|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 2, 2024 21:16:07 GMT
Terry Silver (The Karate Kid Part III/Cobra Kai) A cocaine addicted billionaire who has nothing better to do with his time than torment a teenager for winning a high school karate championship. The funny thing is he's STILL tormenting him, 35 years on. Never change, Terry.  A master criminal or a sick loser? Either way, he's brilliant. Esteban Calderone (Miami Vice)  A great villain when he's not on screen. He's so much more effective scheming from afar and getting others to do his dirty work. He doesn't have quite the same menace when he appears in the series which is presumably why he's in only two episodes with a screentime of about five minutes. Still, the hits he orders and the absolute hell he puts our two Vice heroes through is enough to get him on the list. Hans Gruber (Die Hard)  Doesn't need much explaining really. Die Hard is my favourite movie, but it wouldn't half as good without this mastermind in it. Ha knew your bad guys would largely be from the 80s. I'm disappointed to see no chicks in there though. Are you a misogynist who thinks that women can never threaten a man?  |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Apr 2, 2024 21:20:52 GMT
Terry Silver (The Karate Kid Part III/Cobra Kai) A cocaine addicted billionaire who has nothing better to do with his time than torment a teenager for winning a high school karate championship. The funny thing is he's STILL tormenting him, 35 years on. Never change, Terry. A master criminal or a sick loser? Either way, he's brilliant. Esteban Calderone (Miami Vice) A great villain when he's not on screen. He's so much more effective scheming from afar and getting others to do his dirty work. He doesn't have quite the same menace when he appears in the series which is presumably why he's in only two episodes with a screentime of about five minutes. Still, the hits he orders and the absolute hell he puts our two Vice heroes through is enough to get him on the list. Hans Gruber (Die Hard) Doesn't need much explaining really. Die Hard is my favourite movie, but it wouldn't half as good without this mastermind in it. Ha knew your bad guys would largely be from the 80s. I'm disappointed to see no chicks in there though. Are you a misogynist who thinks that women can never threaten a man? I liked Divatox from Power Rangers Turbo when I was a kid. I'm pretty sure she gave me my first boner actually. Moving swiftly on, I haven't seen this movie properly in decades.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2024 21:46:52 GMT
I have to agree with Ludders on Ainley. He was a fine actor but no match for Delgado. Didn't help that they put him in very similar attire and gave him a goatee and slickback, making the "downgrade" all the more noticeable. He comes across like a pantomime actor pretending to be the original Master. He mainly starred in forgotten, lacklustre stories, unnecessarily shoehorned into plots that didn't concern him, which to be fair happened with Delgado as well but his charisma made it worthwhile. I think his most notable story by far, like Burrunjor said, is Survival, which is saying a lot considering it's not remarked upon much by general fandom other than for the fact it was the last story to be aired. Other than that, he wasn't in any of the "classics", which is a crying shame because if they'd approached it from a different angle than just trying to copy Delgado, and had given him some great scripts to work with, Ainley could have been incredible as the "other" Master of Classic Who. I did think they went the right route at first with Simm by making him a more grounded Master in human clothes, but as soon as the "I'm CrAzY" schtick starts up it's just total eye-rolling from me. Missy is a complex case, because I disagree on all levels with Time-Lords being able to change their genders. However, I do think Michelle Gomez is a great actress and had she been playing a villainous female character who wasn't the Master, I probably would've appreciated her a lot more. The only things that really grate me are those "down with the kids" moments like the Hey Missy nonsense and stuff like her dabbing in World Enough and Time, which to be fair is purely down to Moffat being out of touch. Sacha Dhawan for me was the best part of the Chibnall era; yeah, they screw up his characterisation because of course they do, the writers are incompetent. But it's honestly the first time since Delgado that he's felt truly scary and, again, what a crying shame that he will in all likelihood be retired in the RTD2 era and never seen again, mostly uncelebrated by wider fandom. It's a character who's had a rocky history, to say the least, and who was gotten wrong more often than right. Perhaps that speaks to the quality of Delgado's original portrayal, or maybe that archetype doesn't quite work in the modern world and all attempts at updating him have thus far failed. I'm just curious to see what RTD2 will make of him. What did you think of the burned Master? He and Delgado take it in turns to be my favourite. Meanwhile I think that the Master would work brilliantly in a modern setting. The problem with the Master isn't that he can't be updated, it's the people actively don't want to update him. It's the same with the Cybermen to be honest. For some reason, the Daleks and Davros seem to be the only two genuinely popular villains out of the big four. At least among writers, or rather the Fitzroy generation (though the Cybermen got this from the original writers too apart from Saward.) Everybody who comes to the Master and the Cybermen assumes they are shit villains who are only being brought back for nostalgia and tries to do something else, thinking no one will really care, because they didn't have anything interesting anyway and not surprisingly, it doesn't work. Or alternatively they use them as generic