# Greatest Movie Villains: Nominations



## masamune1 (Dec 31, 2008)

Name the villains, monsters and maniacs you rank as either the best villains of all time or just your favourites. After the 2008 Movie of the Year thread is done, the top 16 will be collected and a tournament for the Greatest Movie Villain will begin.

Non-human (eg. Predator, the Alien) and morally ambiguous characters (eg. Michael/ Vito Corleone) may be accepted at the discretion of the voters and the OP. Any other issues that arise will be dealt with during or after nominations end. 

State the villain, the film they were in, and ideally the year the film was  released. For example:

*Darth Vader- The Empire Strikes Back (1980)*

No reason needs to be given for the nomination, though they are welcome if you so wish. Maximum 3 nominations per person. 

May the best monster win.


----------



## Chee (Dec 31, 2008)

You knew it was coming: 

Joker - The Dark Knight (2008)
Nuff said.

Bill - Kill Bill (2006 I think)
He has a great personality. 

Terminator - Terminator (1984 I think)


----------



## Bear Walken (Dec 31, 2008)

*Top 3:*

Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting from Gangs of New York (2002)

Darth Vader from the Stars Wars movies (1977-1983)

Stansfield from Leon aka The Professional (1994)

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

*Honorable mention:*

Both Jokers from The Dark Knight (2008) & Batman (1989)


----------



## Chee (Dec 31, 2008)

Bear Walken said:


> Stansfield from Leon aka The Professional (1994)



Was going to do that one, but I like the terminator more.


----------



## Gray Wolf (Dec 31, 2008)

Jack Torrance - The Shining (1980)
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

John Doe - Se7en (1995)
Psychaotic villain that people tend to over look, he accomplished his goal.

Azazel - Fallen (1998)
Supernatural demon that enjoys tormenting people.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 31, 2008)

Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs)

Hans Gruber  (Die Hard)

Alex DeLarge  (A Clockwork Orange)


----------



## Saint_Spike (Dec 31, 2008)

Darth Vader-Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, Return Of The Jedi-1977-1983
The Terminator-The Terminator-1984
The Joker-Dark Knight-2008


----------



## HEATAQUA (Dec 31, 2008)

Tai Lung(Kung Fu Panda 2008)
Green Goblin(Spiderman 1 2001) 
Syndrome(The Incredibles 2004)


----------



## Gooba (Dec 31, 2008)

The Joker (The Dark Knight 2008)
Anton Chigure (No Country for Old Men 2007)
Terminator (Terminator 1984)


----------



## Rukia (Dec 31, 2008)

HEATAQUA said:


> Tai Lung(Kung Fu Panda 2008)
> Jafar(Aladdin 1992)
> Green Goblin(Spiderman 1 2001)
> Syndrome(The Incredibles 2004)




Jafar is the best villain on your list...not exactly a good sign.


----------



## Chee (Dec 31, 2008)

I don't think he/she sees many Oscar worthy movies.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 31, 2008)

People, the maximum is *three* villains!

Rukia, HEATAQUA, Bear Walken- remove a monster from your list, otherwise one f them will be discounted.


----------



## HEATAQUA (Dec 31, 2008)

Ok i remove Jafar


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 31, 2008)

Jason Voorhees bitches! And Godzilla(when he's evil and he's actually very menacing in "Godzilla 1985" as well as GMK: All out Monster Attack)

ummmmmmmmmmmmmm, John Doe from Se7en is a good one, guess I'd say Joker too.

Actually, the number one villain should go to Christopher Lee in "Wicker Man". He's just so happy and fun(compared to his usual roles) that it makes it unnerving that he's completely evil.

Edit:Fuck, didn't check opening post.

1) Lord Summerisle(original Wicker Man, 1973)
2) Godzilla(er, movies began in 50's and keep on going. But mainly I nominate him for Godzilla 1985 and GMK(2001)
3) Jason Voorhees(Friday the 13th part 2 and up, began in early 80's)


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Dec 31, 2008)

The Joker - The Dark Knight (2008)
John Doe - Se7en (1995)
Alonzo Harris - Training Day (2001)


----------



## Zeroo (Dec 31, 2008)

Joker duh..

Sauron from LOTR....tho he never made an appearance, you felt his presence in all three of the movies..

and this


Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Alonzo Harris - Training Day (2001)


----------



## CalRahhh (Dec 31, 2008)

The Joker - The Dark Knight (2008)
Michael Myers - Halloween, (1978)
John Doe - Se7en (1995)


----------



## darthsauron (Dec 31, 2008)

Scar_x said:


> Sauron from LOTR....tho he never made an appearance, you felt his presence in all three of the movies..



My sig disagrees


----------



## Twilight Deity Link (Dec 31, 2008)

John Doe - Se7en (1995)

Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting - Gangs of New York (2002)


*Spoiler*: __ 



Elijah Price - Unbreakable (2000)


----------



## Nightmare (Dec 31, 2008)

_Joker from The Dark Knight (2008)

Hannibal Lecter from Silence of The Lambs (1991)

The Shark from Jaws (1975)


_


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 31, 2008)

Wow, these threads are so pointless because its just going to be a TDK smex thread.


----------



## Rukia (Dec 31, 2008)

I'm starting to dislike TDK...I am getting tired of the excessive fanboyism.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 31, 2008)

THANK YOU. Im glad I am no longer alone.

HUGS!


----------



## Zeroo (Dec 31, 2008)

Rukia said:


> I'm starting to dislike TDK...I am getting tired of the excessive fanboyism.



don't hate the movie....hate the fanboyism... movie was epic.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 1, 2009)

Joker may do well, but the chances of him winning this are smaller than of TDK winning the other competition. 

TDK is just up against the best movies of 2008; it's pretty obvious few are as good as it. The Joer, however, is up against the best movie villains _of all time_ (well, as voted by the NF Konoha Theatre board), and though it's still popular the hype of the film has died down a bit. I honestly thnk he won't win this, though of course he'll probably hang in there. I don't think many people would rank him the Greatest Movie Villain Of All Time, even if they like him.


----------



## Podman (Jan 1, 2009)

1. Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting - Gangs of New York (2002)

2. Harlen Maguire - Road to Perdition (2002)

3. Micheal Myers - Halloween (1978)


----------



## Castiel (Jan 1, 2009)

how the fucking hell did Frank "Once Upon a Time in the West" not get mentioned?


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 1, 2009)

Because people are too busy molesting the Joker.

But yeah, that's a good choice. I'd also say as a runnerup, the villain from "For a Few Dollars More". I love him because I personally think he is a villain who actually hates what he does, but doesn't realize it, and it drives him miserable causing him to hurt others.

Frank is different. Frank simply considers it business(although the flashback shows him taking pleasure from it). Casting Henry Fonda in the role was a great idea from Sergio Leone, whose filmography owns(although his Roman peplum movie sucked and I hear "Duck You Sucker" isn't much better)


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Jan 1, 2009)

Stop hating on the Joker. There's a reason why he's being mentioned as a great villain; he is! Not only was the movie great, but the Joker's acting and actions were amazing. He made the movie enjoyable to watch. 

Joker-Dark Knight (2008) 
Tyler Durden-Fight Club (1999)
Jigsaw-Saw (2004)


----------



## Narcissus (Jan 1, 2009)

-Freddy Krueger ~ Nightmare on Elm Street
-Hannibal Lector ~ Scilence of the Lambs
-The Joker ~ The Dark Knight


----------



## Chee (Jan 1, 2009)

Oooh yea Tyler Durden was awesome.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 1, 2009)

Thus far, we have 9 "valid" nominations- that is, 9 guys with more than 1 vote.  

Pretty good, since this has'nt even been up for 24 hours yet (it will probably be open till Wednesday at the latest). Still, would'nt mind some more votes.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 1, 2009)

I will nominate Jiggsaw form Saw I

1. Jiggsaw


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 1, 2009)

Should I put down guys who are already nominated?


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 1, 2009)

Violent By Design said:


> Should I put down guys who are already nominated?



Put down whomever you want. It's up to you.

That said, if a character only gets one nomination they won't be going onto the actual competition, so every character who makes the cut will have at least two. 

Remember, you are allowed up to 3 choices.


----------



## Federer (Jan 1, 2009)

Lol, to Joker from the TDK. 

Allright, enough of the fanboy/hype stuff.

1. Hannibal Lector (Silence of the lambs)
2. Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on elm street)
3. Satan (The devil's advocate)


----------



## Watchman (Jan 1, 2009)

Agent Smith - The Matrix (1999) I'll edit my post with other nominations later.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 1, 2009)

I love how someone lols at hype but then puts Freddy Kruger.


----------



## Federer (Jan 1, 2009)

Violent By Design said:


> I love how someone lols at hype but then puts Freddy Kruger.



