restraint as soon as Missande is killed. And there’s no real reason given why she suddenly feels the need to change tack and annihilate those who have surrendered or are just civilians - her intended future subjects.
well lil Miss Targaryen did lessen the number of Dickons in the world, that's gotta count for something...
Still of the mind that Roy Batty maybe be cinemas bestest "baddie" starts as what you assume is just a crazy killer but as the film unfolds is clear there's way more going on
Oh and Russell from True Blood, a gloriously over the top panto performance from Denis O'Hare (boyfriend in a jar being a high point)
What chaps my hide is in ongoing series (TV or movies) the seemingly inane concept of each succeeding season or movie must develop a villain worse than the previous. They must be more powerful and bent on more massive destruction.
I really like when they move into a differing direction that may not necessarily have to be a sole villain, but maybe a different concept or situation that is more imaginative than just a more worser(?) baddie
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xerxeskingofking wrote: Captain Barbosa, specifically in the first Pirates movie, before his switch to villain protagonist.
The man has charm, and the charisma to pull off being the captain, but also the intelligence, skill and steadiness to KEEP being the captain, unlike (CAPTAIN!) Jack Sparrow, whose just too unpredictable, for all his skill and luck, to be a good leader.
the way he spends most of the 2nd act charming the audience with the tragedy of his backstory and the hell of his current existence, and making us want him to succeed in his quest to become human again....right up until this moment:
(paraphrasing form memory here)
Sparrow: ok, so we've caught up to them, why do i go over, get the final piece of the treasure, and we can be on our way?
Barbosa: See, thats the kind of thinking that lost you the Pearl, Jack. People are so much easier to search when dead.
wham. that charming, charismatic man with the tragic backstory....cool motive, still a murderer, pirate and general Bad Dude.
Super agree. While the PotC series was somewhat fun to watch, Captain JS had no gumption to be a real Captain at all. Really, just a slippery, sniveling drunkard... Why would anyone follow him? Just his 'magic compass' to find treasure? What a flimsy reason - a better Captain should have slit his throat and taken it long ago.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.
I mean, throughout her time over the sour sea, we see someone who perhaps naive, isn’t necessarily a wrong’un. Certainly not compared to the total melts in Westeros.
When she executed the Tarleys, she let everyone who bent the knee live, despite them being Bannermen of her sworn foe. But we see a sudden abandonment of all restraint as soon as Missande is killed. And there’s no real reason given why she suddenly feels the need to change tack and annihilate those who have surrendered or are just civilians - her intended future subjects.
Imagine if TV Daenarys had stayed in Essos (?) instead of leaving for Westeros. She might have turned out to be an excellent ruler.
Showrunners could’ve done better, but end of the day they were hired to adapt, not to invent.
I’m increasingly convinced GRRM doesn’t know it ends, hence the ongoing delays to the next book.
I agree wholeheartedly here. If GRRM knew how it was planned to end he would have told the people involved. JK Rowling telling Alan Rickman his character’s arc is a good example of this.
I agree wholeheartedly here. If GRRM knew how it was planned to end he would have told the people involved. JK Rowling telling Alan Rickman his character’s arc is a good example of this.
Another way to assume GRRM has no idea whats going on is that if you look at another "titan" of fantasy novel writing, and see that his Grand Arc/Story was able to be finished from beyond the grave due to the sheer insane amount of notes he had built up. . . . Yeah, from my understanding, Robert Jordan had told someone that the WoT series would be 12 books, and it would be 12 books even if the final one had to be 3000 pages (paraphrasing), which is a good thing that that Sanderson guy was entrusted by the Jordan Estate to finish the series off properly.
Mr Morden wrote: Ramsey had "style." despite being a hoffic person.....also he was not a coward like Joffrey - Joffrey was just a spoiled brat IMO not the psycopath that Ramsey was..
