Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 2:56:29 — 161.6MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Email | RSS | More
It’s time to get EVIL! That’s right GCRN Fans the NEXT Top 100 is here! This time we are counting down the GCRN’s Top 100 VILLAINS! As our adventure continues The Countdown Crew make their way through the land of oz, cybertron, gotham city, and many more locales!! Which villain plays the best game in order to be the last one sitting on the throne? Tune in to find out! Are you ready for Part 3? We know you are, and in this episode you’ll hear which of your favorite VILLAINS ended up as #50 through #26! And as always “UNLEASH THE GEEK IN YOU!”
CHECK OUT THE PAST TOP 100s! CLICK HERE!
Geeks
Steve “Megatron” Phillips
Kevin “OptimusSolo” Thompson
Dan “MovieRevolt” Clark
DJ Valentine
Matthew Stewart
UNLEASH THE VILLAIN IN YOU!!
Okay… What year is the beginning for defining “Millenials”?
I’m just curious considering the age of the hosts and guests.
Me? I’m a Xennial, or what ever BS they cooked up.
(Cross-Post with FB)
me personally I consider it as anyone born 2000- now. As 2000 was the NEW millennium.
Actually 2000 is about the cut-off – It’s more about when you were growing up versus when you were born. You had to be growing up around the 1995-2005 range. People born after that would be part of the next classification
I don’t know if it is when you grew up, or when you entered the work-force (full time not just flipping burgers as a teen).
I feel like no one knows. Baby boomers are more defined by when they werr born up then Gen X when they grew up. For me it’s if you had Facebook in high school or still instant messenger
Depends…if you think Die Hard is just the name of a car battery…if you think the best living actor is Harry Styles…if your TV Mt. Rushmore includes Big Bang Theory…if your idea of classical music is Dub Step…if you’ve never heard of a rumble pack…you’re a millennial.
LOL! Fair enough.
damnit @TryingToBeDJV:disqus you leave BBT alone!!!
IMO, the cutoff is having a living memory of the Challenger disaster, if you remember that then you’d be Generation X and not a Millennial. The latter end cutoff would be having a living memory of 9/11, if you don’t remember 9/11 then you’d be Generation Z.
So… Millennials would be roughly 1982-1997, while Generation Z is 1998-present. Generation Z’s cutoff may have already happened but it’s too early to tell right now.
ANNNDDDDD if I was on the panel… I’d be Gen X! 1980 RULES!!
Okay… What year is the beginning for defining “Millenials”?
I’m just curious considering the age of the hosts and guests.
Me? I’m a Xennial, or what ever BS they cooked up.
(Cross-Post with FB)
me personally I consider it as anyone born 2000- now. As 2000 was the NEW millennium.
Actually 2000 is about the cut-off – It’s more about when you were growing up versus when you were born. You had to be growing up around the 1995-2005 range. People born after that would be part of the next classification
I don’t know if it is when you grew up, or when you entered the work-force (full time not just flipping burgers as a teen).
I feel like no one knows. Baby boomers are more defined by when they werr born up then Gen X when they grew up. For me it’s if you had Facebook in high school or still instant messenger
Depends…if you think Die Hard is just the name of a car battery…if you think the best living actor is Harry Styles…if your TV Mt. Rushmore includes Big Bang Theory…if your idea of classical music is Dub Step…if you’ve never heard of a rumble pack…you’re a millennial.
LOL! Fair enough.
damnit @TryingToBeDJV:disqus you leave BBT alone!!!
IMO, the cutoff is having a living memory of the Challenger disaster, if you remember that then you’d be Generation X and not a Millennial. The latter end cutoff would be having a living memory of 9/11, if you don’t remember 9/11 then you’d be Generation Z.
So… Millennials would be roughly 1982-1997, while Generation Z is 1998-present. Generation Z’s cutoff may have already happened but it’s too early to tell right now.
The birth year for Millenials ranges from 1981-2001 depending on how you define it. However MILLENIAL is different than Generation X, Y , Z etc. Millenial covers a larger range of time. For example, Generation Y grew-up on personal computers, cell phones, and video game systems, while Generation Z has grown up on tablets, smartphones, and apps
I believe everybody on the panel is part of Generation Y (The oldest or ‘early’ half of what many call Millenials)
Why do you ask? What made you think of this in relation to the countdown?
ANNNDDDDD if I was on the panel… I’d be Gen X! 1980 RULES!!
Okay, first of all, (MIDDLE FINGER) for the Archie Bunker stuff in the intro, thanks for that, but I still claim that what he represents is what makes him a villain, that character, that archetype, etc., and the influence he has on the culture and his genre is valid reason to include Archie, and I think very high but…- I get it, he doesn’t kill anybody or anything, actions speak louder than words, yada, yada, yada…. Part of, at least my thinking, is that, if, every kind of literature is available for this list, then, the biggest and most important villains, should at least be seeking out a place this list, within as many genres of literature as you can, at least, the most cultural relevant and important ones, if possible. To me, that was the X-factor with this list, since it wasn’t limiting to anything else, than how important the character is, both in its genre and within the greater sphere of literature itself, I put more stock, or at least, as much stock in that, than just the actions of the character themselves. That’s what I concluded was why, certain villains I considered a little more important and others, while they might’ve done a lot more disturbing and villainous stuff, didn’t rank on a Top 100 List at least.
In fact, now that you guys brought this up, with the characters actions being the villainous thing, something else, that’s missing somewhat missing from the list, I don’t see a lot, or any, so far, cowards on the list. Truly despicable, cowardly characters, and there’s a couple I can think of, the big one that comes to mind for me, is Dr. Smith from “Lost in Space”, befriending the kid, so he can hide behind him, on top of all his other crap…, this is why, I’m more in the-, it’s not just what they do, but why they do it, kinda camp here. Say what you want about the average serial killer, he’s putting himself out there, the ones who are, sorta trying to hide in the background and be villainous though…. (Shrugs)
Anyway, other thoughts:
HANS LANDA-Glad to see him on the list, and I think he was more deserving than Calvin Candie.
OZYMANDIAS-I didn’t vote for him, but I did consider him, actually. I loved “Watchmen”, both film and the book; I haven’t read too many comics in my life, like, literally, 2, maybe, but I made sure to read that one after I saw the movie, which blew me away. (And I didn’t pick up on Matthew Goode being evil-ish in the movie, ’til the end, so, maybe that was just me.) He’s probably the one Comic Book villain, that I kinda regret not putting on there. If this was Top 200, he would’ve made it easily though.
3 “GAME OF THRONES” VILLAINS-I barely found room for Joffrey on my ballot, he was in my 90s, and I tend to consider “G.O.T.” a good, not great show, definitely not among the best of all-time, and one of the reasons is that, there’s too many characters, and-, they’re almost all evil, it seems. I have an annoyance with fantasy in general, for having way too many characters, but I need a scorecard for the show to remember who’s who, much less, what they did. You guys said, Joffrey’s acts are what put him there, to me, it was the character, that he was a little punk-ass bitch who suddenly in charge and a spoiled brat, not the acts, ’cause there’s so many, that they blur together to me. So, I think there is way too many, especially for something, this recent, it’s a little too much, no matter what they did.
LOKI-I disqualified mythology, so I technically disqualified Loki on that basis, but-, I guess if I were to include a Marvel villain, he might’ve been the one. I don’t get Thanos for instance. Darkseid…- alright, he’s not awful but-, maybe it’s just me, but,- he gets away with it, ’cause he’s battling Superman, much of the time, but, I’m not as big on Gods vs. Gods battles, which is kinda what that would be. To me, it’s sorta,… well, neither’s side gonna destroy the other, so they can do whatever they want and it all becomes meaningless at the end. So,-, of the two, I prefer Darkseid, ’cause if Thanos has stayed focused he would’ve destroyed most of the Avengers pretty easily already, but, I don’t know… I get it ’cause it recalls back to mythology, and that’s really the base of comic superhero origins, with like Hercules, for instance, but, I kinda just think, “And the immortals are fighting again,” sorta feel to it, and to me, that’s not as compelling as a man vs. a god or something close to that effect. There might be more destruction but to me, there’s less drama and that matters a bit.
PENNYWISE- I haven’t seen the new movie, but I never got “IT”, honestly. I had two Stephen King villains on my ballot, they weren’t the two that were named. Well, hell, they’re probably not making it, not, I had Annie Wilkes from “Misery” on my ballot, maybe that’s because I’m a writer, so that scares me, that to me, is an original fear, and I had Margaret White also, from “Carrie”, ’cause I had the mother, who was the true villain of that one. Um, I’m glad King’s represented, but I would never have picked those two.
JOHN DOE-I’ve never understood why people think “Se7en” is even a good movie. Like, I don’t see a character who’s evil, manipulating people, I see two idiot cops who follow around elaborate Production Design until the bad guys turns himself in, when I watch this film, so-um,-, Sorry, but I think one Spacey character, is good, and this one…. he’s good in it, but that’s not enough for me. I didn’t seriously consider him.
ERNST BLOFELD-I didn’t have a Bond villain, at all, and if I did pick one it would’ve been Goldfinger. The thing that holds me back on Blofeld is that he doesn’t show up in the great Bond stories, to me, anyway. Influential, maybe, but I prefer Goldfinger, or even Le Chiffe, they captivate me, while Blofeld, I don’t know, I think I would’ve for Kaspar Gutman from “The Maltese Falcon” if I was going for that type of image, ’cause he’s the one I think of with that kind of image.