Lol, atleast he has dozens of movies and has proven to be a great villain. Heath was good, but he isn't better than the cartoon Joker by Mark Hamill. The Dark Knight trailer was ten times better than the movie himself, and I watched it twice. His performance was so great, because Bale acted like shit. 

I prefer Batman Begins above Dark Knight, who had too much characters in a movie, was too long, Aaron Eckhart was miscast as Harvey Dent/Two-face, atleast to me and Bale was just blown away, he didn't had any good sentence in the movie, with an annoying voice. Nolan screwed the character of Batman. But it's just a subjective opinion of mine.

There are dozens of great villains and nominating Joker from TDK, a movie from last year, is pure hype, you can't deny it.


----------



## Violent by Design (Jan 1, 2009)

Sabakukyu said:


> Lol, atleast he has dozens of movies and has proven to be a great villain. Heath was good, but he isn't better than the cartoon Joker by Mark Hamill. The Dark Knight trailer was ten times better than the movie himself, and I watched it twice. His performance was so great, because Bale acted like shit.
> 
> I prefer Batman Begins above Dark Knight, who had too much characters in a movie, was too long, Aaron Eckhart was miscast as Harvey Dent/Two-face, atleast to me and Bale was just blown away, he didn't had any good sentence in the movie, with an annoying voice. Nolan screwed the character of Batman. But it's just a subjective opinion of mine.
> 
> There are dozens of great villains and nominating Joker from TDK, a movie from last year, is pure hype, you can't deny it.



Freddy Kruger has had dozens of movies, dozens of shitty movies. 5 years from now people will still be saying The Joker is a great villain, because he is. And comparing the Joker to the Mark Hamil version is irrelevant since we're regarding film not television.

And it's my opinion that you're mentioning Freddy Kruger out of hype, you're telling me that people don't hype up old shitty pop culture movies? I just found it odd that you would show negativity toward someone for hype while you mentioned another character who lives on hype, just a different type of hype.


----------



## Chee (Jan 1, 2009)

> Lol, atleast he has dozens of movies and has proven to be a great villain. Heath was good, but he isn't better than the cartoon Joker by Mark Hamill. The Dark Knight trailer was ten times better than the movie himself, and I watched it twice. His performance was so great, because Bale acted like shit.
> 
> I prefer Batman Begins above Dark Knight, who had too much characters in a movie, was too long, Aaron Eckhart was miscast as Harvey Dent/Two-face, atleast to me and Bale was just blown away, he didn't had any good sentence in the movie, with an annoying voice. Nolan screwed the character of Batman. But it's just a subjective opinion of mine.
> 
> There are dozens of great villains and nominating Joker from TDK, a movie from last year, is pure hype, you can't deny it.



Excuse me, are we talking about movie villains or whether or not a movie is good or not? Stick to the discussion. 

And obviously since people are naming the Joker then he must be a good villain and really I think he's far better than Freddy Krueger who has been raped to death because of all of the shitty sequels that came out. But it's just a subjective opinion of mine...and about a lot of other people on this thread, so you can shove your little mocking fest up your ass.


----------



## Castiel (Jan 1, 2009)

Joker is just a great villain in general, like Batman I love him in pretty much every incarnation.  Though TDK joker wouldn't be in my top 5 Joker incarnations, I still really enjoyed Heath's interpretation of him.






MartialHorror said:


> Because people are too busy molesting the Joker.
> 
> But yeah, that's a good choice. I'd also say as a runnerup, the villain from "For a Few Dollars More". I love him because I personally think he is a villain who actually hates what he does, but doesn't realize it, and it drives him miserable causing him to hurt others.
> 
> Frank is different. Frank simply considers it business(although the flashback shows him taking pleasure from it). Casting Henry Fonda in the role was a great idea from Sergio Leone, whose filmography owns(although his Roman peplum movie sucked and I hear "Duck You Sucker" isn't much better)



I was ok with Frank asa villain but goddamn did the flashback push him up on my list.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 1, 2009)

I do believe the Joker is a great villain but the only reason he is being mentioned so often is because TDK is the number one movie this year. 

If it was last year, it would probably be the dude from "No Country for Old Men". People need to get over the excessive fanboyism.

Most people probably havent even seen most of the iconic villains, because most people here are too young(and stupid). If I'd have thought about it, I'd name Christopher Lee's Dracula or Peter Cushings Frankenstein over Heaths Dracula. 

Those people were scary. The Joker was menacing, dangerous and funny, but he never scared me. 

So thats why all this TDK hype is bugging me. People are taking a great movie and somehow are managing to overrate it. I'm not even sure Heaths Joker is any better of a villain than Nicholsons Joker(even though the performance is more spectacular). Both had similar ideas, yet I think Nicholsons Joker was more evil. Hence, most people don't even know what "Greatest movie villain" means. 

As for Freddy, I think he was scary during the first few parts. But once part 4 came around and he did the Freddy rap, I couldn't take him seriously.


----------



## Chee (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm sure it will calm down, mostly likely this year when Watchmen comes out and definately when Iron Man 2 comes out. But Heath's Joker is a new pop icon of 2008, he's going to get mentioned. There's no stopping it, you just have to go with the flow and wait till it calms down (I already feel it calming down anyways).


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 1, 2009)

You feel it calming down? The "best of" awards and this thread are all "TDK" dominated.

Still, I agree it will eventually calm down, but I don't know if the Watchmen will do that(the director did the Dawn of the Dead remake, which shows he isn't godly based on his current filmography).

Anyway, Im going to debate why Heath's Joker isn't really any better than Nicholsons Joker, just for the hell of this thread.

Before I go on, I will say I prefer Heaths performance over Nicholsons and he probably is the best Joker ever. 

First off, TDK Joker simply wanted chaos and anarchy. Joker89 wanted to destroy Gotham. TDK Joker only pretended to ally with the mob bosses. Joker89 pretended to be the friend of the people. TDK Joker only did what he felt was needed to get the job done(example, he didnt kill any of Waynes guests). Joker89 was sadistic and did evil things for fun.

So, by terms of "who was a better villain", Jack Nicholsons Joker definately was more dangerous. Remember, this thread isn't "best actor as a villain", it's "best villain"

This is why I dont think Heaths Ledger's Joker deserves to be mentioned so many times. 

My main ones were

1) Jason Voorhees(Friday the 13th): He loves to kill and is unstopable.

2) Godzilla: When he's evil, he seems downright malevolent. In the movies I mentioned before, he actually seems to pick out people to kill. other movies has been being the hero, and some others makes him a tragic creature.

3) Lord Summerisle: Er, watch the original "Wickerman" to find out.

Even though i didnt really nominate them,

4) Dracula(Christopher Lee): He's sophisticated, but sees humans only has food.

5) Frankenstein(Peter Cushing): Here is a man you want to like, even though he kills people for his experiments(in one sequel, he rapes a gal)

6) John Doe(Seven): Watch the movie to find out.

And there are others. I don't mention Freddy because he become a joke in later films, nor Micheal Myers because later films turned him into another Jason Voorhees. Pinhead was scary at first, but as he become the main character, he lost his touch


----------



## Chee (Jan 1, 2009)

That's because TDK was one of the few great films of 2008. The rest were either not nominated because of limited release or ignored by most of the people on NF. Honestly, if this was more critic based instead of fan based, Slumdog or Curious Case of Benjamin Button would've gotten more votes or around the same votes as TDK.

It's the people's choice and they choose TDK and they choose Joker. Is it fair? Not really, but that's the big thing for 2008 and it effects our generation just as other movies have to the 70s or 80s or 90s.

Yes, I do feel it calming down, not a whole lot, but it wasn't as big as it was in July...of course.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 1, 2009)

Kevin Spacey's proformace as John Doe was far better than Heath Ledger as The Joker and he wasn't even in the movie for that long.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 1, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> You feel it calming down? The "best of" awards and this thread are all "TDK" dominated.
> 
> Still, I agree it will eventually calm down, but I don't know if the Watchmen will do that(the director did the Dawn of the Dead remake, which shows he isn't godly based on his current filmography).
> 
> ...



The quality of a villain has to do with more than just who is the most dangerous. Hannibal Lecter has several nominations but he is very particular about the type of people he kills, and can usually be pacified- in terms of how likely he is going to kill you- by being pleasant and good manner-ly. You have John Doe, a man who only had a handful of victims, including himself, and was never planning on any more. Also, part of the reason he works so well is that, throughout the film, the city setting is portrayed as being every bit as corrupt as he claims it is.

Joker'89 did'nt want to destroy Gotham- he just enjoyed scaring and killing people, which Heath's Joker did in addition to being an anarchist. 