Daenerys was betrayed by pretty much everyone throughout her life and despite this was certainly no worse than any other ruler, in fact mostly better but of course she has to be judged in a different way to the male rulers - but we have had this discussion before. If she had followed the example of the first Targaryians to take control n Westros she would still be ruling but she had awful advisors and traitors to deal with. Her mercy mostly just resulted in betryal and pain....better a bit of Blood and Fire at the beginning....
She's no better than Cersei, who was also a ruler and who also suffered abuses. And yet Cersei is defined as a clear villain, unlike Daenerys. She's always been a tyrant, but disguised as a saviour and with a pretty face, which mislead a lot of people .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.
I think that was the logical consequence of her being finally very close to get the kind of power she always desired, unlike before.
I mean, I blame GRRM for starting to write "A Song of Ice and Fire" in the first place.
I can't directly blame him for a bunch of his fanbase being a bunch of tossers, as demonstrated by their behaviour when Robert Jordan passed away - laughing at WoT fans for the story not being completed before he passed.
Still, as you pointed out, Brandon Sanderson was able to do so based off the notes left by RJ - at this rate, I don't think any more ASOIAF books will be published, and iff GRRM passes with the series unfinished, I'm not sure anyone will want to ghostwrite whatever is left, given the "fan" reaction to the end of the TV show...
Mr Morden wrote: Ramsey had "style." despite being a hoffic person.....also he was not a coward like Joffrey - Joffrey was just a spoiled brat IMO not the psycopath that Ramsey was..
Daenerys was betrayed by pretty much everyone throughout her life and despite this was certainly no worse than any other ruler, in fact mostly better but of course she has to be judged in a different way to the male rulers - but we have had this discussion before. If she had followed the example of the first Targaryians to take control n Westros she would still be ruling but she had awful advisors and traitors to deal with. Her mercy mostly just resulted in betryal and pain....better a bit of Blood and Fire at the beginning....
She's no better than Cersei, who was also a ruler and who also suffered abuses. And yet Cersei is defined as a clear villain, unlike Daenerys. She's always been a tyrant, but disguised as a saviour and with a pretty face, which mislead a lot of people .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The show’s issue with Daenerys was with how quickly she went from Avenging but not necessarily full of ill intent to full on “burrrrrrn them aallllllll” pants on head woof woof wibble snivvet loopy.
Guess we did watch very different shows....
Daenerys IS a saviour to those she frees from slavery in Essos, she acts like or often better every other ruler in her world - yes you can try and hold her to an absurd standard but only if you do for everyone else. I think you forget or willfully ignore how bad the villans in this show were if you compare the to them. By your standards who was not a villan in the show?
If she had not listened to those advisors who would betray her in the end and "been the Dragon" as she was told to be she would have taken Kings Landing on arrival, established her dynasty as her ancestors did and ruled a peaceful kingdom,
The Wall was apparently safe until she had to go and save the idiot Snow (again - all he ever did was loose battles and wait for somone to save him) and lost her Dragon so it could be turned and used agauinst the Wall
She was seldom rewarded for kindness and mercy - usually the opposite but burning / killing people always worked....
It was badly written but by the time she burnt Kings Landing - she had lost two of her "children", her best friend, her lover had betrayed her, her advisors had turned traitor, this and other acts made her becoem what they had feared she might be.
The Dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied remained loyal and together in a decently written show would have slaughtered and burned their way through Westros in revenge and there was nothing left to stop them.
I agree wholeheartedly here. If GRRM knew how it was planned to end he would have told the people involved. JK Rowling telling Alan Rickman his character’s arc is a good example of this.
Another way to assume GRRM has no idea whats going on is that if you look at another "titan" of fantasy novel writing, and see that his Grand Arc/Story was able to be finished from beyond the grave due to the sheer insane amount of notes he had built up. . . . Yeah, from my understanding, Robert Jordan had told someone that the WoT series would be 12 books, and it would be 12 books even if the final one had to be 3000 pages (paraphrasing), which is a good thing that that Sanderson guy was entrusted by the Jordan Estate to finish the series off properly.
