Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#486563 - 02/16/13 09:48 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Labyrinthine Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 02/05/12
Posts: 541
Loc: America
Sylar is a great one.

One of my many favorites is Lex Luthor. His whole complex about Superman is great. Luthor would be the greatest man of Metropolis if Superman, an invading, alien, menace weren't there to steal the show. He wants to be the best and change the world "for the better", (though still led by him,) through the use of advanced technology but has this mad hatred for Superman that just consumes him, so you have to wonder what he'd be like if Superman weren't around.

Luthor lacks superpowers, so I have the same admiration for him as I do for Batman, Iron Man, Catwoman, the Punisher that he uses his highly intelligent (but not super) brain to put himself on equal terms with superpowered comicbook heroes and villains. He can be suave and charming, he does the whole corporate villain thing well, and he's evil, yet sometimes convinces people that what he's doing is in their best interest (the guy got elected President!) and even fools himself on some level.


Top
#486565 - 02/16/13 10:32 AM Re: Villains [Re: Shade]
Emilio Largo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Witch Shade, do you think that was Buffy? It was Sarah Michelle Gellar, certainly, but might she have been performing one of her movie roles? I didn't see the film, but I'm thinking Kathryn from Cruel Intentions might have made the cut as a best villainness.
_________________________
"Like your friend you've been a little too clever, and now you are caught!"

Top
#486566 - 02/16/13 10:49 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Shade Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/08/06
Posts: 6135
Loc: A Trailer Park
Sorry, I know who the actress is and I've seen Cruel Intentions, I just always call her Buffy. Being a modern teen take on the older film (Dangerous Liasons, 1988) I had to compare the two portrayals of what was essentially the same character (Kathryn Merteuil vs. Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil). I love Buffy but as a best villainess she didn't come close to Close.
_________________________
"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us – all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

We're Just Regular People

Top
#486567 - 02/16/13 11:19 AM Re: Villains [Re: Shade]
Zaftig Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 3406

Top
#486568 - 02/16/13 11:53 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Drake_Bamboozle Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 06/25/02
Posts: 10571
Loc: England
One of the greatest movie villains of all time. Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly.


Attachments
angeleyes1.jpg


_________________________
"u.v.ray blends the dark street poetry of Nelson Algren with the swagger and style of a young Iggy Pop."

www.uvray.moonfruit.com





Top
#486572 - 02/16/13 03:25 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Bill_M Offline
CoS Reverend

Registered: 07/28/01
Posts: 11560
Loc: New England, USA
"Ours is the victory ... They talk of democracy, freedom, fairness. Those are the creeds of cowards. The ones who would listen to a thousand opinions and try to satisfy them all. Achievement comes through absolute power, and power through strength! THEY have lost!"




"There are so many rock heroes. We need a rock villain. I want to be the rock villain."

_________________________
Reverend Bill M.

http://www.devilsmischief.com: Carnal Comedy Clips, Netherworld Novelty Numbers,
New hour every week. Download the mp3 now!

http://www.aplaceformystuff.org: Tales of Combat Clutter and other Adventures

(Wenn du Google's Übersetzer verwendest, um diese Worte zu lesen, dann bist du ein Arschloch.)

Top
#486573 - 02/16/13 03:34 PM Re: Villains [Re: Drake_Bamboozle]
NornIrnbloke Offline



Registered: 01/07/13
Posts: 46
Loc: United Kingdom
To me at the moment, the ultimate bad guy has to be Bryan Cranston's character Walter White from the series Breaking Bad.

Walter starts off as the geeky "Butter wouldn't melt" school teacher who wouldn't hurt a fly. Then after finding out he has lung cancer, ends up turning to a life of crime as a 'cook' of methamphetamine.

It all starts out quite comical two characters in over their heads trying to make enough to support Walters family when he dies.

I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who still want's to watch it but as the series progresses Walter turns out to be the real bad guy, and what started as "honourable" motives in the beginning becomes about him securing his power base. So much so that his wife, partner Jesse and even the cartel become absoloutely terrified of him!

It's been a while since I've enjoyed a TV series and been captivated. The final season concludes later this year and I'm looking forward to it. Have a nosey if you get a chance.


Edited by NornIrnbloke (02/16/13 03:35 PM)
_________________________
The trouble with having an open mind is that people insist on putting ideas into it!