Nicholson tried to kill Batman, seeing him as a rival and an annoyance; Ledger tried to turn Batman into a killer, and got under his skin by continually emphasising a link between them; Nicholson simply tried to kill citizens of Gotham, Ledger tried to transform them into killers themselves; Nicholson pretended to be theri friend at the last minute and only to set up a ploy togas several of them, Ledger played with their very notions of morality and order.

It is things like that that make him a better villain. Both these guys enjoyed killing, but only one of them really, truly got under the skin of the city, and more importantly the hero.

As for this:



> My main ones were
> 
> 1) Jason Voorhees(Friday the 13th): He loves to kill and is unstopable.
> 
> ...



The stuff you said about Freddy, Michael and Pinhead could also be applied to your nominees. Lee's Dracula was overused and got less threatening as the sequels roled on; conversly, you nominated Godzilla based solely on the films he is a bad-ass in, so that could carry over to Freddy or the other two since their early films still showed them as outright monsters.

Also, Jason does'nt love to kill. He kills out of rage and revenge, and because his childlike mind can't differentiate the kids who let him drown from all other teenagers on Earth (at least, the non-virgins).


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 1, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> The quality of a villain has to do with more than just who is the most dangerous. Hannibal Lecter has several nominations but he is very particular about the type of people he kills, and can usually be pacified- in terms of how likely he is going to kill you- by being pleasant and good manner-ly. You have John Doe, a man who only had a handful of victims, including himself, and was never planning on any more. Also, part of the reason he works so well is that, throughout the film, the city setting is portrayed as being every bit as corrupt as he claims it is.
> 
> Joker'89 did'nt want to destroy Gotham- he just enjoyed scaring and killing people, which Heath's Joker did in addition to being an anarchist.
> 
> ...



I actually think Hannibal Lector isn't a great choice. He was scary in Silence of the Lambs, but took the role for a more typical route in the next 2 sequels. In the prequel, he's just a dude who wants revenge.

Either way, it seemed 89 Joker intended to tear Gotham apart. Also, Ledger simply wanted to break Gotham. The only people he would turn into killers were Batman, Two Face and the people on the boats(hardly most of Gotham). Doing what he did to Two Face would be a heavy blow to the morale of Gotham, but that wouldn't destroy them or turn them all into killers. 

Either way, I dont think Ledgers Joker played with Gothams morality. His intent seemed to want to break Batman above all, with his attacks on Gotham simply being part of that. I don't think he wanted to prove to Gotham anything. He wanted to prove to Batman that everyone sucked. Joker 89 wanted to destroy Gotham, and Batman was simply in the way.

As for "truely getting under the skin of the city and people", that's a very subjective claim. Joker89 killed Batmans parents, which probably got under his skin even more than Jokers killing of the love interest. As for the city, both equally struck fear into the people in the long run. Their goals may have been different, but the result wasn't much different.

To me, the ideal villain is who would I want to face the least. Being Nicholsons Joker is more likely to kill me, I'd say I'd want to face him less.


----------



## Chee (Jan 1, 2009)

> Joker89 killed Batmans parents



That was a dumb and random move on whoever wrote the screenplay.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 1, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> I actually think Hannibal Lector isn't a great choice. He was scary in Silence of the Lambs, but took the role for a more typical route in the next 2 sequels. In the prequel, he's just a dude who wants revenge.



See the rest of my comments (in the last post).

Actually, I never found him scary- I just enjoyed watching him. I feel the same about the Daleks and most versions of the Joker: I don't find them as scary as I just love watching them, since they are so deliciously over-the-top (Silence of the Lambs included).



> Either way, it seemed 89 Joker intended to tear Gotham apart. Also, Ledger simply wanted to break Gotham. *The only people he would turn into killers were Batman, Two Face and the people on the boats(hardly most of Gotham).* Doing what he did to Two Face would be a heavy blow to the morale of Gotham, but that wouldn't destroy them or turn them all into killers.
> 
> Either way, I dont think Ledgers Joker played with Gothams morality. His intent seemed to want to break Batman above all, with his attacks on Gotham simply being part of that. I don't think he wanted to prove to Gotham anything. He wanted to prove to Batman that everyone sucked. Joker 89 wanted to destroy Gotham, and Batman was simply in the way.



And the GCPD when he tried to trick them into killing the hostages.

And the random people on the streets whom he encouraged to kill that guy who was going to expose Batman. 

And then there is the message he forced that reporter to read out, which started with "What does it take to get you peopel to join in on the fun?" (or something along those lines). And he made plenty of statements to Batman and Dent about how he wanted to expose the morality of the citizens as a fraud. What he did to Dent was just part of his grander scheme to do that (eg. ideally, Dent would have went on his spree but the people on the boats would[ have also blown each other up).

Nicholson played a guy who got off on terrorising the city and killing lots of people. Scary, but not quite as soul-destroying as what Ledger did.

Nicholson did'nt want to destroy Gotham, did'nt do anything near that level. His plans would have killed hundreds, maybe thousands or tens of thousands, but it was no-where near enough to destroy the place. Like I said, he just wanted to be feared.



> As for "truely getting under the skin of the city and people", that's a very subjective claim. Joker89 killed Batmans parents, which probably got under his skin even more than Jokers killing of the love interest. As for the city, both equally struck fear into the people in the long run. Their goals may have been different, but the result wasn't much different.



I'm not talking about killing his love interest. Ledger got under Batman's skin by essentially challenging all he stood for. He made it sound like Batman was responsible for people like him, that he could'nt stop people like him without crossing the line, that in the end instead of saving Gotham from crime Batman has unleashed something several times worse. [

_And_ he goes to great lengths to show that that thing that is worse is also the thing he has been fighting for, that deep down the moral fibre of Gotham is a farce and all he stands for is absurd. Most of all, he puts forth the idea that the two of them are essentially as crazy as each other. 

As for Rachel, Bruce's parents died because of some mugging, in the '89 version killed by just some callous sadistic thug who became the Joker. In both versions in his mind (though esp. in the Nolan series) they were killed in spite of him, because he was'nt strong enough and because he did'nt matter to the killer.

Rachel died _because_ of him, because the Joker wanted to hurt Dent but more importantly to mock Batman, killing her because he saw what she meant to him. And, on a more personal level, Bruce faced the fact that all his training and lessons were useless to save her from him.  

And I'd say the scars from Ledger would be harder to heal, and not just because he's still alive. Nicholson did'nt try and show them their are ugly side.



> To me, the ideal villain is who would I want to face the least. Being Nicholsons Joker is more likely to kill me, I'd say I'd want to face him less.



Worse things than dying, you know. Ledger Joker seems much more sadistic, and worse has rationalised his sadism to seem like it's not only acceptable, but honest, fair and right. Both guys are ready to kill you, but Ledger is more likely to try and hurt, traumatise or break you than the more 2-dimensional Nicholson. 

Frankly, I'd be scared to even _touch_ Ledger's Joker (and he's the guy who _was'nt_ dropped into toxic waste), sine he seems much more rabid and psychotic than the other one. He's also more physical, violent and almost totaly indifferent to his own well-being, whic makes him in that sense much more dangerous. I'm more confident I could beat up/ fight off Nicholson Joker than this guy, who'd just be encouraged if I tried.  

Ledger seems the mst dangerous to me.

But enough of this- this is a nomination thread, not a discussion one.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm always irritated by the fact that people seem to have such short term memories.  Every time there is a category like this...people proceed to make only recent nominations.  The Joker was good in the Dark Knight...but it's ridiculous to see everyone listing him as the best ever.

And for the record...my list is the best 3 I have seen so far.


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Jan 2, 2009)

The egos in this thread are ridiculous, especially MH's and Rukia's.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 2, 2009)

Well, I think this is a rather obvious choice, since this one is in almost every movie ever made.


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2009)

Okay, with Freddy we now have 10 nominations we can use.

C'mon, guys, there are still plenty of villains being left out. Where's Norman Bates or Patrick Bateman? Where's Amon Goeth, Tommy deVito, Mr. Blonde? Where are the friggin' Bond villains like Blofeld, Goldfinger or Jaws, or even Disney villains like Scar, the Queen or Cruella de Ville?

I need at least 16 characters with more than 1 nomination. If a character has received lots of nominations already (Joker, Lecter, Vader), please don't vote for him even if you do so in the actual competition. And there are a few great villains who have only received 1 nomination so far.


----------



## Deaf Ninja Reaper (Jan 2, 2009)

The Joker from Dark Knight (Brilliant scene where he wears nurse outfit, don't ask...Watch it)

John Doe from Se7en (Jesus christ, small role but so creepy freak, he must be laughing in hell at his successful goal...)

Predator (A crazy friend who murders and collects human skulls for fun's sake!)