Jordan and his wife were good friends with Sanderson. They had planned for this ahead of time, as they knew he wasn't going to be able to complete it in time. When Sanderson came in to finish the last book, he read through the notes and realized that he had tied off all the ends of the stories, but in order to fit it in one book he would have to cut out a lot of that.
3 books later, he finished it. In incredible time while putting his own even more insane project on hold. (The Cosmere will feature 30+ Novels in the end, I believe)
GRRM doesn't do that. He doesn't really keep notes or plans. Hell, he gets grumpy when you even remind him he has a book series. The guy doesn't know what he is doing or how to end it. Just like Rothfuss, who is now teasing that he will actually finally release his third book. You know, now that his money dried up and being a youtube personality/streamer isn't paying off.
Its been said by both the showrunners and GRRM that he told them how it would end. Now I'm not sure he knows hot to get to the end especially with all the extra plots in the book but he does have a destination in mind. The problem with Daenerys was the difference between the book Danny and show Danny and after all that time with show Danny we got slammed with the worst of what book Danny had been leading to.
Not trying to defend GRRM but the worst of the problems are on the showrunners.
Especially/only when portrayed by Doug Bradley. Not only is he a real presence on screen, but he was the articulate villain in a time of cheapo slasher flicks.
And we even get actual character development across the original trilogy. Hellbound we find out there are rules (Desire, not actions opening the box, so the Lass is spared). Hell on Earth, due to Kirsty’s actions those rules no longer apply, and we see more of his inventive cruelties.
Sure the plots behind him are a bit ropey, but what a truly fantastic antagonist. Not to mention he has some of my favourite dialogue in any movie.
Jerram wrote: Its been said by both the showrunners and GRRM that he told them how it would end. Now I'm not sure he knows hot to get to the end especially with all the extra plots in the book but he does have a destination in mind. The problem with Daenerys was the difference between the book Danny and show Danny and after all that time with show Danny we got slammed with the worst of what book Danny had been leading to.
Not trying to defend GRRM but the worst of the problems are on the showrunners.
Book Dany has been turned into a lovesick soppy girl no longer capable of making her own descisions.....whilst he focusses on every minor nobody he can invent.
Dreadwinter wrote: GRRM doesn't do that. He doesn't really keep notes or plans. Hell, he gets grumpy when you even remind him he has a book series. The guy doesn't know what he is doing or how to end it. Just like Rothfuss, who is now teasing that he will actually finally release his third book. You know, now that his money dried up and being a youtube personality/streamer isn't paying off.
I've written more in 3 years than GRRM has in 30.
I say this a lot to people on other forums that are more about writing than Dakka, and I don't say it to brag. I say it to highlight how little GRRM has actually written in the past 30 years (a lot less than you already think). By almost any comparison it's actually surprising.
Sanderson has insane output by any measure. The only writer who even comes close that I know of and read is Stephen King and even there I think Sanderson publishes more frequently now than King does. Both of them are bad comparisons though because they have insane output for writers. I prefer to point at writers like Stephen Erikson and James Corey, both of whom imo blow Martin out of the water in terms of how good they are as writers and actually managed to finish their epic book series in about 10 years whereas Martin has been at it since the mid-90s. At this rate, Sanderson is going to finish the Stormlight Archives before Martin finishes Game of Thrones and that series is going to take another fifteen years at the rate Sanderson is going at the least.
I increasingly look at the idea of the next Game of Thrones book in the same category as the third book in Rothfuss' Kingkiller Chronicle; it's never coming and the author treats people asking about it like it's something to endure rather than conclude.
Dreadwinter wrote: GRRM doesn't do that. He doesn't really keep notes or plans. Hell, he gets grumpy when you even remind him he has a book series. The guy doesn't know what he is doing or how to end it. Just like Rothfuss, who is now teasing that he will actually finally release his third book. You know, now that his money dried up and being a youtube personality/streamer isn't paying off.