BIFF TANNEN-Look, I love “Back to the Future” but really? Top 100 Villain? I don’t-, yeah, he does a lot of bad things, but-, in the framing of “Back to the Future”, it’s pretty clear, from the beginning, that he, like, a very jokey, artificial threat. He’s so over-the-top, so obnoxious, that I think it’s pretty difficult to take him seriously. And it’s not like, he’s the first of that kind of joking bully either, like,- he’s basically a variant of, like a Harvey Lembeck character from all those “Beach Blanket…” movies in terms of type. He’s a little more vicious, and really evil when he finds his way to getting power, but this does feel like, a situation where the piece of work is so cultural great, and it is, that they automatically put the villain in, arbitrarily. Maybe Top 200, I would’ve thrown him in, but yeah, way too high for me. And I when think bully, I think Lucy Van Pelt, by the way.
JASON VOORHEES-Yeah, I’m not big on modern slasher horror villains, blah, blah, blah, okay, here’s my issue with “Friday the 13th”, the Strip Monopoly scene, annoys the hell out of me. Seriously, this has always bugged me, ’cause, there’s no possible way you can play Strip Monopoly! Strip poker, okay, just replace clothes for chips, but Strip Monopoly? Like, you can’t do that, there’s too many things going on. Do you get your clothes back if you land of Free Parking? Do you put something back on, if you pass Go? Do you lose everything after landing on Boardwalk with a Hotel, or if the clothes are separate from the money, do you regular Monopoly first and then, play for clothes, or are certain clothes worth certain amounts of money available to trade….- Or are the properties worth clothes now….- That’s the moment, as a ten-year-old, I went, “This movie’s too stupid,” and I shut it off! Seriously, like, how are they playing?! What are they doing if that’s not what they’re playing!? And they don’t even get naked at the end of the scene, so it’s not even arbitrary nudity for the audience- that scene just pisses me off, so much, that I cannot take the “Friday the 13th” franchise seriously. Anyway, that’s my “Friday the 13th” thing, so…. do with that what you will.
Anxiously awaiting the rest of the list, very nervous now that my Number One’s not on there, I’ll say that. This is where I thought he’d show up, but… I don’t know now.
WE ALL LOVE BTTF!!!!!
HOWEVER BIFF IS an ATTEMPTED RAPIST! And in the alternate timeline he MURDERED george mcfly!!! So at least one timeline version of him is a MURDERER!!! MURDER IS NOT OK!!!
RAPE AND MURDER ARE 2 OF THE MOST VILLAINOUS ACTS EVER!
If you took that part away from him, yes he’s just a bully. However because those factors are here… he’s most definitely deserving of being on the list!
First, being cowardly and being villainous are in no way in the same ballpark for me at least. You can be a coward and not in any way be a villain.
Second, sorry we couldn’t resist poking the fire a bit with the introduction! We like to bring in some of the comments into the discussion and felt like an easy way to illustrate some of that for the listeners.
You would love Watchman of all the comics…ugh (I can’t stand it)
One day you will realize how great Game of Thrones is…easily one of the top shows of this generation. There’s really no debating that. Probably a touch of recency bias to have 3 characters on the list but that show is fantastic at character development and writing so not a huge surprise in the end. Odd that you feel like you need a guide or a scorecard. I find the vastness of the universe the most appealing part of the show and have not had a single time where I was lost or confused because of it.
I find it funny that you say that you have only read 2 comics but then have these impassioned arguments for why comic book characters don’t deserve to be on this list. Seems very obvious by your own admission that you don’t have the essential knowledge of these characters to make that sort of judgement call. We clearly have exposed one major bias you have that you have not been able to eliminate from your assessment here. You clearly don’t like comic books (as well as fantasy, horror films etc) which has shaped your decision making when it comes to the inclusion or exclusion of characters from those mediums/properties.
You also seem to ignore certain things that are said during the record. For example, your comment on Biff Tannen reads as if the entire panel was head over heels about Biff being Top 100 worthy. I specifically, suggested that I didn’t think he should be appearing but you seem to ignore that when you type out your commentary.
I also completely don’t understand how you can write off an entire franchise because you had an issue with one isolated scene in one movie. As a critic you have to be able to judge each thing separately and while there’s no problem talking about having an issue with a certain scene, actor, performance, character, or any other aspect of film making it’s
odd to write off the whole piece due to one silly scene. So, yea, that makes no sense to me and thats coming from someone who also doesn’t care for most of the slasher horror films (modern or classic)
Glad you are awaiting the rest of the list!
I’m about six season into “Game of Thrones” and I don’t hate the show it’s better than any fantasy series I’ve ever seen, but the notion that it’s one of the great shows of all-time, is ridiculous to me. No, it’s-, it’s not that I don’t like fantasy, I don’t think most fantasy is good, and there’s a lot of reasons for that, mostly ’cause they use the excuse of it being fantasy to allow for a world not having science, looking at you, J.R.R., but no like…- when I watch try to get into fantasy, to me, the first thing is, make sure the world works, so I’m learning the rules of the Universe, that’s priority one, ’cause if that fails, than nothing else matters; the world has to work, to me, that what you study and look at, and yes, world-building, can, involve creating a bunch of characters in order to fill up the world. but it’s not always necessary, and with “G.O.T.” there’s two many characters, most of them aren’t that memorable. They aren’t, I’m sorry, like the ones I care about haven’t died yet, that’s how unmemorable they are to me. (Okay, Joffrey, but I wasn’t sad about that one) So, like every death that’s come up that’s supposedly tragic, I’m just thinking, “Which one was he?” There is this notion that world-building means create a bunch of characters, and I don’t buy that argument, and I’ll throw out a great recent example “Kubo and the Two Strings” as proof that you don’t need to, you can have, just enough main characters and tell a great fantasy story and not have to be overblown, and have to make something, so vast and so, all those, “Knots Landing” with beheadings with everybody else, or whatever…. “Game of Thrones” it’s-, I watch it impressed, definitely impressed with it as a piece of art, but how anybody can care about most anything in that show is ridiculous to me. If you can follow, fine, I would argue that you’re just predisposed to being engulfed in fantasy like that, I’m not, frankly, and no, I can’t and don’t follow everything in it, ’cause I did try writing a scorecard once, and I lasted about two 1/4 episodes, and I just gave up. My best approach to watching it, is to just find a couple characters that intrigue you, and follow them, and just try to keep up with everything else and assume that they know why whatever they’re talking about is important to them, and I can enjoy the show enough, doing that. But, all-time great show? No, not a chance.
As to being passionate about characters in genres I’m not as knowledgeable, well, why not? First of all, I shouldn’t have to be a hugely knowledgeable fan to be familiar with these characters enough to have an opinion, but I’d argue the other way, if I need to go read and go and see all these dozens of others to really get a complete and total scope of a character, especially one that was create generations ago, at this point, then maybe there is something wrong with that character. Or even that entire genre even. (And just to know, I had some fantasy villains on my ballot, pretty high even. I know, I had the Queen of Hearts from “Alice in Wonderland” Top 20, I’m still waiting for her.) There shouldn’t need to be that much essential knowledge needed (And btw, I did do some research regarding this list, so I looked up a few things when doing this list to be sure, but I still wasn’t impressed), you should, be able to have enough of an idea on the character, pretty easily, without having to go through a backlog of material. to fully get that character. One of the things I did love about “Watchmen” for instance, is that it was the version of “X-Men” that actually made sense to me. Yeah, I’ve always hated “X-Men” too, just throw that on the pile as well if you want, but every time I tried to get into it and understand it, I was always told, “Well, it starts out boring and it takes about three years or so, before you’re finally knowledgeable enough about everything to get it. And that was for the Comics, that for every version of the TV show, that appeared to be for the movies even and I’m like, “You know, I shouldn’t need to invest that much time before I know something’s good or not?!” and I believe that, and “Watchmen” it did everything “X-Men” did, a world of superheroes, each one with different skills and powers and personalities, and they exist in a world where that made some sense, and yet, they introduced them all, with enough info to know about them and the world, in, one graphic novel. Or one movie, and it wasn’t even the 4-hour cut, didn’t need it. I have big questions about something that claims it needs to take forever, for me to get it, when it really shouldn’t. If I don’t know enough, I’ll gladly withhold some judgment, but if I try to look into something, and I’m not impressed, and I’m still told, “Don’t worry, just wait a bit and you’ll get it,” at a certain point, I’m not waiting any longer, and most people are like that too. As much or as little as something may have been improved over time and interpretations, if there’s not something’s that’s there to begin with, that to me, is more important than whether or not they changed it.
As to “Friday the 13th” I’m not writing the whole thing off, ’cause of one scene, I’m writing it off, ’cause it’s not a good franchise, and Jason, is arbitrary thing that kills to me, and even before that scene, that was how I felt.
But seriously, that scene is stupid! Of all the goddamn games, you can’t add stripping to Monopoly, it doesn’t work with the dynamics of the game!- UGH! I’m sorry, I don’t like it when something is blatantly telling me to shut my brain off like that and that scene in that movie in particular, it’s- too much. It’s already a dumb slasher movie, I can only let so much go, I’m already allowing Jason to kill the people having sex, and keep the virgins alive, ’cause he has a decent excuse. (That’s still totally stupid, why don’t more horror villains kill the virgins, and keep the fun sex-having people alive? Wouldn’t that make more sense and be the better choice?) and now you’re making them this really strange kind of stupid that hurts me head to think about?