Top
#486575 - 02/16/13 05:20 PM Re: Villains [Re: Shade]
Emilio Largo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Originally Posted By: Shade
Being a modern teen take on the older film (Dangerous Liasons, 1988) I had to compare the two portrayals of what was essentially the same character (Kathryn Merteuil vs. Marquise Isabelle de Merteuil). I love Buffy but as a best villainess she didn't come close to Close.


I see now, Witch Shade, that much of your prior comment went straight over my head. I knew nothing of the one film being a remake of the other, or of why in fact you were comparing Close and Gellar. A sad commentary on myself, I'm sure. Thanks for educating me!
_________________________
"Like your friend you've been a little too clever, and now you are caught!"

Top
#486577 - 02/16/13 06:01 PM Re: Villains [Re: NornIrnbloke]
TheDegenerate Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 3567
Loc: Cowtown
Originally Posted By: NornIrnbloke
To me at the moment, the ultimate bad guy has to be Bryan Cranston's character Walter White from the series Breaking Bad.

Walter starts off as the geeky "Butter wouldn't melt" school teacher who wouldn't hurt a fly. Then after finding out he has lung cancer, ends up turning to a life of crime as a 'cook' of methamphetamine.

It all starts out quite comical two characters in over their heads trying to make enough to support Walters family when he dies.

I don't want to spoil the show for anyone who still want's to watch it but as the series progresses Walter turns out to be the real bad guy, and what started as "honourable" motives in the beginning becomes about him securing his power base. So much so that his wife, partner Jesse and even the cartel become absoloutely terrified of him!

It's been a while since I've enjoyed a TV series and been captivated. The final season concludes later this year and I'm looking forward to it. Have a nosey if you get a chance.






Two of the greatest scenes ever on the show, and on television for that matter.


Edited by TheDegenerate (02/16/13 06:03 PM)

Top
#486578 - 02/16/13 06:23 PM Re: Villains [Re: MagdaGraham]
Emilio Largo Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 02/12/13
Posts: 122
Priestess MagdaGraham, and Degenerate, your respective choices (Richard III and Wolf Larsen) give me occasion to talk a bit more about villains in general. There are two pairs of types, differentiated by the question of indifference, with respect to two different concerns.

Indifference first came to my attention as a thing to be thought about when I learned that H.P. Lovecraft was a self-described indifferentist, by which he meant, and I quote, “Contrary to what you may assume, I am not a pessimist but an indifferentist- that is, I don't make the mistake of thinking that the... cosmos... gives a damn one way or the the other about the especial wants and ultimate welfare of mosquitoes, rats, lice, dogs, men, horses, pterodactyls, trees, fungi, dodos, or other forms of biological energy.”

I too am an indifferentist. I suspect many of us are. In the context of our discussion on this thread, I will suggest that many literary and cinematic villains, but not all, are presented as taking the role of the cosmos onto themselves, and interacting with each sorry atom, be it human or otherwise, with a profound indifference to that atom's suffering. Meanwhile, other villains aren't in this sense indifferent at all, but rather take delight in causing suffering as an end in itself. (Heroes could with equal ease divide similarly, but interestingly, as far as I can recollect via examples, don't. Per my admittedly limited memory, heroes inevitably are indifferent to their own suffering. They feel it, certainly, often intensely, even tragically, but allow it neither to dissuade them from their course, nor to become an end in itself. A character who sought suffering of self as an end in itself would strike none of us as a hero, I think. There is probably something important there to consider, but not on this thread, I don't think.)

I would say Richard III is indifferent to the suffering of others - my caveat being, I am the furthest thing from a Shakespeare scholar, and if I am wrong here, I welcome correction. Sadly, I sometimes get lost in Shakespeare's elevated (to say the least) use of language - but it seems to me that Richard III pursues his goals by any means available, including the suffering of others, which for him is always the means to an end. By contrast, Wolf Larsen is quite ready to inflict suffering on others for the pleasure of it. In fact, inflicting suffering is probably the great pleasure of his life. For this reason, he has no need to aspire any higher than captain of a ship, since as captain he is in the best possible position to indulge his appetite for tormenting those physically or strategically weaker than himself.