I've written more in 3 years than GRRM has in 30.
I say this a lot to people on other forums that are more about writing than Dakka, and I don't say it to brag. I say it to highlight how little GRRM has actually written in the past 30 years (a lot less than you already think). By almost any comparison it's actually surprising.
Martin's a weird guy, who honestly doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on how anything works.
For example, this happened early in his career:
https://screenrant.com/dungeons-dragons-game-thrones-githyanki-race-dying-light/ Basically, someone used a race (githyanki) that he came up with, the Fiend Folio ages ago (with an interim version in WD, back in the day when there was general RPG material in it). Now the article doesn't go into it, but as I understood the story, the reason Martin never pursued any legal action at the time, was because he was under the impression that since TSR published the race in the Fiend Folio, it meant the IP was theirs, because they had printed the most recent book with the word 'githyanki' in it. This obviously makes no sense, but.. well.
Second funny story is the word processor story
https://www.cnet.com/news/george-r-r-martin-writes-with-a-dos-word-processor/ See, the thing is, apparently Martin has never worked out that you can simply turn off autocorrect, so his editor and publisher somehow have to deal with the fact that they're getting crap turned in on a 40 year old file format and just have to deal with that (why they put up with it in the beginning is beyond me, you'd think that would get a 'feth no, redo it on something usable'
Daenerys IS a saviour to those she frees from slavery in Essos, she acts like or often better every other ruler in her world - yes you can try and hold her to an absurd standard but only if you do for everyone else. I think you forget or willfully ignore how bad the villans in this show were if you compare the to them. By your standards who was not a villan in the show?
If she had not listened to those advisors who would betray her in the end and "been the Dragon" as she was told to be she would have taken Kings Landing on arrival, established her dynasty as her ancestors did and ruled a peaceful kingdom,
The Wall was apparently safe until she had to go and save the idiot Snow (again - all he ever did was loose battles and wait for somone to save him) and lost her Dragon so it could be turned and used agauinst the Wall
She was seldom rewarded for kindness and mercy - usually the opposite but burning / killing people always worked....
It was badly written but by the time she burnt Kings Landing - she had lost two of her "children", her best friend, her lover had betrayed her, her advisors had turned traitor, this and other acts made her becoem what they had feared she might be.
The Dragons, the Dothraki and the Unsullied remained loyal and together in a decently written show would have slaughtered and burned their way through Westros in revenge and there was nothing left to stop them.
Realistic rulers from a universe that was inspired by medieval reigns are all somehow villains, yes.
Daenerys liberated people just to get an army or loyal servants, she thought that was the best way to get power and rule, she never did anything out of her heart. She never considered friends or something more people like Dario, Jon o Missandei who were just servants or lovers to her. There's a scene in season 2 which IMHO defines her completely: when the mage killed some of the dothraki and stole the dragons, Daenerys rushes into the room, among the other bodies finds her most loyal servant dead and couldn't care less, she's only worried about the dragons as without them she'd lose all her power. I knew she would have become the mad queen since then .
At least Cersei had his brother as someone who truly loved. And she lost actual children, not just puppies . Jon betrayed Daenerys because at some point he saw her for what she really was.
I didn't like the last two seasons becuase I though they were poorly portrayed and rushed, but thematically the show was good till the end.
The non villains in the series were the free people who lived beyond the wall (Nightwatch was definitely closer to be defined as villains than them!), and a few characters. Probably just Arya, Sansa, Sam and a few others, certainly Tyrion who was not a hero but definitiely not a villain either. Also Jon, who was even killed by traitors, and yet he never wanted power but to do the right thing. Even Winterfell and the north was nothing more than an average medieval-style kingdom, ruled by tyrants. Ned used to behead guys for minor "crimes". Which was appropriate, during middle ages every ruler was a tyrant.