Anyway, as to comic book characters, no I don’t think, in this poll, where we’re considering all of literature, the top villains of all-time, I don’t think comic book villains should be as prevalent. I had room for The Joker, I seriously considered Ozymandias, Catwoman, General Zod, eh, I briefly thought about Ra’s al Ghoul, and maybe one or two others, I thought about putting on there, but if I’m ranking all of literature’s characters, in any terms you throw in there, villainy, importance, influence, etc. I have a very hard time buying comic book villains needing to be on the list. I’d say it’s a newer younger medium, one that doesn’t have as broad a reach or sphere of influence as other have, a lot of the characters are derivative from others, did they crossover into other mediums and how well and how important are they in those mediums…. I considered everything I could when I thought of this ballot, I felt very few even really deserved to be considered, by that standard.
As to Biff Tannen, I wasn’t ignoring your comments, I was commenting on it’s placement on the list, separate from your guys’ comments, except for the part where I talked about Lucy Van Pelt. That was commenting on your guys, but, mostly my additions, I’m sorry if it came off as dismissive of you guys, that wasn’t my intention, at all. And overall, I’m glad you brought me in, I’m glad you brought my comments up, even if, you’re making fun of them. (Although I still think you’re wrong on Archie.)
Also, I’m not saying cowards and villains are the same thing, but I do think villains, who use cowardice, as their weapon, or as a way to be more villainous than somebody who is active, to me, that should be considered. That’s why I brought up Dr. Smith from “Lost in Space”, ’cause, A. terrorist, let’s start with the fact his villain credentials are already met in triplicate, evil, attempted murderous, terrorist, got them lost in space forever, etc., and then this guy, who, befriend the family kid, solely as a shield to protect him, from anything else that might get him. Convince him he’s not that a bad a guy, and he earns his trust, and then, uses that to, in some cases, literally hide behind him, in order to survive. That’s pretty sickening. I consider that kind of behavior villainous. When they use cowardice to help them be more villainous,… I think that’s something that’s worth considering.
I appreciate most of your comments/commentary but calling any opinion that differs from your own ‘ridiculous’ is not a great way to have an intelligent discourse…
You’re right, “ridiculous” isn’t the right word. I’ll rephrase. I find the notion of ‘Game of Thrones” longstanding popularity and quality, questionable compared to the general public and fans’ perception, and I have doubts that, in the future, it’s gonna be looked upon as highly as it is now, and one of the big reasons is because I don’t see it as something as naturally digestible than other shows that, might have as large a cast of characters.
Based on what? I know people who could care less about fantasy, hated Lord of the Rings but can get into Game of Thrones. You are basing the quality of a show on speculation? You might as well be saying I can’t enjoy this sunny day because three years from now it might rain.
Your take on comics being a newer fresher medium with lesser influence than others is factually not correct. Comics were far more prevalent in the world of pop culture before TV or film. Comics had characters fighting the Nazi’s in their pages before film or TV got there. Along with approaching social and political issues like race relations and drug issues in a way that TV at the time would never dream of. When your influence as a medium becomes so large you get put on trial by Congress and forced to get your pages approved by the government before publishing its because if the impact your medium has. And if it wasn’t for that Comic Code the growth of more adult comics wouldn’t have been slowed.
If anything many of the film villains, anything from Bond for example, are directly taking their influence from comic book characters.
Also not fully understanding what you are referring to regarding X-Men, if you are speaking about the films or the comics. For one the comics are a much different beast than that of Watchmen which is a self contained story, where the X-Men comics are books that have been going since the 60’s. So yes perhaps not ever X-Men story provides every detail as it takes bread crumbs from what came before, but the best comics are self contained enough to not need to refer to past stories. Whedon’s run on X-Men for example is one that anyone could pick up without reading X-Men comics previously and understand the most important aspects.
Are comics as popular as other mediums today like TV or film. Of course not but its far larger than people realize. Especially when you branch out to the world of Manga or comics outside the realm of DC, Image, or Marvel. A book like Raina Telgemeier’s Ghosts last year sold like a trillion copies and was one of the most popular YA books period last year, and that’s not an unusual trend.
Alright, you’re making good points about the history of comics, I would debate they’re cultural importance and relevancy compared to other mediums. I mean, the medium was and still is well-circulated, but it was also historically one of the cheapest of the art to produce and sell at that time, and to some extent now. At that time period, during WWII, I tend to equate them to pulp novels of that time, which were also gaining in popularity and that had just as much influence. And every medium was fighting the Nazis, and most new art forms were also being regulated by the government too. Part of why the Comics Code came was because there was the Hays Code for films, so comics, began adapting more adult material ’cause that would’ve been the outlet at the time, until the Comics Code put a quash on that too, and later, television adapted Standards and Practices for basically the same-, well, mainly that developed ’cause of the game show scandals, but that got thrown into that too, inevitably, and that happened a lot quicker than the rise of comics.
(And I’m not sure when Comics and YA material, which, YA, wasn’t a term, ’til i was alive btw, so I don’t know when comics got thrown in with that, but YA is a whole other kettle of worms to me)
Anyway, it is large, but I would content that it’s much more limiting than the cultural zeitgeist might indicate. Comic books were so rare in my world, that I didn’t realize they actually existed ’til my late teens, before then I thought they were a prop made-up for TV shows or something. (There’s an article about it I wrote that got published recently on “Age of the Nerd” if you want to look it up; I’m supposed to be promoting, but it’s relevant here….) Even without my weird associations with the medium, It still is generally a newer medium, in the history of literature at least, it’s still lagging behind film, plays and novels and whatnot, it’s maybe a 100 or so years old, and to me, television has the great widespread cultural impact, within that time frame, not comics, so much, and I don’t suspect that’s just me. There’s a TV in everybody’s house, and I don’t think you can say the same for comic books, even today.
As to “X-Men”, the thing that, story-wise, well, other than why isn’t Storm the top main one,- (She’s goddamn Mother Nature, how is Wolverine supposedly the important one?), that and, I know metaphorically it works, but storywise, why is everybody’s mutation different? T That science aspect always bugged me, mutations shouldn’t all be so unique and different right? There should at least a few hundred people who can walk through walls or something like that, not just each won be extremely distinctive? That always annoyed and confused me, but-, to me, it was always again,- who am I supposed to care about? I have to learn like thirty of forty characters backstories before I’m emotionally invested enough to actually know what the hell’s going on to me, in this universe. So, for the most part, pretty much every version of the “X-Men”, even the ones I liked that I ran into was boring, and dry, and it seems,- not pretentious, but it always seemed like it was asking me, to just step in, and immediately, understand and care why everything and every body was so important that I had to already care, and I just never did. When “First Class”, which is by far, the best movie of the franchise I’ve seen so far, (I haven’t seen “Logan” yet) all I kept thinking was, “Why wasn’t this the first movie? It finally makes some sense now!” And maybe part of it, is that it was around forever, and I was supposed to have known about it, but, I don’t think so, I could usually step into an average soap opera and figure out what was going on quickly, to me, it felt like I was supposed to accept this grandiose universe with mutants and humans and whatnot, and that all of this and every subplot added up to something bigger, i just couldn’t figure out why I was supposed to care, and why it had to take forever, to tell it’s entire story. Yes, “Watchmen” was a standalone, but, it did in 12 issues, what, I couldn’t fully grasp in four movies and a TV show, and from what I was told, the comics were mostly like that too-, I needed to take the time, go through them for a year or two, and then the story picks up, for the most part, and I don’t mind world-building, but that’s a big investment for something, that I don’I even know if I’m gonna like, much less, consider it any good. I don’t buy the argument that just because the world is larger and bigger and more elaborate, that automatically makes it greater, “X-Men” always seemed like if it had, aimed for less, than it would’ve been more impact. Make me care about one, not fifty or hundreds, or however many.
As to Joss Whedon, that’s a whole other level of hate for me, that I’m not gonna get into, let’s just say that I doubt that his version of “X-Men” will convert me.
Regarding why is every mutation different for the X-Men, because storytelling would be rather boring if everyone had the same exact powers. As Hitchock infamously said “Logic is dull”.
I get the points you are making but nearly all are very subjective arguments based on what you feel the movie is telling you to do rather than what the narrative requires on comprehensive or thematic level.
Man I’m sorry you wen through so much of life without realizing comics were a thing. They are and they are quite awesome. Yes as a medium they aren’t as impactful as TV or film but there is a reason once special effects caught up both have been filled with the super heroes and it is because of the characters they have constructed. It would be easy to take the basic framework of any major superhero and repurpose it in some way and create your own original property.
Because the characters themselves are finely tuned, with complex and fascinating histories that have become the new American folklore. Can you name other characters created in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s that still exist on the same level has comic book characters. No only have new adaptions but also a continuation of their original properties.
As noted below you make a big deal regarding rewatching something, well there are not many villains that have led to more rewatching or rereading like Joker, Doctor Doom, Magneto, or Lex Luthor. Joker who could have an Eisner award winning comic like The Killing Joke or an Oscar winning performance like Heath Ledger, not to mention the infamous animated versions that are perhaps the best representations.
Surely there are literary characters that can claim similar accolades. I placed them on my list as such, but ultimately my point is to dismiss comic book characters as not worthy of this list I find shortsighted. And yea some may be ranked higher than they should, but they belong somewhere imo.