Basically, I would go with what others posted above...


----------



## Watchman (Jan 2, 2009)

Scar! How could I forget, when not even a week ago "Be Prepared" was my song of the week!? And I'll go with Patrick Bateman to round out my 3 nominations.

So:

Agent Smith (The Matrix Trilogy)
Scar (The Lion King)
Patrick Bateman (American Psycho)


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 2, 2009)

Bateman is far too good for this thread with all the Joker wank fest.pek

I'm surprise no one has mention Keyser Soze yet 


I'm going to be really annoyed If John Doe doesn't win this to be honest.


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> Okay, with Freddy we now have 10 nominations we can use.
> 
> C'mon, guys, there are still plenty of villains being left out. Where's Norman Bates or Patrick Bateman? Where's Amon Goeth, Tommy deVito, Mr. Blonde? Where are the friggin' Bond villains like Blofeld, Goldfinger or Jaws, or even Disney villains like Scar, the Queen or Cruella de Ville?
> 
> I need at least 16 characters with more than 1 nomination. If a character has received lots of nominations already (Joker, Lecter, Vader), please don't vote for him even if you do so in the actual competition. And there are a few great villains who have only received 1 nomination so far.



There's only a maximum of 3 or I would've named the majority of what you said.


----------



## Ironhide (Jan 2, 2009)

Skeksis said:


> The Joker - The Dark Knight (2008)
> Michael Myers - Halloween, (1978)
> John Doe - Se7en (1995)



Damn my exact list rite here


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2009)

Chee said:


> There's only a maximum of 3 or I would've named the majority of what you said.



Everyone else who has'nt voted can still name them.

Or you can change your votes.


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

I like my current three though.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2009)

Chee said:


> I like my current three though.



Well, still, pretty much all three are guaranteed to make the cut. Esp. the Joker.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 2, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> Well, still, pretty much all three are guaranteed to make the cut. Esp. the Joker.



Mine should, I mean, it's so fucking obvious.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2009)

masamune1 said:


> See the rest of my comments (in the last post).
> 
> Actually, I never found him scary- I just enjoyed watching him. I feel the same about the Daleks and most versions of the Joker: I don't find them as scary as I just love watching them, since they are so deliciously over-the-top (Silence of the Lambs included).
> 
> ...



1) Yes, he told Wayne and Dent he wanted to expose the citizens. Obiously this is true because he told the truth so many times in the movie. Think about this, his attacks were always small scale. Furthermore, it wouldn't always work. If the police killed the hostages, it would've been an accident. People would realize that. If the guy who was trying to expose Batman got killed, whoever did it would justify it by protecting the hospital. Why bother with the Batman exposer? Because that test was ultimately for Batman. All of his actions were against Dent and Batman. He wanted them to suffer by showing the people they defend are no better than he. If his focus was the city, he would've done more large scale attacks.

2) Ledger Joker basically acts as a terrorist. None of his ploys would've really worked against the city(except MAYBE the boat issue), because there would be justification for the others. The Hostages being killed by the police would've been an accident and the snitch's death would be able to save the hospital(so if someone was REALLY that serious about it, its unlikely they would feel much guilt). As for Nicholsons Joker, obviously his plan for the movie wouldn't have destroyed the entire city, but he's also a typical villain. If he could kill thousands(or hundreds), he'd probably continue to do more.

3) Agree on Ledger getting under Batman skin. My argument though is that the Jokers war is against Batman, with Gotham in the crossfire. He wanted to prove that Gotham wasn't a moral place(which is ironic, as you never get the impression its supposed to be) simply to show that Batmans fight is pointless.

4) Didn't the 89 Batman make a point of Batman blaming himself for his parents deaths? While its obviously not his fault, he clearly believed so. So while Rachel did die because of him, Batman89 believes he is at fault for his parents demise. Hence, the result is the same.

5) The issue is, we're probably not worthy for Ledger to make us his enemy. Batman was. Nicholson would destroy us for the hell of it.

And yes, this is perfectly part of the thread, as I think Ledgers Joker is being immensely overrated and I hope I can get some people to realize that.

I think Ledgers Joker is actually tragic. He is probably lonely, probably always has been, and thats why he does what he does. There is a scene that stands out where he's just sitting there in the prison cell and looking dead on the inside. Most likely, when he sits around at home, he probably looks just like that. He obsesses over Batman(who he thinks is his ultimate nemesis) because Batman is the complete opposite of him. I doubt he'd ever kill Batman because thats his only reason for living. If he truely wanted to break Gotham, he probably would've done it along time ago. Yet he finds his true purpose in Batman. 

Another example of his misery is how he keeps changing the story of how he got his scars. Ultimately, he is a man without a home or a past. Whatever happened, it turned him into a monster.

So, like Norman Bates, I simply feel bad for him. Hence, I can't look at him as the best movie villain ever. He's too tragic. 

Nicholsons Joker might be a 2D character, but I don't feel anything for the character other than loving to hate him.


----------



## Koi (Jan 2, 2009)

Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men, 2007.)
Bill 'The Butchah' (Gangs of New York, 2002.)
Scar ( YES he is my favorite villain, shh.)


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

I hate Nicholason's Joker, any villain that dances to prince doesn't get my vote.


----------



## Superstars (Jan 2, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> And yes, this is perfectly part of the thread, as I think Ledgers Joker is being immensely overrated and I hope I can get some people to realize that.



I realize it, I liked looking at both Jack and Heath's Jokers. 
I still think Jack shooting down the bat jet with a huge hand cannon was better than anything Ledger did, funny.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> 1) Yes, he told Wayne and Dent he wanted to expose the citizens. Obiously this is true because he told the truth so many times in the movie. Think about this, his attacks were always small scale. Furthermore, it wouldn't always work. If the police killed the hostages, it would've been an accident. People would realize that. If the guy who was trying to expose Batman got killed, whoever did it would justify it by protecting the hospital. Why bother with the Batman exposer? Because that test was ultimately for Batman. All of his actions were against Dent and Batman. He wanted them to suffer by showing the people they defend are no better than he. If his focus was the city, he would've done more large scale attacks.



His attacks might not have been large-scale (would'nt call them small-scale: the boat one was mid-scale, at least), but they were continuous, relentless and unpredictable. They don't have to be big-scale, esp. not in just a city, to get the message across. He never planned on stopping, or on getting caught. After the boat, the SWAT-hostage incident (which would have left several cops dead), and escaping from Baman yet again, he would have went on with more attacks, and more and more. The numbers would make up for the scale.

Plenty of people would have blamed the cops, for rushing in if nothing else. Here in Britain, there was a terrorist attack in Summer '07 and the police acciently shot a Brazilian kid thinking he was a terrorist.  There was a huge public outcry against the police, even though that was the second terrorist attack in just a week. And that was just 1 innocent person.

Joker's first plan was to kill public officials, apparently including Dent, which would have broken down public order. He changed slightly after meetig Batman to making "these civilised people eat each other", to prove a point. He is primarily concerned with Batman, but he alsowants to validate his views on human nature. That means making everyone like him.




> 2)Ledger Joker basically acts as a terrorist. None of his ploys would've really worked against the city(except MAYBE the boat issue), because there would be justification for the others. The Hostages being killed by the police would've been an accident and the snitch's death would be able to save the hospital(so if someone was REALLY that serious about it, its unlikely they would feel much guilt). As for Nicholsons Joker, obviously his plan for the movie wouldn't have destroyed the entire city, but he's also a typical villain. If he could kill thousands(or hundreds), he'd probably continue to do more.



Firstly, he was going to blow up the hospital anyway. He was mostly interested in getting to Dent, which required evacuating the place, and he left without confirming if anyting happened to the guy. So the person would have murdered in vain. And yes, they would stil feel guilty about it, even though they might try and convince themselves that they had no choice.

Secondly, the point is he is trying to turn people into killers. He des'nt care about whether or not they feel guilt, in fact hs point was that they would'nt.

Thirdly, what makes Nicholson less scarring is that his plan makes everyone turn against him. Ledger was trying to make everyone _like_ him, which could have been more damaging since it meant that, even if he did'nt kill you, he would have changed the very meaning of your life.



> 3) Agree on Ledger getting under Batman skin. My argument though is that the Jokers war is against Batman, with Gotham in the crossfire. He wanted to prove that Gotham wasn't a moral place(which is ironic, as you never get the impression its supposed to be) simply to show that Batmans fight is pointless.



Gotham was'nt meant to be moral but it was'nt meant to be as bad as the Joker either. The point was that theyall liked to think that they were'nt lowlife scum, and in that Joker saw hypocrisy he wanted to tear apart. Batman believes that most people are essentially good, and just need inspiration, which puts the Joker in conflict with him. He wants to test the limits of his moral code.