Can't say anyting about the novels, I only watched the show.
You mean the "loyal servant" who betrayed her - that one?
She is worried about the Dragons as they are her children - emotionally (like modern people who see their pets as children-substitutes)- especially since Dany can no longer have children as she was...oh yeah betrayed by someone she tried to help - its a major theme throughout the show. She does good things - usually gets punished - kills people - works well.
Tyrion was happy for people to be killed on his behalf and by Danaerys /Dragons in Merrem - Watched them and did not bat an eyelid. He only had misgivings when his own family was involved.
Cersei did not even blink when Tommen threw himself out of the window....
Arya: The Assasin and killer.
Sansa: Betrayed her borther, fed a tied up man to wolves (yeah he desrved it but she did it and watched - what else will she do in the future), schemed her way to be a Queen (and I like her) - Sansa is the closest character to Dany - abused and betrayed she becomes a strong queen who does what she needs to do to survive and prosper. I don;t understand how you can not see the similarities between them
Sam: Betrayed his oath, deserted the wall....got let off by his mate....when others have their head cut off as you say be Ned
Jon: Killed the woman he said he loved,
Even Winterfell and the north was nothing more than an average medieval-style kingdom, ruled by tyrants. Ned used to behead guys for minor "crimes". Which was appropriate, during middle ages every ruler was a tyrant.
Tyrants with responsabilities - at least the good ones. To me that does not make them villains but we have compltely different views and thats cool
You mean the "loyal servant" who betrayed her - that one?
No. Irri was the character's name. She never betrayed Daenaerys. Her other servant betrayed her (Doreah? IIRC). There a scene in which Daenerys found her dead, along with other fallen dothraki and had no reaction at all. Except a moment later she becomes angry about her dragons being missing. Which were not just "children" to her, they were her primary key to get what she wanted. Several other characters that became "close" to her like Missandei, Grey Worm, Daario, etc... never betrayed her. Jorah did but also redeemed himself. From Jon she demanded obedience, unlike him who never asked anything from people he loved. None of those characters were actually loved by Daenerys.
She only killed to survive or out of revenge though. Countless protagonists and heroes from literature, comics, movies, tv series etc.. are driven by the desire to avenge some dead family members. She killed only "bad guys", no collateral damage. She even spared the Hound while Daenerys never spared anyone as her only motivation was seeking absolute power.
Sansa: Betrayed her borther, fed a tied up man to wolves (yeah he desrved it but she did it and watched - what else will she do in the future), schemed her way to be a Queen (and I like her) - Sansa is the closest character to Dany - abused and betrayed she becomes a strong queen who does what she needs to do to survive and prosper. I don;t understand how you can not see the similarities between them
She never pursposefully "betrayed" her father or brother, unless I missed something. She didn't keep a secret to protect his brother (and everyone else except the mad queen actually) and to stop a tyrant, she did the right thing. Unlike Daenerys she only killed or contributed to get killed only those characters that were openly hostile to her. Not entire cities just to get things done quickly or to satisfy her bloodlust. The two characters had a lot in common, indeed, except how they got shaped by the events that happened around their lives. I'm talking exclusively about the tv show, not the novels.
Sam: Betrayed his oath, deserted the wall....got let off by his mate....when others have their head cut off as you say be Ned
Jon: Killed the woman he said he loved,
An oath that he was forced to take, in which he never believed. He did to make what he thought it was the right thing, not for personal interest. The Nightwatch was a gang of convicts or rejects who abused the free people. Jon killed the woman he said he loved not out of rage, jelousy or to take her power. He did it to save countless lives from a ruthless tyrant. He killed a woman that was nothing else than a wicked tyrant at that point. It's Daenerys who betrayed him, as she refused to let him take the throne of house Targaryen which he deserved being the legitimate heir.