Well, part of me feels like I missed something not being around comics, and part of me thinks it was probably for the best, since it seems like they’re everywhere now, and this subset taken over pop culture, and i’m definitely not in favor of that either. I don’t think I’m dismissing them, I just don’t think they’re at a higher level of importance in the greater sphere of literature, and my ranking reflected. To me, The Joker, was the only one that cross over so many different aspects of literature within and outside of comic books that he was worthy of making the list. I don’t think I’m dismissing them, but I’m baffled by the notion that, so many are of such great importance that all those names are worth making the list. And, in terms of re-reading, that’s something unique,-, well, not unique to comics, but overdone in comics, in particular, how there are so many variations and re-imaginings and re-workings of each of these characters, A. for somebody who’s not a comic book guy, that’s frustrating. It really is, having 50 different versions of “Spider-Man” or whatever-the-hell…- It’s confusing it’s overwhelming, it’s a little too niche on top of all that, and you don’t see that in other forms of literature, and I’m not crazy about it there either, but somebody, it’s annoying for a newcomer to come in and learn the worlds of comics, and the staples and seeing all these, sometimes wild variants on the same theme, I would argue that’s more of a detriment to the medium overall. i mean, you do see, different reinterpretations of “Hamlet” or something, or adaptations, or get inspired by it, to tell a new story, but you don’t see people physically re-writing it most of the time, and that happens in comics all the time. Way more, than any other medium on average.
I guess you’re right about “X-Men”, and I’m not anti-anti-logic, naturally but I am big on world-building being complete. One of the reasons I get dismissive of fantasy as a genre, quicker than most, is because the science in the world doesn’t usually add up, and to me, that means that the writer, just wants to do what he/she wants without consequences or explanation, so they just say it’s a fantasy world, ’cause “there’s no rules in fantasy, you can do what you want, it’s not like sci-fi which has rules,” and I throw the yellow flag hard on that one. Like, “NOOOOOOOooooooo!, either create the world in it’s entirety or don’t fucking do it; you don’t get to pick-and-choose which rules of science apply,” so… yeah, that always confused me about ‘X-Men”, I get it metaphorically, but it takes me out of it, almost every time.
I did try to write a comic book superhero once for a class assignment, the high school class where I learned they exist actually. I forget all the details of the character I create, other than the fact that my teacher thought the character was “Pynchoneon”. (Shrugs) I don’t know what to make of that either. I guess I had just read “The Crying of Lot 49” but-eh, still….
Yes your points about heroes having many different incarnations is not one that is disagreed upon within fans of the medium. That’s often why you have companies like DC and Marvel trying to reset things every so often to clean things up a big with events like Crisis in Infinite Earths that did away with different versions of the same character to trim down to one major version. Then of course those versions come back and repeat the cycle. It is a large barrier to comics I don’t disagree. For some though its what they enjoy the most about it.
But also comics are much more than superheroes and I would argue the most varied medium that exists. You have the freedom of a poetic structure combined with a varied visual presentation with endless possibilities. Look at something like the March books for example. They demonstrate why comics may be the best medium to tell a story of the civil rights movement as you get the personal authenticity of the individual telling the story as you would with a novel, along with the striking visuals of a film.
Yes there are plenty of fantasy stories that break their own logic, which makes the ones that don’t all the more incredible. Science Fiction also likes to pick and choose what science it will fully utilize and what it will act like doesn’t exist. Look at Gravity for example, it broke many laws of physics in order to make a better film.
Watchmen the comic is far superior than the actually film. It gets a lot of hype but its well deserved, one of the greatest works of fiction period in the 20th century.
Okay, first of all, (MIDDLE FINGER) for the Archie Bunker stuff in the intro, thanks for that, but I still claim that what he represents is what makes him a villain, that character, that archetype, etc., and the influence he has on the culture and his genre is valid reason to include Archie, and I think very high but…- I get it, he doesn’t kill anybody or anything, actions speak louder than words, yada, yada, yada…. Part of, at least my thinking, is that, if, every kind of literature is available for this list, then, the biggest and most important villains, should at least be seeking out a place this list, within as many genres of literature as you can, at least, the most cultural relevant and important ones, if possible. To me, that was the X-factor with this list, since it wasn’t limiting to anything else, than how important the character is, both in its genre and within the greater sphere of literature itself, I put more stock, or at least, as much stock in that, than just the actions of the character themselves. That’s what I concluded was why, certain villains I considered a little more important and others, while they might’ve done a lot more disturbing and villainous stuff, didn’t rank on a Top 100 List at least.
In fact, now that you guys brought this up, with the characters actions being the villainous thing, something else, that’s missing somewhat missing from the list, I don’t see a lot, or any, so far, cowards on the list. Truly despicable, cowardly characters, and there’s a couple I can think of, the big one that comes to mind for me, is Dr. Smith from “Lost in Space”, befriending the kid, so he can hide behind him, on top of all his other crap…, this is why, I’m more in the-, it’s not just what they do, but why they do it, kinda camp here. Say what you want about the average serial killer, he’s putting himself out there, the ones who are, sorta trying to hide in the background and be villainous though…. (Shrugs)
Anyway, other thoughts:
HANS LANDA-Glad to see him on the list, and I think he was more deserving than Calvin Candie.
OZYMANDIAS-I didn’t vote for him, but I did consider him, actually. I loved “Watchmen”, both film and the book; I haven’t read too many comics in my life, like, literally, 2, maybe, but I made sure to read that one after I saw the movie, which blew me away. (And I didn’t pick up on Matthew Goode being evil-ish in the movie, ’til the end, so, maybe that was just me.) He’s probably the one Comic Book villain, that I kinda regret not putting on there. If this was Top 200, he would’ve made it easily though.
3 “GAME OF THRONES” VILLAINS-I barely found room for Joffrey on my ballot, he was in my 90s, and I tend to consider “G.O.T.” a good, not great show, definitely not among the best of all-time, and one of the reasons is that, there’s too many characters, and-, they’re almost all evil, it seems. I have an annoyance with fantasy in general, for having way too many characters, but I need a scorecard for the show to remember who’s who, much less, what they did. You guys said, Joffrey’s acts are what put him there, to me, it was the character, that he was a little punk-ass bitch who suddenly in charge and a spoiled brat, not the acts, ’cause there’s so many, that they blur together to me. So, I think there is way too many, especially for something, this recent, it’s a little too much, no matter what they did.
LOKI-I disqualified mythology, so I technically disqualified Loki on that basis, but-, I guess if I were to include a Marvel villain, he might’ve been the one. I don’t get Thanos for instance. Darkseid…- alright, he’s not awful but-, maybe it’s just me, but,- he gets away with it, ’cause he’s battling Superman, much of the time, but, I’m not as big on Gods vs. Gods battles, which is kinda what that would be. To me, it’s sorta,… well, neither’s side gonna destroy the other, so they can do whatever they want and it all becomes meaningless at the end. So,-, of the two, I prefer Darkseid, ’cause if Thanos has stayed focused he would’ve destroyed most of the Avengers pretty easily already, but, I don’t know… I get it ’cause it recalls back to mythology, and that’s really the base of comic superhero origins, with like Hercules, for instance, but, I kinda just think, “And the immortals are fighting again,” sorta feel to it, and to me, that’s not as compelling as a man vs. a god or something close to that effect. There might be more destruction but to me, there’s less drama and that matters a bit.
PENNYWISE- I haven’t seen the new movie, but I never got “IT”, honestly. I had two Stephen King villains on my ballot, they weren’t the two that were named. Well, hell, they’re probably not making it, not, I had Annie Wilkes from “Misery” on my ballot, maybe that’s because I’m a writer, so that scares me, that to me, is an original fear, and I had Margaret White also, from “Carrie”, ’cause I had the mother, who was the true villain of that one. Um, I’m glad King’s represented, but I would never have picked those two.
JOHN DOE-I’ve never understood why people think “Se7en” is even a good movie. Like, I don’t see a character who’s evil, manipulating people, I see two idiot cops who follow around elaborate Production Design until the bad guys turns himself in, when I watch this film, so-um,-, Sorry, but I think one Spacey character, is good, and this one…. he’s good in it, but that’s not enough for me. I didn’t seriously consider him.
ERNST BLOFELD-I didn’t have a Bond villain, at all, and if I did pick one it would’ve been Goldfinger. The thing that holds me back on Blofeld is that he doesn’t show up in the great Bond stories, to me, anyway. Influential, maybe, but I prefer Goldfinger, or even Le Chiffe, they captivate me, while Blofeld, I don’t know, I think I would’ve for Kaspar Gutman from “The Maltese Falcon” if I was going for that type of image, ’cause he’s the one I think of with that kind of image.
BIFF TANNEN-Look, I love “Back to the Future” but really? Top 100 Villain? I don’t-, yeah, he does a lot of bad things, but-, in the framing of “Back to the Future”, it’s pretty clear, from the beginning, that he, like, a very jokey, artificial threat. He’s so over-the-top, so obnoxious, that I think it’s pretty difficult to take him seriously. And it’s not like, he’s the first of that kind of joking bully either, like,- he’s basically a variant of, like a Harvey Lembeck character from all those “Beach Blanket…” movies in terms of type. He’s a little more vicious, and really evil when he finds his way to getting power, but this does feel like, a situation where the piece of work is so cultural great, and it is, that they automatically put the villain in, arbitrarily. Maybe Top 200, I would’ve thrown him in, but yeah, way too high for me. And I when think bully, I think Lucy Van Pelt, by the way.