Here we have a matter of taste, then. I prefer the villain who, like Richard III, is indifferent to the suffering of others. I tend not to favor (aesthetically) the villain who inflicts suffering as an end in itself. In the modern sci-fi novel, Nastragull (Pirates), by Erik Martin Willen, we get treated to a villain of the Wolf Larsen type, one Captain Zuzack, who is admittedly far more depraved than Jack London could ever had gotten away with, even if he had wanted to go to such extremes with Wolf Larsen. I find it psychologically impossible to root for Captain Zuzack. Others may well have the capacity to do what I cannot.

The other mode of indifference, or absence thereof, has to do with the multi-dimensional strength of one's opponents. With the same caveat as before, regarding my lack of sophistication with regard to all things Shakespeare, I will say that as far as I can tell, Richard III is indifferent to whether his opponents are physically/intellectually/psychologically weak or strong, though of course he takes note of such facts from a strategic or tactical perspective. I never get the sense that he specifically selects his opponents because they're weak, or because they're strong. Wolf Larsen is a different matter entirely, and here I find reason to be somewhat attracted to him. Wolf Larsen, presented with weakness, will seek to destroy it, out of contempt, even a sort of moral outrage. Presented with strength, he will, again, seek to destroy it, but not at all out of contempt - quite the opposite, for he will be compelled to test himself against the challenging strength and prove once and for all who is stronger, he or the other, and all the time he will admire his opponent, perhaps even in the end, when and if Wolf Larsen stands victorious - perhaps even then he will admire his opponent for having put up a good fight, and his admiration will have a moral dimension, for when Wolf Larsen says, "might is right," he means more than merely, "the mighty make the rules." As noted already, I find this attitude attractive in a villain.

Two pairs of types, then, differentiated by two different questions of indifference, or the absense thereof. Given the first question, I prefer Richard III, and given the second, I prefer Wolf Larsen, aesthetically.
_________________________
"Like your friend you've been a little too clever, and now you are caught!"

Top
#486580 - 02/16/13 06:56 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
TheDegenerate Offline
CoS Member

Registered: 11/11/07
Posts: 3567
Loc: Cowtown
Originally Posted By: Emilio Largo
Priestess MagdaGraham, and Degenerate, your respective choices (Richard III and Wolf Larsen) give me occasion to talk a bit more about villains in general. There are two pairs of types, differentiated by the question of indifference, with respect to two different concerns.

Indifference first came to my attention as a thing to be thought about when I learned that H.P. Lovecraft was a self-described indifferentist, by which he meant, and I quote, “Contrary to what you may assume, I am not a pessimist but an indifferentist- that is, I don't make the mistake of thinking that the... cosmos... gives a damn one way or the the other about the especial wants and ultimate welfare of mosquitoes, rats, lice, dogs, men, horses, pterodactyls, trees, fungi, dodos, or other forms of biological energy.”

I too am an indifferentist. I suspect many of us are. In the context of our discussion on this thread, I will suggest that many literary and cinematic villains, but not all, are presented as taking the role of the cosmos onto themselves, and interacting with each sorry atom, be it human or otherwise, with a profound indifference to that atom's suffering. Meanwhile, other villains aren't in this sense indifferent at all, but rather take delight in causing suffering as an end in itself. (Heroes could with equal ease divide similarly, but interestingly, as far as I can recollect via examples, don't. Per my admittedly limited memory, heroes inevitably are indifferent to their own suffering. They feel it, certainly, often intensely, even tragically, but allow it neither to dissuade them from their course, nor to become an end in itself. A character who sought suffering of self as an end in itself would strike none of us as a hero, I think. There is probably something important there to consider, but not on this thread, I don't think.)

I would say Richard III is indifferent to the suffering of others - my caveat being, I am the furthest thing from a Shakespeare scholar, and if I am wrong here, I welcome correction. Sadly, I sometimes get lost in Shakespeare's elevated (to say the least) use of language - but it seems to me that Richard III pursues his goals by any means available, including the suffering of others, which for him is always the means to an end. By contrast, Wolf Larsen is quite ready to inflict suffering on others for the pleasure of it. In fact, inflicting suffering is probably the great pleasure of his life. For this reason, he has no need to aspire any higher than captain of a ship, since as captain he is in the best possible position to indulge his appetite for tormenting those physically or strategically weaker than himself.