One of the best aspect of GoT is that very few characters are actual "good guys". Not all of them are also actual villains though.
When she starts out, she’s a starry eyed, molly coddled waif of a girl who grew up believing she’d marry the Prince and live happily ever after.
Except….she instead becomes a Pawn for a great many people.
Yet over her character’s journey? She remains loyal to The North and it’s peoples. The scene where it’s revealed she outmanoeuvred Little Finger is pitch perfect for me.
We see in his confused face, like a lizard someone just tried to suckle speaks volumes. Like all her tormentors, so confident he has the measure of her, never noticing a backbone of finest steel growing all the same.
She takes her licks. She learns her lessons. And she wins. Absolutely, 100% wins.
She ends up Queen of the North by popular decree. She betrays no-one for the sake of power. She sees her little brother declared King, further cementing the security of her own rule. And most importantly, with the execution of Little Finger, ably demonstrates she is not someone to be trifled with.
She accepts Danny’s aid, but no more. No bending of the knee. No comprising of her values and loyalties. She ultimately uses Danny and Jon.
Sansa won. Hands down.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, yes she ultimately oversaw the deaths of thousands of North Men. That true.
But not because of her own vanity. The battle against the Night King’s forces was inevitable. By her alliance with Danny, she saved the North.
And by allowing her Bannermen to March South to take King’s Landing? She ultimately freed The North. None of those lives were spent for petty vanity or petty feuds.
That is the difference between a hero and a tyrant.
I think out of all of them I disliked Sansa the most, partly cos our Soph can't act but mostly because she pulled a Sherlock towards the end of the writers giving her flawless foresight (double if you add in Bran) and just pulling wins out of thin air with no set up
I think Sansa finally figured out what Littlefinger had taught her over the years - use your little birdies to gather info for you that you can use against your enemies. She surely did not come up with all of the determinations on her own. However, it has been sometime since I watched the show...
I didn't even watch the last season of the show but just from arguments about it I've gleamed two things;
People willfully chose to ignore one of Daenerys' tried and true character traits everytime; he unrelenting drive to right great wrong and her viciousness towards anyone she relegates to the position of abuser.
One half chooses to ignore that Daenerys, despite a certain born to power hauntiness, had noble aspirations. She did not aspire to be a tyrant but then again, I think a lot of tyrants don't.
The other half chooses to ignore that Daenerys for all her virtues was quick to judge and execute, and further had little regard for the consequences of her actions past the immediate achievement of a goal.
The way her character ended makes sense if you bother to take her as a whole. She became so obsessed with fixing what was broken in the world, she became the person breaking it.
I think this makes Danny a hero or a villain depending on how you look at her, and in a way it maybe makes her a great villain. She's a lot like Gul Dukat, albeit not quite as ably written. She was a deeply flawed person who was charming enough and noble enough when she wanted to be that it was easy to overlook how bad her flaws could be if they ever overtook her.
That’s the fundamental problem; if you do the elevator pitch for the end of GoT (which is probably all the show runners got out of Martin), it’s generally fine. But because the show runners refused the additional season, the whole thing is waaay too rushed. Rather than a slow descent into tyranny, which could definitely evolve out of some of her previous actions, you effectively have Daenerys turn round in one episode and be “I’m evil now”. It feels totally unearned and contrived.
But yeah if you want to distort and twist everything she ever did to fit your very specifc narrative...then I guess you would see her as a villian....
Mine.... and the show producers . She's definitely a villain in the last season, especially the last episodes, without any doubt. Even her dragon recognized that, sparing Jon Snow. What I'm arguing is that the path she ended up wasn't sudden and unexpected but the logical consequence of how she was shaped by the events during the entire story. She wasn't always evil but eventually that's what she became. Anakyn Skywalker wasn't evil and yet it turned into an iconic villain.
I appreciated how she evolved, and in my defense I have to admit that Daenerys' storyline on Essos was always the most boring ones IMHO and the worst part of the story, I just wish she had more time on screen as the mad queen.