JASON VOORHEES-Yeah, I’m not big on modern slasher horror villains, blah, blah, blah, okay, here’s my issue with “Friday the 13th”, the Strip Monopoly scene, annoys the hell out of me. Seriously, this has always bugged me, ’cause, there’s no possible way you can play Strip Monopoly! Strip poker, okay, just replace clothes for chips, but Strip Monopoly? Like, you can’t do that, there’s too many things going on. Do you get your clothes back if you land of Free Parking? Do you put something back on, if you pass Go? Do you lose everything after landing on Boardwalk with a Hotel, or if the clothes are separate from the money, do you regular Monopoly first and then, play for clothes, or are certain clothes worth certain amounts of money available to trade….- Or are the properties worth clothes now….- That’s the moment, as a ten-year-old, I went, “This movie’s too stupid,” and I shut it off! Seriously, like, how are they playing?! What are they doing if that’s not what they’re playing!? And they don’t even get naked at the end of the scene, so it’s not even arbitrary nudity for the audience- that scene just pisses me off, so much, that I cannot take the “Friday the 13th” franchise seriously. Anyway, that’s my “Friday the 13th” thing, so…. do with that what you will.
Anxiously awaiting the rest of the list, very nervous now that my Number One’s not on there, I’ll say that. This is where I thought he’d show up, but… I don’t know now.
WE ALL LOVE BTTF!!!!!
HOWEVER BIFF IS an ATTEMPTED RAPIST! And in the alternate timeline he MURDERED george mcfly!!! So at least one timeline version of him is a MURDERER!!! MURDER IS NOT OK!!!
RAPE AND MURDER ARE 2 OF THE MOST VILLAINOUS ACTS EVER!
If you took that part away from him, yes he’s just a bully. However because those factors are here… he’s most definitely deserving of being on the list!
First, being cowardly and being villainous are in no way in the same ballpark for me at least. You can be a coward and not in any way be a villain.
Second, sorry we couldn’t resist poking the fire a bit with the introduction! We like to bring in some of the comments into the discussion and felt like an easy way to illustrate some of that for the listeners.
You would love Watchman of all the comics…ugh (I can’t stand it)
One day you will realize how great Game of Thrones is…easily one of the top shows of this generation. There’s really no debating that. Probably a touch of recency bias to have 3 characters on the list but that show is fantastic at character development and writing so not a huge surprise in the end. Odd that you feel like you need a guide or a scorecard. I find the vastness of the universe the most appealing part of the show and have not had a single time where I was lost or confused because of it.
I find it funny that you say that you have only read 2 comics but then have these impassioned arguments for why comic book characters don’t deserve to be on this list. Seems very obvious by your own admission that you don’t have the essential knowledge of these characters to make that sort of judgement call. We clearly have exposed one major bias you have that you have not been able to eliminate from your assessment here. You clearly don’t like comic books (as well as fantasy, horror films etc) which has shaped your decision making when it comes to the inclusion or exclusion of characters from those mediums/properties.
You also seem to ignore certain things that are said during the record. For example, your comment on Biff Tannen reads as if the entire panel was head over heels about Biff being Top 100 worthy. I specifically, suggested that I didn’t think he should be appearing but you seem to ignore that when you type out your commentary.
I also completely don’t understand how you can write off an entire franchise because you had an issue with one isolated scene in one movie. As a critic you have to be able to judge each thing separately and while there’s no problem talking about having an issue with a certain scene, actor, performance, character, or any other aspect of film making it’s
odd to write off the whole piece due to one silly scene. So, yea, that makes no sense to me and thats coming from someone who also doesn’t care for most of the slasher horror films (modern or classic)
Glad you are awaiting the rest of the list!
I’m about six season into “Game of Thrones” and I don’t hate the show it’s better than any fantasy series I’ve ever seen, but the notion that it’s one of the great shows of all-time, is ridiculous to me. No, it’s-, it’s not that I don’t like fantasy, I don’t think most fantasy is good, and there’s a lot of reasons for that, mostly ’cause they use the excuse of it being fantasy to allow for a world not having science, looking at you, J.R.R., but no like…- when I watch try to get into fantasy, to me, the first thing is, make sure the world works, so I’m learning the rules of the Universe, that’s priority one, ’cause if that fails, than nothing else matters; the world has to work, to me, that what you study and look at, and yes, world-building, can, involve creating a bunch of characters in order to fill up the world. but it’s not always necessary, and with “G.O.T.” there’s two many characters, most of them aren’t that memorable. They aren’t, I’m sorry, like the ones I care about haven’t died yet, that’s how unmemorable they are to me. (Okay, Joffrey, but I wasn’t sad about that one) So, like every death that’s come up that’s supposedly tragic, I’m just thinking, “Which one was he?” There is this notion that world-building means create a bunch of characters, and I don’t buy that argument, and I’ll throw out a great recent example “Kubo and the Two Strings” as proof that you don’t need to, you can have, just enough main characters and tell a great fantasy story and not have to be overblown, and have to make something, so vast and so, all those, “Knots Landing” with beheadings with everybody else, or whatever…. “Game of Thrones” it’s-, I watch it impressed, definitely impressed with it as a piece of art, but how anybody can care about most anything in that show is ridiculous to me. If you can follow, fine, I would argue that you’re just predisposed to being engulfed in fantasy like that, I’m not, frankly, and no, I can’t and don’t follow everything in it, ’cause I did try writing a scorecard once, and I lasted about two 1/4 episodes, and I just gave up. My best approach to watching it, is to just find a couple characters that intrigue you, and follow them, and just try to keep up with everything else and assume that they know why whatever they’re talking about is important to them, and I can enjoy the show enough, doing that. But, all-time great show? No, not a chance.
As to being passionate about characters in genres I’m not as knowledgeable, well, why not? First of all, I shouldn’t have to be a hugely knowledgeable fan to be familiar with these characters enough to have an opinion, but I’d argue the other way, if I need to go read and go and see all these dozens of others to really get a complete and total scope of a character, especially one that was create generations ago, at this point, then maybe there is something wrong with that character. Or even that entire genre even. (And just to know, I had some fantasy villains on my ballot, pretty high even. I know, I had the Queen of Hearts from “Alice in Wonderland” Top 20, I’m still waiting for her.) There shouldn’t need to be that much essential knowledge needed (And btw, I did do some research regarding this list, so I looked up a few things when doing this list to be sure, but I still wasn’t impressed), you should, be able to have enough of an idea on the character, pretty easily, without having to go through a backlog of material. to fully get that character. One of the things I did love about “Watchmen” for instance, is that it was the version of “X-Men” that actually made sense to me. Yeah, I’ve always hated “X-Men” too, just throw that on the pile as well if you want, but every time I tried to get into it and understand it, I was always told, “Well, it starts out boring and it takes about three years or so, before you’re finally knowledgeable enough about everything to get it. And that was for the Comics, that for every version of the TV show, that appeared to be for the movies even and I’m like, “You know, I shouldn’t need to invest that much time before I know something’s good or not?!” and I believe that, and “Watchmen” it did everything “X-Men” did, a world of superheroes, each one with different skills and powers and personalities, and they exist in a world where that made some sense, and yet, they introduced them all, with enough info to know about them and the world, in, one graphic novel. Or one movie, and it wasn’t even the 4-hour cut, didn’t need it. I have big questions about something that claims it needs to take forever, for me to get it, when it really shouldn’t. If I don’t know enough, I’ll gladly withhold some judgment, but if I try to look into something, and I’m not impressed, and I’m still told, “Don’t worry, just wait a bit and you’ll get it,” at a certain point, I’m not waiting any longer, and most people are like that too. As much or as little as something may have been improved over time and interpretations, if there’s not something’s that’s there to begin with, that to me, is more important than whether or not they changed it.
As to “Friday the 13th” I’m not writing the whole thing off, ’cause of one scene, I’m writing it off, ’cause it’s not a good franchise, and Jason, is arbitrary thing that kills to me, and even before that scene, that was how I felt.
But seriously, that scene is stupid! Of all the goddamn games, you can’t add stripping to Monopoly, it doesn’t work with the dynamics of the game!- UGH! I’m sorry, I don’t like it when something is blatantly telling me to shut my brain off like that and that scene in that movie in particular, it’s- too much. It’s already a dumb slasher movie, I can only let so much go, I’m already allowing Jason to kill the people having sex, and keep the virgins alive, ’cause he has a decent excuse. (That’s still totally stupid, why don’t more horror villains kill the virgins, and keep the fun sex-having people alive? Wouldn’t that make more sense and be the better choice?) and now you’re making them this really strange kind of stupid that hurts me head to think about?
Anyway, as to comic book characters, no I don’t think, in this poll, where we’re considering all of literature, the top villains of all-time, I don’t think comic book villains should be as prevalent. I had room for The Joker, I seriously considered Ozymandias, Catwoman, General Zod, eh, I briefly thought about Ra’s al Ghoul, and maybe one or two others, I thought about putting on there, but if I’m ranking all of literature’s characters, in any terms you throw in there, villainy, importance, influence, etc. I have a very hard time buying comic book villains needing to be on the list. I’d say it’s a newer younger medium, one that doesn’t have as broad a reach or sphere of influence as other have, a lot of the characters are derivative from others, did they crossover into other mediums and how well and how important are they in those mediums…. I considered everything I could when I thought of this ballot, I felt very few even really deserved to be considered, by that standard.