Here we have a matter of taste, then. I prefer the villain who, like Richard III, is indifferent to the suffering of others. I tend not to favor (aesthetically) the villain who inflicts suffering as an end in itself. In the modern sci-fi novel, Nastragull (Pirates), by Erik Martin Willen, we get treated to a villain of the Wolf Larsen type, one Captain Zuzack, who is admittedly far more depraved than Jack London could ever had gotten away with, even if he had wanted to go to such extremes with Wolf Larsen. I find it psychologically impossible to root for Captain Zuzack. Others may well have the capacity to do what I cannot.

The other mode of indifference, or absence thereof, has to do with the multi-dimensional strength of one's opponents. With the same caveat as before, regarding my lack of sophistication with regard to all things Shakespeare, I will say that as far as I can tell, Richard III is indifferent to whether his opponents are physically/intellectually/psychologically weak or strong, though of course he takes note of such facts from a strategic or tactical perspective. I never get the sense that he specifically selects his opponents because they're weak, or because they're strong. Wolf Larsen is a different matter entirely, and here I find reason to be somewhat attracted to him. Wolf Larsen, presented with weakness, will seek to destroy it, out of contempt, even a sort of moral outrage. Presented with strength, he will, again, seek to destroy it, but not at all out of contempt - quite the opposite, for he will be compelled to test himself against the challenging strength and prove once and for all who is stronger, he or the other, and all the time he will admire his opponent, perhaps even in the end, when and if Wolf Larsen stands victorious - perhaps even then he will admire his opponent for having put up a good fight, and his admiration will have a moral dimension, for when Wolf Larsen says, "might is right," he means more than merely, "the mighty make the rules." As noted already, I find this attitude attractive in a villain.

Two pairs of types, then, differentiated by two different questions of indifference, or the absense thereof. Given the first question, I prefer Richard III, and given the second, I prefer Wolf Larsen, aesthetically.





It's so refreshing to take a peek into the wasteland of the upstairs forums and find an individual who has such remarkably thought provoking things to say.

I have to agree on your second point about Wolf Larsen. His view of the "ferment" leads him to lend a curious eye on matters of human suffering. Van Weyden himself is a curiosity, one who is treated as a plaything for Wolf Larsen, someone with whom to exercise his intellectual side. But Wolf Larsen never falls into the trap of repentance; his character remains an iron pillar throughout the entirety of the novel. Van Weydens quote, "at least you are consistent." is the perfect descriptor for Larsen through and through. All of his actions are dictated by his Darwinian worldview, and the existence of weak things, and their conviction that there is meaning in life is perplexing and irritating to him.

That is also what generally separates a story like The Sea Wolf from the constant onslaught of fictional drivel eaten up by the masses on a daily basis who claim some "superiority" because of their ability to read, even though they devour only the most mindless crap for the most part; real lessons and real philosophy interlaced between the pages of the book. It's pretty easy to see why Doktor LaVey assumed Might is Right to be a creation of Jack London, even though there doesn't seem to be much compelling evidence to link him to that diatribe; the theme of might is right is certainly prevalent throughout many of his writings, although in the case of The Sea Wolf, it feels more like a mark against that kind of grim philosophy rather than being in favor of it.

Nevertheless, I would almost say that The Sea Wolf should be, at the very least, some very highly recommended reading for Satanists, not only due to the character of Wolf Larsen, but to the rest of the cast in that book, and Humphrey's own journey in discovering the glory of strength and self-reliance. Although he maintains his moral character through and through, he goes through a transformation throughout the story that leads him to at least have a rudimentary understanding of why Wolf Larsen looks at the world the way he does.

I'm going to stop now because I could talk about Wolf Larsen for about fifty pages exhaustively, and it wouldn't scratch the surface of why I like the character; I don't buy into the cult of personality, but if their was a real life Wolf Larsen, he would certainly be my idol.

Top
#486582 - 02/16/13 08:26 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Discipline Offline
CoS Warlock

Registered: 08/25/03
Posts: 6796
Loc: Forever West
_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

Top
#486583 - 02/16/13 08:44 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Shade Offline
CoS Witch

Registered: 07/08/06
Posts: 6135
Loc: A Trailer Park
I think you're being very generous, I know I can be unclear (if not downright incomprehensible). Thanks for being so gracious. smile

And I highly recommend Dangerous Liaisons, great cast!

Something about the idea of indifference reminded me of Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men). There was definitely a purity in his actions. He had a code, principles, carried himself with a quiet dignity and unblinking certainty. All of which was oddly comforting.

This clip because, "If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?"