I think many people fail to appreciate the colossal failure of Season 8.
Game of Thrones was the hottest thing on TV for years. The later seasons were definitely not as good as the earlier but the show was still hyped. Everyone talked about it when a season hit. Memes ran wild. It set the standard for the entire year of television.
Then Season 8 happened.
And no one talks about Game of Thrones anymore except to talk about how awful season 8 was. Even fan forums and the Game of Thrones subreddit are absorbed ultimately but the series awful final season.
That isn't just a bomb.
That's a fething achievement.
Game of Thrones should have continued being the talk of the net for years to come. It should still be selling big box DVD collections like they were big ticket items. Instead, all anyone remembers is how it ended. The final season was so bad, it made everyone forget how good it was when it started.
Of course the showrunners have found their careers floundering. Worse men have fethed up less with shittier shows.
Do you think that failure was caused by making Daenerys a villain? IMHO the show failed because the last two seasons rushed all the subplots and the main plot. And, also IMHO, the main strength of GoT was having multiple protagonists going their own path, while in the last two seasons they were all merged in a couple of places. Lots of standalone stories that were part of the same universe, then it just took a few episodes to end them all and keep just one story with countless named characters, Avengers style.
We heard about the hordes of undead coming since years and the moment they really came they only manage to last one episode? Lol.
That "rush" was the consequence of having to write an extremely complex plot from scratch since they've already portrayed all the books' material. The producers/writers probably felt like it was an impossible task for them, or a not worthy one, so they tried to finish it as quick as possible.
The mad queen was the only interesting thing in the last two season of GoT.
Honestly, I think it was a series of things. Not any one thing.
None of the series long plotlines ended in a satisfactory manner. Rather everything ended in a manner that 'ended' the show. Stuff just wrapped up to wrap up, even when wrapping up made not one iota of sense. I think Danny's ended actually made complete sense but by the time it came it wasn't the bitter sweet for the ending but the crap cherry on the gak cake.
I've said numerous times when discussing it with people... I have no real gripe/issues with how the story ended, and what I mean by that is the final ending points of the story.
Danny going mad queen, Jon killing her for the good of the realm, The Night King being stopped at winterfell... Etc Etc Etc... I have no issue with these as plot points, no gripe that they were the ending points of stories or some characters arcs etc.
What I have the specific issue is the execution of it, those last 2 seasons would have been plot points that took 5 seasons to come around in the first half of the show.
The producers evidently wanted to move on, they were desperate to do so even, to the point they happily rushed through and thus ruined the show for their own selfish needs. This shouldn't happen, it shouldn't be allowed to happen but it did happen. The show should have respected that Benioff and Weiss wanted to move on, and put the show in the custody of other people who would have cared about it and treated it with the respect it deserves.
However, I cannot lay all the blame at the producers, as I am sure some of the actors, especially the younger members of the cast were wanting to move on also by that point. A 3-5 year hiatus at the end of season 6 could have potentially worked, and not doing the double whammy of trying to finish it in two seasons, but also making the seasons shorter. Massive shame.
Edit: I am probably a little too hard on the producers, they evidently ran into huge issues when the source material dried up and they had to create dialogue, and build up to huge plot points with little to work with in regards to detail. It's not a full excuse for what they did, but it is a contributing factor. I also consider that the producers knew it was going to be a difficult, if not absolute train wreck once the source material was exhausted and they wanted out with minimal damage to their reputation(s) as possible.
They should have known they would outpace GRRM, especially when they started contributing to him not writing by having him do all sorts of press tours and giving him any excuse not to write.
But anyways, we could beat this horse until it rises from the dead and beats us back. Nothing will change.
So I give us a different kind of villain than Joffrey.
Hazel and Cha Cha from Umbrella Academy(The Show). Charismatic, entertaining, not incredibly sadistic. You almost want to root for them, if they were not trying to kill your Protagonist.