As to Biff Tannen, I wasn’t ignoring your comments, I was commenting on it’s placement on the list, separate from your guys’ comments, except for the part where I talked about Lucy Van Pelt. That was commenting on your guys, but, mostly my additions, I’m sorry if it came off as dismissive of you guys, that wasn’t my intention, at all. And overall, I’m glad you brought me in, I’m glad you brought my comments up, even if, you’re making fun of them. (Although I still think you’re wrong on Archie.)
Also, I’m not saying cowards and villains are the same thing, but I do think villains, who use cowardice, as their weapon, or as a way to be more villainous than somebody who is active, to me, that should be considered. That’s why I brought up Dr. Smith from “Lost in Space”, ’cause, A. terrorist, let’s start with the fact his villain credentials are already met in triplicate, evil, attempted murderous, terrorist, got them lost in space forever, etc., and then this guy, who, befriend the family kid, solely as a shield to protect him, from anything else that might get him. Convince him he’s not that a bad a guy, and he earns his trust, and then, uses that to, in some cases, literally hide behind him, in order to survive. That’s pretty sickening. I consider that kind of behavior villainous. When they use cowardice to help them be more villainous,… I think that’s something that’s worth considering.
I appreciate most of your comments/commentary but calling any opinion that differs from your own ‘ridiculous’ is not a great way to have an intelligent discourse…
You’re right, “ridiculous” isn’t the right word. I’ll rephrase. I find the notion of ‘Game of Thrones” longstanding popularity and quality, questionable compared to the general public and fans’ perception, and I have doubts that, in the future, it’s gonna be looked upon as highly as it is now, and one of the big reasons is because I don’t see it as something as naturally digestible than other shows that, might have as large a cast of characters.
Based on what? I know people who could care less about fantasy, hated Lord of the Rings but can get into Game of Thrones. You are basing the quality of a show on speculation? You might as well be saying I can’t enjoy this sunny day because three years from now it might rain.
Well, for my money, and I’ve been unusually good at predicting this btw, but like “Lord of the Rings”, (which, admittedly I’ve never felt was any good, in any form) it takes an effort to get into “Game of Thrones” one that I don’t suspect most people are gonna go through in the future. It’s not a natural rerun show, it’s not a particularly easy show to stream either, ’cause a lot of the series is really dense, it seems to double-back upon itself, and flies into a traditional trope of getting a character beloved by the audience, only to have them killed, and then have them brought back, even. There’s a world you have to learn and adjust to, on top of trying to figure out the characters, and most drama series, they already don’t have long post-series lives in reruns. There’s a lot of the show, that’s not as digestible as say, what’s a good comparison series here? Probably “Big Love” actually, ’cause that series had just as many characters as well as sides battling it out, for basically the same kind of thing, a supremacy over a group(s) of people. And even that show, begins to falter after a few years, because it becomes so overloaded with drama and story that there lacks any levity, and in “Game of Thrones” case, that usually doesn’t stop ’til a bunch of people get killed suddenly, so it’s constantly changing much of it’s main narrative superobjective. I mean, to a fan, this is a powerful, political drama with action and intrigue, and twists and turns that we haven’t seen so bloody and violent since the days of Henry VIII’s people trying to navigate their way into control the throne or something like that kind of scenario where, everybody fighting for power, but you plop somebody in the middle of an average episode, and they’re just gonna see people in costumes fighting each other with special effects some times. That’s not a problem if/when context is established, but it’s so blurred all the time in the series, that;- I’m a pretty smart guy, I know if I have trouble keeping up with it, others will and probably do as well. There aren’t that many shows, where you need a literal map, to even begin to show everybody what and where everything’s is going on. Literally, the opening credits is devoted to providing that for us. It’s a nice heads-up, but fuck. This doesn’t have the hallmarks of a series that’s gonna last forever, honestly, I’m impressed it’s held on for this long. And there’s also a distinct chance the show can still completely jump the shark at some point; I don’t think it’s gonna do that; it’s a little smarter than that. Still, even with this new recent trend of successful period dramas, I have doubts that this show in particular’s gonna be looked upon as highly in the future as it now. There aren’t too many other fantasy series that have caught on, in fact the new trend seems to be sci-fi dystopian shows catching on instead, and the best of those shows, figured it out, where the idea is to slowly discover the world as you continue watching and growing through the characters. “Game of Thrones” did it the opposite way, they first asked you to accept and understand all the intricacies of the world, and then use that to make you care about the characters,….- I don’t think that plays as well, especially when it’s overloaded with characters, they do what I would do, they pay attention to the ones they care for and ignore the rest, and they watch, more passively than the show expects and, that’s for the best for that series, but I think that’s gonna mean that, you’re gonna get a lot of people years from now, looking back and wondering “Why were we so invested in all this?”, especially when there were tons of better series on most of the time.
“It’s not a re-run series” … I can literally name a dozen people just in my family and friends close to me who have watched the entire series 2-3 times already…so I’m going to have to say you are dead wrong on that one as you are with almost every comment you have made about the series thus far…but you can not like something thats fine (although as usual, it doesn’t mean that everyone that likes it or thinks the opposite of you is wrong, it’s just not your thing (aka you are biased against it) )
First of all, 2 or 3 times? That’s not a rerun series-, are they gonna watch it twenty or thirty times, or fifty or sixty times over? Are people gonna watch it randomly, when they’re not thinking about watching it, and they run into it? Are they gonna do that 20 years from now, long after the show’s off-the-air? Yeah, it is absolutely not a rerun series; I call bs on that. It’s not a bias thing, it’s just not as good as other claim; I don’t have a preference, I only look at whether something’s good or not, and then how good is it.
So you can make up your own definition of what a ‘re-run’ series is…gotcha. Sorry to break it to you but you are wrong once again. No human has time to watch a series 20-60 times…what world do you live in? A series is either a ONE time watch or its a ‘re-run’ series. I love how stubborn you are and how arrogantly you think you cannot be wrong…luckily it doesn’t matter to the world if you are right or wrong, thankfully in this case you are most certainly wrong. And yes you do have a preference, stop with the nonsense of you having this unbiased approach to things, its a false claim you have invented to help support your biased opinions. So please just stop with that
Thankfully your opinions, your way of viewing…let’s just say “things”…though I’m sure you’ll say it’s normal….all of that…equals one vote…this is why this process is important…where people who see things totally different than others equal out and their consensus pushes certain characters to the top. I’m sure you’re happy that you are able to express your opinion but dude…you seriously have to learn some couth in terms of disagreeing with people. To engage people from a position of arrogance and dismissiveness destroys any true constructive dialogue about…well…anything…but I’m sure you’ll disagree or point out some time where you predicted the future again or how everyone else is wrong because their thinking doesn’t follow some metric you invented…thus proving my point…but I truly, truly hope that you don’t view your behavior thus far as friendly discourse…because it reads on an almost sociopathic level…now you may proceed with your point-missing 3000 word thesis where you ignore everything I’ve said while propping up your chest as the all-knowing all-wise internet entity who degrades anyone’s differing opinions with all the respect of an Arkansas biker.
Yeah, I definitely disagree, ’cause I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. First of all, I’m not inventing any metrics, this is stuff, I was taught, this is stuff the TV uses, so i don’t know where you’re getting that. 30+ years of studying and reading up on television, you learn a few things, and can see the trouble ahead Show’s based around her catching him, and fifth episode in, they’re dating…, most of this wasn’t that hard to predict. Secondly, and more to the point;- I don’t know what to tell you, but to me, I thought I was trying to have a friendly constructive discourse, and then, you guys kept attacking me and I had to defend myself, so-, what-the-hell? No, until now, I don’t find myself being arrogant and dismissive, I find that from most of you guys mostly. I assure you, the last thing I ever try to do is disagree, just to disagree. I’m trying to express a different point or view too.
And yes, part of my point of view, is my reasoning that if the quality doesn’t match the popularity, then, it must be a preference. That’s how I treat it, then and that’s how I respond to others, and I don’t see it as arrogance or dismissiveness, or anything negative; but to me, I see preferences debated as facts from you guys, and it confuses me, ’cause it’s the absolute opposite of how I consider and analyze. It’s sound to me like, “How dare you criticize these things we adore and love,” and all I’m thinking is, “Well, if you adore and love it so much, then why the hell shouldn’t I criticize and point out the issues; you’re liking stuff that’s not good; isn’t that a huge problem?!” To me, it is. It’s about as big a problem as I can imagine somebody having. I’m not popping my chest, I’m just trying to help. And I would absolutely expect the same treatment if the situation was reversed. if that makes me sociopathic, than fine, whatever, but I damn-sure prefer it to whatever the alternative is, which as far as I can tell, is just, “it’s their thing, they like it, shut up about it.” Yeah, that- I’m not doing that. If that’s what “normal” is, than absolutely screw that!
Arkansas biker? What the hell does that mean? I respect the hell out of Arkansas bikers; why shouldn’t I? They can ride a bike, I can’t. (Seriously, I never learned.) Is that an expression I’m not familiar with? What did an Arkansas biker do to you? I don’t get it.
I have no issue to poke and prod choices that were made or to make comments regarding choices or selections on the list. We all did the same with a number of choices. When I indicated previously I felt you were dismissing was when you disagreement to a choice was based on what that character was like to you even with limited context of said character. My response was directed toward the fact these choices aren’t made in a vacuum and while I understand the point you are making I was pointing to the fact that there’s a more massive score or history to some of those characters you appeared to either not consider or deem was relevant.
If my remarks were looked at as an attack that was not their intention.