_________________________
"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us – all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

We're Just Regular People

Top
#486585 - 02/16/13 10:35 PM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
JayLucif Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 11/09/02
Posts: 1705
Loc: Helheim
Hum since there are many villains already here, I have a few I enjoyed which I did not notice here yet.

Melkor from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion, and of course Sauron from the Lord of the Rings Book series.

On film which I did not notice posted yet was http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086336/ Jonathan Pryce as Mr.Dark from Ray Bradbury's, Something Wicked This Way Comes, which Ray also wrote the movie screen play as well.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107665/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Max von Sydow as Leland Gaunt, from the movie version of the Stephen King story Needful Things.

There are also many Villains in the adult fantasy Book series A Song of Fire and Ice, which is also an HBO serial series now called just Game of Thrones.

The villain role seems to shift from character to character depending on who is currently alive in a particular book and also who is the current antagonist, the book series also has multiple antagonists at once. Currently I am enjoying the "villainy" type role of Melisandre who is starting to come across as a villain in the books, but this is hard to tell at the moment, as I am currently waiting for the next book in the series to see what happens to a certain character's fate to see if she is really a villain or a true ally in disguise. As Melisandre seems to have some interesting "magical" powers.

Melisandre of Asshai, Melisandre is a Red Priestess of the Lord of Light cult which starts regaining power and recognition again. This is after magic starts to arrive again in the book fantasy world, after the birth of the three Dragon eggs Daenerys Targaryen has birthed back into the world. But this Cult uses Fire and blood magic in order to work their sorcery.

I have also enjoyed the villain role of Tywin Lannister, and Tyrion Lannister not really a villain per say but a Satanic role none the less, this character is a Satanic opportunists. This character is the 2nd son and 3rd child of Tywin, but Tyrion was born as a dwarf and somewhat stunted and deformed, and so he has had to resort to guile, manipulation, misdirection, and being able to see the long game of others as a means to stay alive to make up for lacking in the brawn department, and ohh he has a hell of a voracious appetite for fine food, and women as well. I think his dedication of educating the mind is something any Satanic person of worth would hold in high regard.

And how about The Joker, from of course the Batman franchise. I still think that Jake Nicholson played the best Joker yet on film. And I thought Jim Carrey was fantastic as the Riddler. I thought both of these actors brought out the psychotic side of these villainy characters extremely well, and with the right touch of power.

Of course there is the supreme villain and rebel in chief, which has been touched on here, John Milton's Paradise Lost. His Satan character, I think has kind of set the ground work for all Satanic/Devil roles that has followed since. Milton must have had old scratch whispering in his ear when he wrote his ten thousand plus line poem.

Ahh what the heck, how about Bram Stoker's Dracula? I can not believe I am almost overlooked this character, brought the Vampire myth into the modern age.


Edited by JayLucif (02/16/13 10:38 PM)
_________________________
------------------------------------------------------------

Freedom, baby is never having to say you're sorry. Guilt is like a bag of fuckin' bricks. All ya gotta do is set it down. John Milton - The Devil's Advocate!

I'm gonna pull the whole thing down. I'm gonna bring the whole fuckin' diseased, corrupt temple down on your head. It's gonna be biblical. Clyde Shelton - Law Abiding Citizen!


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

Top
#486586 - 02/17/13 01:22 AM Re: Villains [Re: Emilio Largo]
Dax9 Offline

CoS Member

Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 766
Loc: near Baton Rouge, LA
Many of my first choices have already been mentioned here, but I can still think of many more, especially in the gangster movie genre. Of course, I'm not going to list any of the obvious ones from the most commonly known mafia flicks.

I enjoy watching the performances of Malcolm McDowell in his evil roles, particularly his part in the movie Gangster no. 1 .


I would also include Denzel Washington as Alonzo in Training Day .



Attachments
Gangster No 1.jpg

Training Day.jpg




Edited by Dax9 (02/17/13 01:24 AM)
_________________________
"The difference between the man or woman who's a practicing Satanist, from an identity Satanist is that the practicing Satanist looks at the picture, while the identity Satanist studies the frame."
-- Anton Szandor LaVey

"Anyone without a sense of humor is too pretentious to be a good magician."
-- Anton Szandor LaVey

Life Everlasting

World Without End





Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >


Forum Stats
12198 Members
73 Forums
43974 Topics
406003 Posts

Max Online: 197 @ 10/04/11 06:49 AM
Advertisements