Gotham is'nt just caught in the crossfire. At first, he does look like he's ready to kill Batman and may well have if he actualy took off his mask. But he endsup enjying their battles way too much and starts seeingbreaking Batman as a challenge. He would still have went after the city even if Batman were'nt there; it's just that Batman stands for morality in Gotham and Joker wants to bring all that down. I don't think he quite expected Batman to...complete him so.   



> 4) *Didn't the 89 Batman make a point of Batman blaming himself for his parents deaths?* While its obviously not his fault, he clearly believed so. So while Rachel did die because of him, Batman89 believes he is at fault for his parents demise. Hence, the result is the same.



No. Never. Other versions have but he did'nt. 

'89 Batman blames the fucker who killed them. He is more focused on street punks than Nolan's one, which suggests he's hoping to run into the guy. When he finally does, he does'nt listen to Joker's stuff about how Batman made him, as Nolan's does, and puts all the responsibility on the clown (since he made Bruce first). Not once does he blame himself for what happened.   



> 5) The issue is, we're probably not worthy for Ledger to make us his enemy. Batman was. Nicholson would destroy us for the hell of it.



Like I said, he thinks Batman started something great but did'nt expect him to be such a great challenge. He was always after the city it's jus that Batman became more important.

None of the villains you nominated kill for the hell of it, soI don't see why that's so important. Nicholso kills because he gets high off of feeling bigger than people- guys like that are brought down a peg when they meet someone who is actually better than them, as Batman is. Ledger feels like a more worthy opponent for Batman, because he talks about how connected they are and, more chillingly, can back it up. 

Nicholson, really, is'nt as mch as match for Batman as Ledger is, whose Joker constantly outmanouvered both him, the police, and the entire city. Nicholson was constanty out manouvered by Batman, not always easily
but he never pushed him the way Ledger did. And Ledger's just clearly scared the crap out of Bruce more than Nichoson did.  



> And yes, this is perfectly part of the thread, as I think Ledgers Joker is being immensely overrated and I hope I can get some people to realize that.



This is sposed to be for nominations. I'll make a discussion board when the thing actually starts but this is neither the time nor the place. Mostpeople think that this Joker desereves to be here and, frankly, 10 years down the line most people will probably still think that. But again, that does'nt mean he's guaranteed to win, and this competition offers tougher odds than did the 2008 Film one.  



> I think Ledgers Joker is actually tragic. He is probably lonely, probably always has been, and thats why he does what he does. There is a scene that stands out where he's just sitting there in the prison cell and looking dead on the inside. Most likely, when he sits around at home, he probably looks just like that. He obsesses over Batman(who he thinks is his ultimate nemesis) because Batman is the complete opposite of him. I doubt he'd ever kill Batman because thats his only reason for living. If he truely wanted to break Gotham, he probably would've done it along time ago. Yet he finds his true purpose in Batman.
> 
> Another example of his misery is how he keeps changing the story of how he got his scars. Ultimately, he is a man without a home or a past. Whatever happened, it turned him into a monster.
> 
> ...



The reason he does'nt break Gotham is because Batman has only recently appeared. Batman inspired him to create chaos by propagating a message of order, though that did'nt automatically mean that he never wanted to kill him to break that order. He's probably like Two-Face, and what he told him- he thinks life is unfair, unless it is fundamentally chaotic, in which case you only get unfairness when you try and convince everyone that life is or can be fair.

The dead eyes of the Joker just makes him all the scarier to me, since it hints at something truly dark and terrible inside of him. He probably is lonely, but that makes him more of a threat since he is more intent than Jack on bringing us down to that hell with him. 

He definitely enjoys hurting people more given, for example, his speech about why he use a knife. Nicholson is out more for impact, which means that you will not warrant his attention. Ledger might actualy tak notice of you- _that_ is what is more frightening.

His various stories about the scars were just an example of his pathological lying, and to avoid giving him an origin story that ruins so many other villains. It does'nt mean he does'nt have a past so much as he has abandoned that past, intentionally embracing that darkness. And him being tragic does'nt undermine his fear factor (you did put down Jason).

The underlying point of the Joker's tragedy is that we could all turn into him. All it takes is one bad day to make a normal man go insane, hence his madness, his evil, is infectious. Nicholson is'nt like that, since he thinks of himsel as above everyone (though bare in mind he also had a tragedy- he was bad before it, of course, but it definitely made him snap). That does'nt make him a better or worse villain- except that, in the end, he does'nt threaten you on as many levels.


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

Superstars said:


> I realize it, I liked looking at both Jack and Heath's Jokers.
> I still think Jack shooting down the bat jet with a huge hand cannon was better than anything Ledger did, funny.



That was dumb. I hated how Batman shoot thousands of bullets at him and every single one missed. OH, but a tiny little missle coming out of a gun shot down a WHOLE JET.

And that dumbass Vicky Vale kept dancing with the Joker even when he got rid of the gun. What a dumbshit.


----------



## Deaf Ninja Reaper (Jan 2, 2009)

Koi said:


> *Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men, 2007.)*
> Bill 'The Butchah' (Gangs of New York, 2002.)
> Scar ( YES he is my favorite villain, shh.)




Fuck, I totally forgot all about him.

Awesome cold butchy killer with a geek hairstyle.


----------



## Chaos Ghost (Jan 2, 2009)

Bill The Butcher "Gangs of New York"
John Doe "Se7en"

RANDOM PICK

Otis B. Driftwood "House of 1000 Corpses/ The Devil Rejects"

He was one of my favorites.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2009)

That's 13 14 villains with more than 1 vote. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



Joker
The Terminator
Bill "The Butcher" Cutting
Darth Vader
John Doe
Anton Chigurh
Scar
Agent Smith
Hannibal Lecter
Michael Myers
Alonzo Harris
Freddy Krueger
Jigsaw
Patrick Bateman


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2009)

1) First off, how would you know that he would keep going? He never apparently did anything of the sort before. I was thinking that maybe he just came to Gotham, but then they'd still know he was if he attacked another city. Once again, all evidense points to Batman being his main target. Up until then, if he did any crime, it would be small scale stuff(like maybe bank robberies). Notice how Joker seems to want to die? He boldly approaches Dent, even though it could easily result in his death. Then his plan also seems to be to have Batman kill him. Once again, it all leads back to Batman. Even moreso than Dent, as he also seems to want Batman to kill Dent. 

2) Yes, people would blame the cops. But that's still not big enough, as the cops had every reason to act the way they did. Once again, attacking public officials(Dent) would simply be for the sake of crushing Batman.

3) Remember that Gotham was known for its corruption and crime. Hence, by turning Gotham into killers, he's just bringing back what it was before. People were either victims or villains. There would be a bigger chance the the villains would become killers again. I actually think the main reason Joker did that, once again, was for the sake of Batman. He was trying to expose Batman, which would seemingly be helpful to the Joker. Yet the Joker spared Batman this. So either Joker intended for Batman to kill him, for Batman to support the killing of him, or for Joker to make a point that he will be the one to kill Batman. Your choice. Also, Gothams potrayal isn't very positive. They are impulsive, vain, and don't deserve Batman. They turn on Batman without remorse. Hence, I dont think they will feel very guilty about killing some guppy. 

4) Sorry, every action Joker does goes back to Batman. Whether he does it because Batman represents the morality of Gotham or because Batman simply completes him makes no difference. Joker didn't care about crushing Gotham. he wanted to crush Batman. Gotham simply was a tool for that.

5) Just because Batman never says "its all my fault", doesn't make it so. Most character development is written between the lines, often based on the actors performances. Batman89 doesn't do what he does for revenge, he does it in redemption for what he feels is his failure. He failed to save his parents lives, so he decides to save Gotham(Nolans films have this too, but in a different way). Both Batman movies(I think Batman Forever does it more than the 89 version) have Batman using his own fears(bats) to become the fear of others. Think about it.

6)lol, Jason kills for the hell of it. As for who got more accomplished, I agree that Ledger got more done(in many ways, he actually won). But really, this would make Jason Voorhees a better villain because not only did he kill most of his victims, the ones who survived were utterly ruined by the encounter. In fact, Ill bring this up near the end.

7) First off, I won't deny that Heath's Joker was much more interesting than Jacks. One of the things I hate about TDK is how much I seem to bitch about it, while loving it all the same. Heaths Joker was brilliant, and the villain was very frightening. My main issue isn't that he was nominated for this, because he deserves it, but that he's all that people talk about. There are villains who deserve just as much praise, maybe even more, than he does. So while I think you're missing the point on who the Joker is targeting, everything else you say about him is right. He wants to bring us down to hell with him, but his attacks are VERY easy to overcome.