Maybe,-, but I think it’s still valid to consider whether a character, should, or needed to be developed so much and expanded over time and have that much history. I’m not dismissing it, but I don’t always think that’s a positive. I mean, sure, first impressions, shouldn’t be your only ones, but, if after the fifth or sixth comes around, and you’re still not sold on it, I think you gotta go back and really look at the characters’ and wonder, and go back and see if it worked to begin with. I know, from my writing experiences, if I’m trying it, for like, three or four times in a row, and no matter what I’m doing, it ain’t completely working,and I keep getting stuck, and I don’t know where to go or what to do, or I know where to go, but I can’t get there naturally, etc. etc….. at a certain point I stop questioning my writing, and I question the idea being good to begin with, and usually, I look through it again, and sure enough, “David, what were you thinking? This was a terrible idea to begin with, and… blah, blah, blah,” time to start over. I find that instinct much more trustworthy in general.
So what were some of your other predictions? Also you are basing your stance on an archaic viewpoint of how people obtain media. I gave up cable years ago and most people I know don’t have it either.
Yea, maybe you would see Game of Thrones syndicated on your network TV shows, it’s no Big Bang Theory. But anyone who has access to either HBO GO or Amazon Prime can view most if not all of the show already.
The vastness of the world of Game of Thrones makes it an actually rewarding rewatch. You can watch threads build in a way you would not be able to notice in first go around and remind you of key beats that you may have otherwise forgotten. You bring up Big Love as a good example and when’s the last time anyone has thought about that show in a meaningful way? Looking at other HBO shows, Sopranos, of course. Oz, anytime someone makes a prison joke, The Wire is probably more popular now than it was when it came out. Even when Bill Paxton died, no one was like. Let’s go binge Big Love now.
I was the one who didn’t think “True Detective” was that great in the first, after that nobody cared. I was the one who said “Homeland” wasn’t gonna hold up as well, midway through the first season, I knew it was gonna nosedive in season; it sorta came back, but it required a lot. Hell, I was proud when I said “Joan of Arcadia” wasn’t any good, when everybody said it was. There’s a few others I can list. There things you can catch if you study enough television, if you think ahead and not just think the current year or the next episode; I always look ahead. What can the show do, where can it go, how much longer will it survive in that direction, etc. Great for a year or two is one thing, great for seven or ten is another.
“Big Love”, could’ve gone on longer, and for three years, I’ll take it over “Game of Thrones” I thought it was a good show, “The Sopranos” was great, “Oz” was very good if overwrought at times, “The Wire”…- (Sigh) Yeah, I have “The Wire” in the overrated category too, actually. although, yeah, okay it holds up over time, I’ll give you that. (I think “Treme” is David Simon’s best show, and the show he really wanted to make with “The Wire” but got hand-tied by the drug trade connection he had to elaborate on.) The reason I mentioned “Big Love” was because that is the best comparison in terms of structure to “Game of Thrones”, it’s set in a modern world, but it’s multi-narrative, they’re all on different paths, although there’s an essential goal of control over their people, and there’s several factions and directions the characters move in order to accomplish that. That show made a bad direction decision, and never fully recovered and “Game of Thrones” hasn’t. And that’s the big difference.
And I brought it up as a meaningful example, and I don’t really care if nobody else does. They should. Television isn’t as much in a vacuum think, there’s usually something that you can trace back to before. To me, I see “Game of Thrones” I see a lot of the same structure as “Big Love”, they’re just in two different worlds with two different set of rules of the universe, and done, more consistently well, sometimes better, sometimes not, but more consistently better on “G.O.T.” and for a longer period of time. (And I went back to rewatch a few seasons of “Big Love” after Paxton died, so screw you on that one.)
Hate to break it to you but you don’t possess some special skill to predict shows success etc. We used to make predictions every year and we were right half the time if not more. You seem to think a shows success is based on longevity though and thats not always the case. One season can make a show a success or memorable or historic.
Your take on comics being a newer fresher medium with lesser influence than others is factually not correct. Comics were far more prevalent in the world of pop culture before TV or film. Comics had characters fighting the Nazi’s in their pages before film or TV got there. Along with approaching social and political issues like race relations and drug issues in a way that TV at the time would never dream of. When your influence as a medium becomes so large you get put on trial by Congress and forced to get your pages approved by the government before publishing its because if the impact your medium has. And if it wasn’t for that Comic Code the growth of more adult comics wouldn’t have been slowed.
If anything many of the film villains, anything from Bond for example, are directly taking their influence from comic book characters.
Also not fully understanding what you are referring to regarding X-Men, if you are speaking about the films or the comics. For one the comics are a much different beast than that of Watchmen which is a self contained story, where the X-Men comics are books that have been going since the 60’s. So yes perhaps not ever X-Men story provides every detail as it takes bread crumbs from what came before, but the best comics are self contained enough to not need to refer to past stories. Whedon’s run on X-Men for example is one that anyone could pick up without reading X-Men comics previously and understand the most important aspects.
Are comics as popular as other mediums today like TV or film. Of course not but its far larger than people realize. Especially when you branch out to the world of Manga or comics outside the realm of DC, Image, or Marvel. A book like Raina Telgemeier’s Ghosts last year sold like a trillion copies and was one of the most popular YA books period last year, and that’s not an unusual trend.
Alright, you’re making good points about the history of comics, I would debate they’re cultural importance and relevancy compared to other mediums. I mean, the medium was and still is well-circulated, but it was also historically one of the cheapest of the art to produce and sell at that time, and to some extent now. At that time period, during WWII, I tend to equate them to pulp novels of that time, which were also gaining in popularity and that had just as much influence. And every medium was fighting the Nazis, and most new art forms were also being regulated by the government too. Part of why the Comics Code came was because there was the Hays Code for films, so comics, began adapting more adult material ’cause that would’ve been the outlet at the time, until the Comics Code put a quash on that too, and later, television adapted Standards and Practices for basically the same-, well, mainly that developed ’cause of the game show scandals, but that got thrown into that too, inevitably, and that happened a lot quicker than the rise of comics.
(And I’m not sure when Comics and YA material, which, YA, wasn’t a term, ’til i was alive btw, so I don’t know when comics got thrown in with that, but YA is a whole other kettle of worms to me)
Anyway, it is large, but I would content that it’s much more limiting than the cultural zeitgeist might indicate. Comic books were so rare in my world, that I didn’t realize they actually existed ’til my late teens, before then I thought they were a prop made-up for TV shows or something. (There’s an article about it I wrote that got published recently on “Age of the Nerd” if you want to look it up; I’m supposed to be promoting, but it’s relevant here….) Even without my weird associations with the medium, It still is generally a newer medium, in the history of literature at least, it’s still lagging behind film, plays and novels and whatnot, it’s maybe a 100 or so years old, and to me, television has the great widespread cultural impact, within that time frame, not comics, so much, and I don’t suspect that’s just me. There’s a TV in everybody’s house, and I don’t think you can say the same for comic books, even today.
As to “X-Men”, the thing that, story-wise, well, other than why isn’t Storm the top main one,- (She’s goddamn Mother Nature, how is Wolverine supposedly the important one?), that and, I know metaphorically it works, but storywise, why is everybody’s mutation different? T That science aspect always bugged me, mutations shouldn’t all be so unique and different right? There should at least a few hundred people who can walk through walls or something like that, not just each won be extremely distinctive? That always annoyed and confused me, but-, to me, it was always again,- who am I supposed to care about? I have to learn like thirty of forty characters backstories before I’m emotionally invested enough to actually know what the hell’s going on to me, in this universe. So, for the most part, pretty much every version of the “X-Men”, even the ones I liked that I ran into was boring, and dry, and it seems,- not pretentious, but it always seemed like it was asking me, to just step in, and immediately, understand and care why everything and every body was so important that I had to already care, and I just never did. When “First Class”, which is by far, the best movie of the franchise I’ve seen so far, (I haven’t seen “Logan” yet) all I kept thinking was, “Why wasn’t this the first movie? It finally makes some sense now!” And maybe part of it, is that it was around forever, and I was supposed to have known about it, but, I don’t think so, I could usually step into an average soap opera and figure out what was going on quickly, to me, it felt like I was supposed to accept this grandiose universe with mutants and humans and whatnot, and that all of this and every subplot added up to something bigger, i just couldn’t figure out why I was supposed to care, and why it had to take forever, to tell it’s entire story. Yes, “Watchmen” was a standalone, but, it did in 12 issues, what, I couldn’t fully grasp in four movies and a TV show, and from what I was told, the comics were mostly like that too-, I needed to take the time, go through them for a year or two, and then the story picks up, for the most part, and I don’t mind world-building, but that’s a big investment for something, that I don’I even know if I’m gonna like, much less, consider it any good. I don’t buy the argument that just because the world is larger and bigger and more elaborate, that automatically makes it greater, “X-Men” always seemed like if it had, aimed for less, than it would’ve been more impact. Make me care about one, not fifty or hundreds, or however many.
As to Joss Whedon, that’s a whole other level of hate for me, that I’m not gonna get into, let’s just say that I doubt that his version of “X-Men” will convert me.
Regarding why is every mutation different for the X-Men, because storytelling would be rather boring if everyone had the same exact powers. As Hitchock infamously said “Logic is dull”.
I get the points you are making but nearly all are very subjective arguments based on what you feel the movie is telling you to do rather than what the narrative requires on comprehensive or thematic level.