I cut the GoT showrunners a lot of slack because the show started its descent at exactly the same time as the books and I really don't think that's a coincidence. As soon as they got to Feast of Crows/Dance of Dragons the show was noticeably less tight, just like the source material. I wouldn't expect them to know how to finish the story considering the mastermind behind it all couldn't figure it out after 20 years.
One from the 80’s, for Dakkanauts of a similar fine vintage.
Mr Bronson, Grange Hill. Portrayed by Michael Sheard, who others might recognise as Admiral Ozzel in ESB, and Hitler from Last Crusade. Also Remembrance of the Daleks, where he might as well have been playing Bronson again
What a wonderful character. Pompous, authoritarian, bit of a bully but impeccably spoken. And, underneath it all, not a bad person. Just a Gentlemen of a certain age and world view struggling with the rapid societal change of the period.
Dunno if BritBox offers the same goods Internationally, but I can recommend Grange Hill. It was a genuinely groundbreaking and often controversial show. Notorious for pulling no punches, and showing a realistic view of secondary school life. Kids die (one falls off a car park, another drowns in the pool, Danny Kendall found dead in a stolen car). Drug addiction via Zammo. All sorts of real world unpleasantness occur. Yet, never in a shock value way.
One I haven't seen here that I think has been particularly well done (well, I havent finished season 3, so opinion may change), was Wednesday from American Gods.
Spoiler:
seeing as how he nearly single-handedly orchestrated the entire bs thing between he and Loki, faking/drumming up a godly war in order to gain more power, all the while appearing to be a "good guy" (heavy emphasis on the quotes), and the way show runners played it to where it kind of actually is a big reveal. . . unless im totally mis-remembering, and am crossing the streams between show and book
All in all, I loved the slow build and letting peoples imaginations run a bit.
Going to throw in Zygon from Starchaser: The Legend of Orin.
Dude was vicious, had his entire plan locked up, and wasn't undone until magic star fairies and the magic sword did him in. I was honestly crushed with the way he killed Orin's escape companion early on in the film.
I'd also like to throw in Mok, from the movie Rock and Rule. Deliciously wicked.
One thing I'm surprised hasn't popped up in this thread is Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men, Javier Bardem plays the character exceptionally well. I find it's one of the few movies which is arguably better than the book.
Amy Dunne in Gone Girl is also a great villain, I hadn't read the book so the twist when I saw it on film was something of a surprise.
Livia from the Sopranos is also easily a good villain.
xerxeskingofking wrote: Captain Barbosa, specifically in the first Pirates movie, before his switch to villain protagonist.
The man has charm, and the charisma to pull off being the captain, but also the intelligence, skill and steadiness to KEEP being the captain, unlike (CAPTAIN!) Jack Sparrow, whose just too unpredictable, for all his skill and luck, to be a good leader.
the way he spends most of the 2nd act charming the audience with the tragedy of his backstory and the hell of his current existence, and making us want him to succeed in his quest to become human again....right up until this moment: (paraphrasing form memory here)
Sparrow: ok, so we've caught up to them, why do i go over, get the final piece of the treasure, and we can be on our way?
Barbosa: See, thats the kind of thinking that lost you the Pearl, Jack. People are so much easier to search when dead.
wham. that charming, charismatic man with the tragic backstory....cool motive, still a murderer, pirate and general Bad Dude.
In this vein, the original iconic film pirate, Long John Silver. The Robert Newton portrayal in the 1950 film, which single-handedly created what has become the traditional pirate in cinema and television. Pirate talking with a heavy west country accent? That's thanks to this portrayal of the most iconic fictional pirate.
He's a stone cold killer, calculating, ruthless (he has one leg and still wields almost total fear and control over able-bodied men who are more than willing to kill to advance their position, that says something), and also just so goddamn charismatic that even after the events of the story you still want him to get away with it.
.