Personally, I wouldn't destroy a boat full of prisoners for plenty of reasons, even though they might deserve it. I wouldn't kill that poor guy for the sake of a hospital, but would focus more on saving the people in the hospital. Nor would I necessarily kill the Joker if he killed my loved ones, because thats what he would want. The Joker is basically a much more psychotic version of Osama Bin ladin(bad comparison, lets just say any real terrorist). They make threats but people don't give in. 

I know this would be the outcome. People didn't listen to Osama Bin Ladin for causing 5,000 people to die. Nor would they respond to the Joker for a much less number. This is why I don't think he's as good of a villain as people make them out to be. Nicholsons Joker doesn't care what we do, as long as we die. Hence, he's the true threat.

Now the following is a comparison of Jason Voorhees and Heaths Ledger.

Jason kills almost anyone he comes across. His first kill was an act of revenge(its also one of the few times he leaves his home to do so, and he doesn't kill anyone else). He probably likes it and keeps killing for the hell of it. The first survival(part 2), apparently is traumatized at the encounter. The 2nd survivor(part 3) leaves the scene a cackling mess. The 3rd survivor(part 4) is a kid who has to go to a mental insitution and part 5 has him becoming a killer himself(although its all a dream as it turns out in part 6, obviously this has still left an impression on him). The rest of the movies dont focus on the survivors that much, as Jason has become the main character. Point is, you're either dead or unstable if you cross him. Hence, doesn't that make him a much better villain than Ledger, who was proven wrong by the end of the movie?

Er, if you don't remember, Jason was the villain in the Friday the 13th series.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2009)

1) Joker knows too much about the Gotham underworld to be an outsider. His robberies were followed with a meeting wit the mobsters he was robbing (I believe Gordon said/ implied that healways targeted mob banks)- ergo, it was all to prep his main assault. 

From all that he says, and the fact that he comes out of nowhere after Batman shows up, it is pretty obvious that Batman inspired him. That, though, does'nt mean that he is not after the city (as he flat-out says he is, eg. to the Chechen). 

Instead, he seems to think that Batman is a trailblazer, though also thinks that Batman either is blazing in the wrong diretion, or more likely does'nt understand or appreciate the full consequences of his actions, such as enouraging people like him. That return to the theme of escalation- Batman, unintentionaly, is challenging the criminals to play a dirtier game, and Joker answers that challenge with enthusiasm.

As to why he won't stop- simple: he has'nt accomplished his goals. For a start, as you said he wants Batman to kill him, and to do that he needs to keep givin him reasons to. If Batman _did'nt_ kill him after all he did, he would just have to keep pushing him harder and harder, meaning bigger and nastier schemes with bigger body counts. He had already announced that the city was "his" and, frankly, that alone points to the way he was thinking. 

But he did'nt want Batman to kill Dent, almost certainly did'nt expect him to since, after all, if he's not going to kill him he's not going to kill Dent. He was just gloating that, in the end, Batman still had'nt stopped him and Gotham was still going to face a moral crisis in seeing Harvey Dent turn hmicidal lunatic.

Joker is what he says- an Agent of Chaos, or at least that's what he like to think he is. Batman is an Agent of Order, and the architecht of Gotham's return to stability. Joker wants to break it down and then some, but not by killing Batman (at least, not in the end). He wants Batman to kill him, bcause Batman is THE symbol of order and justice. Turning him murderer is a surer way of defeating all he stands for than just killing the man.    

2) He only targets Batman because Batman is his opposite number, the guy on the opposing side of a war between law and anarchy. He wants to crush Batman because Batman stands for law and order- attacking public officials gets at Batman, but also furthers his Chaotic agenda.

To put it another way, Joker sees his two goals as synonymous. Batman is so important, and so extraordinary, that beating him and causing citywide anarchy are basically one in the same. He does'nt want to defeat Batman just for the sake of it- this is a matter of two diametricaly opposed philosophies at war with each other.      

3) _"These mobsters wanna go back to the way things were. But I know the truth: there's no going back. You've changed things, forever"_

Joker has no intention of returning Gtham back to it's old state, which was merly deeply corrupt. He is far more ambitious than that, and sees himself as a higher order or criminal than all the ones who came before. Just a Batman is, essentially, delivering a city that is probably quite a bit better than the one before the corruption, the Joker wants a city that is far, far worse. 

A totally anarchaic, dog-eat-dog society free of any semblance of moral authority, which he seems to think is al lies, hpocrisy, "a bad joke". Everyone will be willing to kill, and he believes that deep down inside they are all amoral psycho's like him anyway. As Batman put it, he sees this as a chance to show that everyone is just like him. 

4) 

It does go back to Batman but Gotham is not a tool. He only cares abuot Batman because of the significance of his actions and symbolism. 

The only reason he is significant is because of Gotham City. It's not a tool, it is the thing they are fighting over, the thing that gives their fight meaning. And they would'nt be fighting at all if it was'nt for the city. It is the grand prize, the thing both were after in the first place. Batman is only important because he stands in stark contrast to the Joker's views on society as a whole.

As I said, beating Batman and winning Gotham are synonmous gals in the Joker's mad eyes. Without Gotham there is no point to their fight.What is the point of crushing Batman if it does'nt make any difference? The people might not appreciate that difference right away, but it will make a difference- if Batman falls, the new direction he was taking Gotham in falls out of sight.  

5) One of the main weaknesses of those films is that they do not really explore Bruce's motivations, either explicitly or implicitly. Many versions of Batman do seek redemption for what they see as their own failure, but I don't think the Burton/ Schumacher version (s) is one of them. 

I'd say that he is the type who is out to make sure that what happened to him does'nt happen to anyone else. There is no hint whatsoever that he actually blames himself for what happened. As for the revenge, I never said that was what drove him (though Kilmer's Bat actually does strongly hint at that) - I said that he was hoping to get some at some point. 


6) The hype is winding down- I'll remind you that Chee's Joker sig's are back because you keep bringing him up- it's just that he's still a fairly recent villain 
and was quite an accomplshment. And most of the villains who deserve all the praise he's getting have probably been receiving it for years.

7) The point of the Joker's threats is that they are far closer to home, and they enouage people to stop him simply by doing something bad themselves, but with the condolensce that he might keep doing worse if they don't. And one thing that makes him very different from most other terrorists is the type of demands and threats he is making- he is not asking for huge-scale things like the withdrawl of troops or the release of several dangerous prisoners, he's asking for more benign things like the arrest of a vigilante (technically an outlaw), or to kill one good person (or several bad people) to save yourself and your loved ones. In other words, thngs that are far easier to do and seemingly quite reasonable.

The most important difference is that the pressure is on the ordinary people, esp. towards the end. He rarely if ever makes demands of the officials (Batman was asked to surrender himself), and instead targets people who have never been in that position before, and are more susceptible to threats. And since there are more ordinary people than their are civil servants, the odds that he will get what he's asking for are relatively high. esp. with the hospitals where their own family members were in danger.

Ledger makes us part of the danger, hence he is the deeper threat. Nicholson will kill until he gets bored, or until someone kills him which is more likely than with Ledger since, amongst other things, Ledger seems to scare them a hell of a lot more, and is working to get their consensus. 

8) Jason kills because he was traumatised by his drowning and has a deep-seated rage for all sexually promiscuous teenagers. He also has a childlike mind and a domineering mother whom he is constantly trying to please (dead as she is). He wears that hockey mask precisely to kep himself safe from everyboy else, since he was bullied for his face as a child. He is still a child, a scared and insecure child who also happens to be a 7-foot tall undead killing machine. He's killing, essentially, because he's angry and scared, not because he enjoys it. His actor Kane Hodder once prevented the script from showing him kicking a dog, because he did'nt think Jason was so callous. 

It does'nt make him a better villain that he killed more people, since  most of his victims were your typical hepless teenage-slasher-victims-for-hire. Jason also had several films- not one- to carve up a high body count, and he did'nt have a superhero or a major metropolitan police force out to stop him. Killing people, anyway, was only a means to the Joker's ends (though he enjoyed it), not strictly speaking the end goal itself.

Victims being ruined is irrelevant since, like I said, this is only Joker's first film, an he goes after tougher and more mature prey. That said, the Joker turned several people into potential or actual killers and drove a tough city D.A. insane- Jason traumatising kids does'nt match that.


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

Oh my gawd, long ass post fest.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 2, 2009)

Dimezanime19 said:


> *The egos in this thread are ridiculous*, especially MH's and Rukia's.



You were right.


----------



## Chaos Ghost (Jan 2, 2009)

Chee said:


> Oh my gawd, long ass post fest.



I don't see how they do it, I can barely make my posts longer than a paragraph.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jan 2, 2009)

Wow, some people like to write long posts nobody going to read... and that's 10 minutes of your life you can never return.