Man I’m sorry you wen through so much of life without realizing comics were a thing. They are and they are quite awesome. Yes as a medium they aren’t as impactful as TV or film but there is a reason once special effects caught up both have been filled with the super heroes and it is because of the characters they have constructed. It would be easy to take the basic framework of any major superhero and repurpose it in some way and create your own original property.
Because the characters themselves are finely tuned, with complex and fascinating histories that have become the new American folklore. Can you name other characters created in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s that still exist on the same level has comic book characters. No only have new adaptions but also a continuation of their original properties.
As noted below you make a big deal regarding rewatching something, well there are not many villains that have led to more rewatching or rereading like Joker, Doctor Doom, Magneto, or Lex Luthor. Joker who could have an Eisner award winning comic like The Killing Joke or an Oscar winning performance like Heath Ledger, not to mention the infamous animated versions that are perhaps the best representations.
Surely there are literary characters that can claim similar accolades. I placed them on my list as such, but ultimately my point is to dismiss comic book characters as not worthy of this list I find shortsighted. And yea some may be ranked higher than they should, but they belong somewhere imo.
Well, part of me feels like I missed something not being around comics, and part of me thinks it was probably for the best, since it seems like they’re everywhere now, and this subset taken over pop culture, and i’m definitely not in favor of that either. I don’t think I’m dismissing them, I just don’t think they’re at a higher level of importance in the greater sphere of literature, and my ranking reflected. To me, The Joker, was the only one that cross over so many different aspects of literature within and outside of comic books that he was worthy of making the list. I don’t think I’m dismissing them, but I’m baffled by the notion that, so many are of such great importance that all those names are worth making the list. And, in terms of re-reading, that’s something unique,-, well, not unique to comics, but overdone in comics, in particular, how there are so many variations and re-imaginings and re-workings of each of these characters, A. for somebody who’s not a comic book guy, that’s frustrating. It really is, having 50 different versions of “Spider-Man” or whatever-the-hell…- It’s confusing it’s overwhelming, it’s a little too niche on top of all that, and you don’t see that in other forms of literature, and I’m not crazy about it there either, but somebody, it’s annoying for a newcomer to come in and learn the worlds of comics, and the staples and seeing all these, sometimes wild variants on the same theme, I would argue that’s more of a detriment to the medium overall. i mean, you do see, different reinterpretations of “Hamlet” or something, or adaptations, or get inspired by it, to tell a new story, but you don’t see people physically re-writing it most of the time, and that happens in comics all the time. Way more, than any other medium on average.
I guess you’re right about “X-Men”, and I’m not anti-anti-logic, naturally but I am big on world-building being complete. One of the reasons I get dismissive of fantasy as a genre, quicker than most, is because the science in the world doesn’t usually add up, and to me, that means that the writer, just wants to do what he/she wants without consequences or explanation, so they just say it’s a fantasy world, ’cause “there’s no rules in fantasy, you can do what you want, it’s not like sci-fi which has rules,” and I throw the yellow flag hard on that one. Like, “NOOOOOOOooooooo!, either create the world in it’s entirety or don’t fucking do it; you don’t get to pick-and-choose which rules of science apply,” so… yeah, that always confused me about ‘X-Men”, I get it metaphorically, but it takes me out of it, almost every time.
I did try to write a comic book superhero once for a class assignment, the high school class where I learned they exist actually. I forget all the details of the character I create, other than the fact that my teacher thought the character was “Pynchoneon”. (Shrugs) I don’t know what to make of that either. I guess I had just read “The Crying of Lot 49” but-eh, still….
Yes your points about heroes having many different incarnations is not one that is disagreed upon within fans of the medium. That’s often why you have companies like DC and Marvel trying to reset things every so often to clean things up a big with events like Crisis in Infinite Earths that did away with different versions of the same character to trim down to one major version. Then of course those versions come back and repeat the cycle. It is a large barrier to comics I don’t disagree. For some though its what they enjoy the most about it.
But also comics are much more than superheroes and I would argue the most varied medium that exists. You have the freedom of a poetic structure combined with a varied visual presentation with endless possibilities. Look at something like the March books for example. They demonstrate why comics may be the best medium to tell a story of the civil rights movement as you get the personal authenticity of the individual telling the story as you would with a novel, along with the striking visuals of a film.
Yes there are plenty of fantasy stories that break their own logic, which makes the ones that don’t all the more incredible. Science Fiction also likes to pick and choose what science it will fully utilize and what it will act like doesn’t exist. Look at Gravity for example, it broke many laws of physics in order to make a better film.
Watchmen the comic is far superior than the actually film. It gets a lot of hype but its well deserved, one of the greatest works of fiction period in the 20th century.
So are you ranking villains off their accomplishments as characters what evil they have done or the quality of their character. I don’t see one villain being better than someone just because of their stats or how evil they can get. They are great villains that haven’t killed anyone but they are still great characters. Nurse Ratched never killed anyone directly but does not make her any less of a great character.
We talked about what went into each of our own individual rankings in the beginning of the first episode. Most of us took a combination of things when coming up with our lists. Remember though it’s not just about being a great character or being from a great movie or including a great performance of the character, it’s about who we felt was a great villain.
Yeah, where-the-hell is Nurse Ratched on this ballot anyway? I had her ranked Top 20 on my ballot, I’m starting to think she’s not showing up at all. She ain’t gonna be happy about that.
Also, have we had a femme fatale yet among the women on the list? Maybe Natasha if we’re stretching, but neither Witch is a femme fatale, Medusa’s not a seductress, she’s not either, neither is Cruella, neither is Maleficent, Cersei Lannister, maybe counts as one, maybe…. I guess, but… that’s a major, hugely important and influential villain achetype that could potentially be really under-represented even among women characters on this poll. Maybe Lady Macbeth might show up at the end here,- which is also a stretch as a femme fatale to a degree, but I don’t foresee a Phyllis Dietrichsen making it,-, or you want your ’80s horror villains, how about Alex Forrest from “Fatal Attraction”? I would’ve thought she would’ve found a way to make this ballot, somewhere, just on reputation at least. If she shows up this high, I’d be happy, but I’m surprised at this point.
It’s challenging because there is a difference between a great character and a great villain. My defining factor was mostly based on the quality of stories that could be built around the character as a whole. Why for example a character like Magneto ranked so high for me or Stringer Bell. I prefer complex villains that have dimension, strong justification to their actions, and are willing to surpass morality to get what they want. Stringer Bell may not be ruling universes or anything but what he does to someone of the people most close to him demonstrates to me a more evil quality.
So are you ranking villains off their accomplishments as characters what evil they have done or the quality of their character. I don’t see one villain being better than someone just because of their stats or how evil they can get. They are great villains that haven’t killed anyone but they are still great characters. Nurse Ratched never killed anyone directly but does not make her any less of a great character.
We talked about what went into each of our own individual rankings in the beginning of the first episode. Most of us took a combination of things when coming up with our lists. Remember though it’s not just about being a great character or being from a great movie or including a great performance of the character, it’s about who we felt was a great villain.
Yeah, where-the-hell is Nurse Ratched on this ballot anyway? I had her ranked Top 20 on my ballot, I’m starting to think she’s not showing up at all. She ain’t gonna be happy about that.
Also, have we had a femme fatale yet among the women on the list? Maybe Natasha if we’re stretching, but neither Witch is a femme fatale, Medusa’s not a seductress, she’s not either, neither is Cruella, neither is Maleficent, Cersei Lannister, maybe counts as one, maybe…. I guess, but… that’s a major, hugely important and influential villain achetype that could potentially be really under-represented even among women characters on this poll. Maybe Lady Macbeth might show up at the end here,- which is also a stretch as a femme fatale to a degree, but I don’t foresee a Phyllis Dietrichsen making it,-, or you want your ’80s horror villains, how about Alex Forrest from “Fatal Attraction”? I would’ve thought she would’ve found a way to make this ballot, somewhere, just on reputation at least. If she shows up this high, I’d be happy, but I’m surprised at this point.
It’s challenging because there is a difference between a great character and a great villain. My defining factor was mostly based on the quality of stories that could be built around the character as a whole. Why for example a character like Magneto ranked so high for me or Stringer Bell. I prefer complex villains that have dimension, strong justification to their actions, and are willing to surpass morality to get what they want. Stringer Bell may not be ruling universes or anything but what he does to someone of the people most close to him demonstrates to me a more evil quality.
So far this may be my favorite lists so far, unexpected and for the most part rather correct. Haven’t heard a name that jumps out that shouldn’t be there and many surprises. What are you doing for villains like Zombies or Vampires? Do they count as one group or do you have to pick specific zombie characters.
Please no zombies. Zombies are fine but not a great villain. It’s like voting for the tornado in twister.
100% agree. Putting them on a list like this next to real characters would be bogus.
So totally bogus! #nozombieslivesmatter LOL
Zombies were eligible but don’t know if anyone voted for them or not. We’ll find out.
So far this may be my favorite lists so far, unexpected and for the most part rather correct. Haven’t heard a name that jumps out that shouldn’t be there and many surprises. What are you doing for villains like Zombies or Vampires? Do they count as one group or do you have to pick specific zombie characters.
Please no zombies. Zombies are fine but not a great villain. It’s like voting for the tornado in twister.
100% agree. Putting them on a list like this next to real characters would be bogus.
So totally bogus! #nozombieslivesmatter LOL
Zombies were eligible but don’t know if anyone voted for them or not. We’ll find out.