Dr. Hannibal Lecter I'd said... it's a book villain actualy, but oh well.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 2, 2009)

Anyone who hasn't seen TDK yet and walks into this thread is royally fucked.


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

> 6) The hype is winding down- I'll remind you that Chee's Joker sig's are back because you keep bringing him up- it's just that he's still a fairly recent villain
> and was quite an accomplshment. And most of the villains who deserve all the praise he's getting have probably been receiving it for years.



Well, this caught my attention. 
What else are you guys talking about there that's hidden in 1,000,000 words? 

It's not really that Martial is bringing it up again. I'm just a huge Joker fan. :ho


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 2, 2009)

Did you _get_ my choice Chee?


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

What choice?


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 2, 2009)

Vonocourt said:


> Well, I think this is a rather obvious choice, since this one is in almost every movie ever made.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __



I would think Martial at least would get it.


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

Nope, I didn't get it. 

Who's he from? :ho


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 2, 2009)

It's from Ingmar Bergman's "Sevent Seal."

It's his interpertation of *"Death."*


----------



## Chee (Jan 2, 2009)

*netflixes it*

'Nother movie to watch. Probably won't get to it till next year.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 2, 2009)

Yes, yes, I have an ego when it comes to movies. All critics, professional or not, tend to have one.

Vonocort: If memory serves, its death(7th seal). 

masamune1:

1) I think you caught onto a plot hole. If he was a bank robber, why hadn't Batman ever come into contact with him before? I guess this raises a question. How much time between Batman Begins and Dark Knight went by? If I recall, the end of BB implies the Joker first emerging. Also, despite his knowledge of the underworld, they dont seem to know who he is. This makes me wonder what he did before he became the Joker. I agree Batman was his inspiration, but once again, all the attacks on the city directly go back to Batman.

2) Er, you just proved me point. He uses his attacks on the city to spite Batman. But you put it brilliantly. (Now that I think about it, the Joker is way too similar to John Doe from "Seven")

3) I think Joker figured there would have to be a confrontation between Dent and Batman, since Batman was directly involved in the gals death. But yeah, the more I think about this part, the less sense it makes.

4) Agree on the agent of chaos paragraph but once again, isnt this supporting my claim?

5) You got me on Point 3(your point 3, not mine). Point 4 makes me wonder if we more or less agree on the same thing, I simply stress the importance on his war with Batman while you stress the city.

6) On Burton/Shumacher Batman, thats very subjective. An ironic view was Eberts and Gene's(cant remember last name) debate on Batman 89. Gene found the characters to be interesting and developed while Ebert did. Guess it just depends on the opinion. What I claimed from those films is simply what I got out of it.

7) Your analysis on Ledgers Joker is probably true, but lets face it. Even if humanity sees how bad it is, people will rationalize it until the very end. Thats why I think the Joker was mainly aiming for Batman, who stressed positive ideals. the Joker knew the city was corrupt, regardless of how they acted. It was Batman he was putting to the test.(if you simply don't agree with this, dont worry about replying to this part. We're repeating ourselves)

8) Wow, you watched the Friday the 13th movies. Either way, Jason changes depending on the script. Example, Hodder didn't believe Jason would kick a dog.....even though Jason throws one out of the window in part 4. In part 3, its obvious he enjoys what he does. In part 4, he plays pranks on the kids before he kills them. The frightening little child aspect didn't come up until part 8(debatable) and Freddy Vs Jason. Also, his grudge against teens having sex isn't really true. He kills anyone. The "sex" bit is there because they are slasher films, which thrive on sex. 

9) The only one Joker managed to break was Dent. The hostages were saved, the blackmailer was saved and the people on the boats were saved. Batman had a bittersweet ending. The Friday the 13th movies tended to be downers in some way. 

Also, saying that Jason had more movies isn't a very good argument. We're arguing best villain. The number of movies shouldn't matter.


----------



## narutorulez (Jan 3, 2009)

Captain Rodes - Day of the Dead
Patrick Bateman - American Psycho
Maximilian 'Max' Bercovicz - Once Upon A Time In America

there are my 3 votes!


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 3, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> 1) I think you caught onto a plot hole. *If he was a bank robber, why hadn't Batman ever come into contact with him before?* I guess this raises a question. How much time between Batman Begins and Dark Knight went by? If I recall, the end of BB implies the Joker first emerging. Also, despite his knowledge of the underworld, they dont seem to know who he is. This makes me wonder what he did before he became the Joker. I agree Batman was his inspiration, but once again, all the attacks on the city directly go back to Batman.



Batman knew about him- Gordon informed him at the end of the first film. He just thought tackling the entire mob was more important. He tells Gordon as such when they are at the crime scene investigating it.



> 2) Er, you just proved me point. He uses his attacks on the city to spite Batman. But you put it brilliantly. (Now that I think about it, the Joker is way too similar to John Doe from "Seven")



It's not really to "spite" him. Batman and Joker have a really warped relationship. In some ways, he thinks of himself as Batman's biggest fan, as well as his reason for living.

Joker believes in anarchy, he believes in chaos. That would'nt change if Batman was'nt there. The difference is, Batman shaped the nature of the conflict when he appeared and made his impact, and inspired him to act the way he does. Though that is one of the underlying themes- to what extent does Batman attract these nutcases, vs how much are they responsible for their own actions.

And I hope your not implying that this Joker is just a John Doe ripoff.



> 3) I think Joker figured there would have to be a confrontation between Dent and Batman, since Batman was directly involved in the gals death. But yeah, the more I think about this part, the less sense it makes.



Alright then.



> 4) *Agree on the agent of chaos paragraph but once again, is'nt this supporting my claim?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 4, 2009)

1) If Batman wasn't there, I doubt the Joker would attempt to break Gotham. Even you said Batman was his inspiration. As for him being a John Doe rip-off, maybe. Personally, I'd say its probably a coincidence that both are so alike in their own ways. 

2) Still, all of the Jokers attacks lead straight to Batman. Kill the snitch, if Batman doesn't come out, I'll do *this*, etc. Hence, once again, all evidense points to Batman being the Jokers true target.

3) Except once again, someone like Joker would know that no matter what he makes Gothams people do, they will rationalize their actions to death. Hence, his war against Gotham city is pointless because they won't realize how corrupt they are underneath. Batman(and Dent, I guess) are the main exceptions.

4) Mostly agree with your analysis on Jason. But the main issue with him is he really has no motive. Freddy had motives, Micheal Myers had motives, Pinhead had motives, etc. Jason seems to want to kill based on instinct. Yes, he's retarted and yes, he seems to be a boy on the inside(stressed in part 8), but what makes him frightening is he has no real motives. As a human(till part 4), he took pleasure in killing. When he became a zombie, he simply just does it. Hell, in the original draft of JasonX(I think), Jasons Mother appears to him and he actually kills her. At first, he's just a child who loves murder. But as time goes on, he seems to become a demon. Hell, he does in Jason goes to Hell. 

5) But we're talking about the villain. Jasons been in 10 movies(about to be 11, remember he wasn't in part 5. Hell, I guess he wasn't in part 1 either...) because he is that iconic. If we go by how Ledger Joker only did one, then that simply stresses he didn't have enough time to become an iconic villain. However, if you say "Joker" in general, he might have a higher death count than Jason(considering all the adaptations he's appeared in). In Jason X, its stated Jason killed over 200 people so Im not sure. Either way, in Jason goes to Hell I think his death count was in the 20's.

6) Yes, they were saved due to Batmans interference. Once again, most of these were simply to attack/test Batmans morality.


----------



## PradaBrada (Jan 4, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> 1) First off, how would you know that he would keep going? He never apparently did anything of the sort before. I was thinking that maybe he just came to Gotham, but then they'd still know he was if he attacked another city. Once again, all evidense points to Batman being his main target. Up until then, if he did any crime, it would be small scale stuff(like maybe bank robberies). Notice how Joker seems to want to die? He boldly approaches Dent, even though it could easily result in his death. Then his plan also seems to be to have Batman kill him. Once again, it all leads back to Batman. Even moreso than Dent, as he also seems to want Batman to kill Dent.
> 
> 2) Yes, people would blame the cops. But that's still not big enough, as the cops had every reason to act the way they did. Once again, attacking public officials(Dent) would simply be for the sake of crushing Batman.
> 
> ...





MartialHorror said:


> Yes, yes, I have an ego when it comes to movies. All critics, professional or not, tend to have one.
> 
> Vonocort: If memory serves, its death(7th seal).
> 
> ...





MartialHorror said:


> 1) If Batman wasn't there, I doubt the Joker would attempt to break Gotham. Even you said Batman was his inspiration. As for him being a John Doe rip-off, maybe. Personally, I'd say its probably a coincidence that both are so alike in their own ways.
> 
> 2) Still, all of the Jokers attacks lead straight to Batman. Kill the snitch, if Batman doesn't come out, I'll do *this*, etc. Hence, once again, all evidense points to Batman being the Jokers true target.
> 
> 3) Except once again, someone like Joker would know that no matter what he makes Gothams people do, they will rationalize their actions to death. Hence, his war against Gotham city is pointless because they won't realize how corrupt they are underneath. Batman(and Dent, I guess) are the main exceptions.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 4, 2009)

Patrick is winning this shizzle


----------



## Chee (Jan 4, 2009)

.


----------



## escamoh (Jan 4, 2009)

HAL 9000 

tyler durden

anton chigure


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 4, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> 1) If Batman wasn't there, I doubt the Joker would attempt to break Gotham. Even you said Batman was his inspiration. As for him being a John Doe rip-off, maybe. Personally, I'd say its probably a coincidence that both are so alike in their own ways.



What I mean is, he was probably already thinking along anarchaic, self-destructive criminal lines. Batman did'nt have anything to do with his motivation, as far as we know, his almost nihilistic views on morality, order, and human nature. 



> 2) Still, all of the Jokers attacks lead straight to Batman. Kill the snitch, if Batman doesn't come out, I'll do *this*, etc. Hence, once again, all evidense points to Batman being the Jokers true target.



But he's only his target because of the effect beating him, of destroying his symbol, will have on the city. Wanting Reese dead was also partly a ploy to show how ordinary people can turn into killers, if the pressure is right, as much as it was an attempt to stop him telling who Batman is.



> 3) Except once again, someone like Joker would know that no matter what he makes Gothams people do, they will rationalize their actions to death. Hence, his war against Gotham city is pointless because they won't realize how corrupt they are underneath. Batman(and Dent, I guess) are the main exceptions.



I doubt he thinks or cares about that. If Gotham turns hellish enough, they will cease rationalising and get on with just treating it as a way of life. Or rather, he thinks that all ther laws and morals are essentially holding them back. 

With the police and justice system too scared and inneffective to stop him, with Batman ideally discredited even in hs own eyes, and with the people shown how easily they can turn into monsters, his philosophy will just keep spreading. And let's not forget, he was able to attract a pretty decent gang following (even if some of them were mental patients). Some people are just looking in something to believe in, even if that is an extreme an absurdist philosophy as his.

Ultimately, though, I think his real goal is to prove that he is right, that what he believes is right. Batman showed him the way to do that, and provided the opportunity. But he and the city are as important as each other. 



> 4) Mostly agree with your analysis on Jason. But the main issue with him is he really has no motive. Freddy had motives, Micheal Myers had motives, Pinhead had motives, etc. Jason seems to want to kill based on instinct. Yes, he's retarted and yes, he seems to be a boy on the inside(stressed in part 8), but what makes him frightening is he has no real motives. As a human(till part 4), he took pleasure in killing. When he became a zombie, he simply just does it. Hell, in the original draft of JasonX(I think), Jasons Mother appears to him and he actually kills her. At first, he's just a child who loves murder. But as time goes on, he seems to become a demon. Hell, he does in Jason goes to Hell.



He still has motives. A paranoid childish rage against the world is still a motive. That it becomes instinctive and natural does'nt really matter, since I would say the same for Freddy, Michael, and yes, the Joker (esp. Michael). Killing and maiming has just become too easy for all of them, though Ledger's Joker goes further and tries to show that anyway one can become like that (hence why I feel he's more dangerous). 

At his root, Jason is as tragic as the Joker, more so even. _Freddy vs Jason_ showed that there is still some humanity left in him, and if they cut out the bit in X about killing his mother that suggests that is still a soft spot too.

Michael Myers is more the type of killer you are talking about. Originally, at least, he really did not have any root cause for his killing. He just put on a mask when he was 8 and killed his sister. The late films might have made that a curse but, in the beginning, there was no obvious reason. Even if you can decipher a pattern to his killings, there is still nothing that semed to start it all off. 



> 5) But we're talking about the villain. Jasons been in 10 movies(about to be 11, remember he wasn't in part 5. Hell, I guess he wasn't in part 1 either...) because he is that iconic. If we go by how Ledger Joker only did one, then that simply stresses he didn't have enough time to become an iconic villain. However, if you say "Joker" in general, he might have a higher death count than Jason(considering all the adaptations he's appeared in). In Jason X, its stated Jason killed over 200 people so Im not sure. Either way, in Jason goes to Hell I think his death count was in the 20's.



Jason only really became iconic after he put on the hockey mask, and the undeadness he acquired came even later than that. The reason so many films were made is because they were popular _films_- Jason only really became iconic over a period of time, and partly because so many films were made. His iconic status only emerged gradually. 

As far as that goes, I'll admit that Ledger is banking partly on the popularity of Joker the 80-year old character, and even the hype around the film itself. But he had to live up to that hype, and he did. That was both due to Ledger's acting but also his actions. And unlike Jason, his iconic status is resting on a single film, rather than something that is gradually developed. 

Once again, Jason's death toll does'nt reckon with superheroes and their allies, and when Jason did kill into the twenties he had the benefit of then being an undead supernatural being, which Joker is not.

But bodycounts count for nothing. You've also got Lord Sumersile, who hardly killed anyone. Jason is a great villain but, really, Idon't see what makes him better than the Joker.



> 6) Yes, they were saved due to Batmans interference. Once again, most of these were simply to attack/test Batmans morality.



I doubt it. He probably expected Batman to interfere and would have been surprised if he did'nt, but they were'nt _about_ Batman. They were about everyone else.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 4, 2009)

escamoh said:


> HAL 9000
> 
> tyler durden
> 
> anton chigure



Durden makes 15. 

And I'll end it and vote for Jason. Voting closed. The Competition will be starting shortly.


----------



## escamoh (Jan 4, 2009)

is there a full list somewhere or will you be putting it up in the competition


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 4, 2009)

It is right here. 


*Spoiler*: __ 




Joker
The Terminator
Bill "The Butcher" Cutting
Darth Vader
John Doe
Anton Chigurh
Scar
Agent Smith
Hannibal Lecter
Michael Myers
Alonzo Harris
Freddy Krueger
Jigsaw
Patrick Bateman 
Tyler Durden
Jason Voorhees


----------



## HEATAQUA (Jan 4, 2009)

You forgot my characters


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 4, 2009)

HEATAQUA said:


> Tai Lung(Kung Fu Panda 2008)
> Green Goblin(Spiderman 1 2001)
> Syndrome(The Incredibles 2004)



You are the only one who voted for these characters.


----------



## vervex (Jan 4, 2009)

*Greatest Antagonists/Villains*

Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs - Hannibal - Red Dragon)
Agent Smith (The Matrix Trilogy)
Magneto (X-Men Trilogy)


----------



## Stalin (Jan 4, 2009)

Emperor palpatine
the joker
darth vader


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Jan 4, 2009)

Hope this is how It should be done


*Spoiler*: __ 



Round 1

*Joker (The Dark Knight)*

vs

The Terminator (Terminator 1)

Round 2

*Bill "The Butcher" Cutting* (Gang's of New York)

vs

Darth Vader (Star Wars Trilogy)

Round 3

*John Doe (Se7en)
*
vs

Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men)

Round 4

*Scar* (The Lion King)

vs

Agent Smith (The Matrix Trilogy)

Round 5

*Hannibal Lecter* (Silence of the Lambs series.)

vs

Michael Myers (Halloween series)

Round 6

*Alonzo Harris* (Training Day)

vs

Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street series)

Round 7

Jigsaw (Saw series)

vs

*Patrick Bateman* (American Psycho)

Round 8

*Tyler Durden *(Fight Club)

vs

Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th series)


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 4, 2009)

I don't see "Death" in any of those brackets.


----------



## MartialHorror (Jan 4, 2009)

Vonocourt said:


> I don't see "Death" in any of those brackets.



You're the only one who voted for him.

Seriously, how many people here have actually watched anything by Igmar Bergman?


----------



## Chee (Jan 4, 2009)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> Hope this is how It should be done
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



We're not voting yet. 



Vonocourt said:


> I don't see "Death" in any of those brackets.



I wonder why.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jan 4, 2009)

MartialHorror said:


> You're the only one who voted for him.
> 
> Seriously, how many people here have actually watched anything by Igmar Bergman?



"Death" is not a _him_, the picture I showed is just a visual representation of death.

Would the Joker or Patrick Bateman really be that bad if they weren't able to kill?

Would a movie like "Grave of the Firelies" have as much of a impact without death?


----------