villains to prop up lame stories. Basically what happened to Venom due to Sam Raimi in Spider-Man 3, has happened to these guys all the time. Bob Holmes was EXACTLY like Sam Raimi and Venom. He was a pretentious snob who decided that recurring villains were stupid, and only the idiot long term viewers wanted them back for nostalgia, so he didn't bother to even try to do anything with the Cybermen (Revenge was written by him but credited to Gerry Davies.) Again like Raimi with Venom, the sad irony was the Cybermen would have been perfectly suited to his style. Holmes does stories about body horror which is their whole thing, stories about people being turned into monsters (Wirren, Scarman, Androgum), stories about creatures who were once powerful but have fallen from grace and often have to work with a shady human to restore their power like Tobais Vaughn, Cleeg (Sutekh, Magnus Greel, Sharaz Jek) and he loves stories that have a gothic theme to them and are pastiches of old horror movies. Tomb of the Cybermen is basically all of those things rolled into one! It's the precursor to the Hinchcliff era. Yet he didn't bother with any of that, and again wrote them as generic foes and then like Raimi bitched about how the story was bad because he had to include a popular villain due to idiot fans in his precious writing. Again love Holmes and Raimi's work overall to be clear LOL. Those guys are my childhood, but yeah even the best can be short sighted snobs at times and it's important to call them out on it. RTD meanwhile thought the idea of the Cybermen converting people was dated and stupid, so he replaced it with a body swap that took a lot away from what they were, he also threw out their backstory with the alternate earth crap again due to his contempt for the old series, and he also felt they were less colourful and interesting than the Daleks, so he gave them catchphrases like DELETE and their own Cyber Davros etc. In the Moffat era well Moff went for the approach of just using them as generic villains to prop up lame stories, like in Closing Time, whilst Neil Gaiman clearly had no love for them, hence why the slow painful process of cyber conversion is gone, the claustrophobic idea of them sneaking up on you is gone as they have super speed, and the idea of them as emotionless creatures is gone, as we have the Cyber controller dancing on tables, flirting with Jenna Coleman and being beaten by the Doctor playing on his ego! The one story where someone actually thinks "you know the Cybermen are a creepy idea, let's actually exploit that" is World Enough and Time and The Doctor Falls. Whilst not perfect due to the sjw crap at that stage, at least Moff was clearly trying to write a Cyberman story and did a brilliant job of making them absolutely terrifying with Bill's conversion. Sadly however that seems to be it. The Master meanwhile is the same applies. Unlike Ludders. For the 80s as we've been over a lot of the time he was written as a generic foe to prop up lame stories like in Timeflight and Kings Demons. In the revival meanwhile the Fitzroy Crowd REALLY hate the Master. Hence why they didn't bother to use him for years in Big Finish or spin off material and why when they had too for the show, in all instances they did their own thing. RTD gave him a new origin, new relationship with the Doctor, wrote him as the Joker, gave him new electric powers and again threw out any story arcs with him from the original. Moffat well he openly admitted to despising the villain multiple times, refused to bring him back during the entire Matt Smith era, and then when he had to, to set up a female Doctor he again just did his own thing and reused his old femme fatale cliche. Chibnall finally I think just went for the, make him a generic villain and use him to prop up someone else's story. Really is there any reason for Spyfall to actually be a Master story? Similarly his only role in the Timeless Children was exposition. I do agree that Sacha Dahwan was vastly superior in every way to Missy and Simm, but yeah his Master was still fairly generic. What do I think of the burned Master? Not much, if I'm being honest. He's kind of just a lispy, garrulous evil-doer at that point, with none of the suave of Delgado. I somewhat agree with Holmes. The Cybermen were stupid by then. And, while they were a chilling presence during the 60s, they were definitely overused in the Troughton era. I think Holmes recognised that often recurring villains would only be used as generic placeholder monsters whose shoes could've been filled by anyone. It's why I'm quite glad that the Nestenes have only been used once in the revival as a main baddie. There's just not an awful lot you can do with them beyond the usual mannequins smashing through the shop windows gimmick, as well as having them create a plastic facsimile of a character. Thus, the headline appearances they did make hold up perfectly well, and there was never a point where anyone thought that they were being overused or mischaracterised as generic grunts. I think Holmes was just bitter at being lumped with the Cybermen and decided to write a plodding story out of spite. I do agree the Cybermen have been used and abused in modern Who, though I do have a particular liking towards the 2006 episodes as an "alternate history" approach. Moffat never really gave them their due until World Enough and Time, but Doctor Falls shits all over it with the presence of the sugababes and the more "advanced" Cybermen of NuWho. I really wish we'd gotten a look at some Tomb and Invasion Cybermen in that episode. Agree with you on the Master's use in NuWho |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 3, 2024 1:52:36 GMT
I think Ainley suffered from being in more lackluster stories. The Davison era Master stories barring the first and last are mostly utter crap. He is great in the Five Doctors mind you, but it's a shame that it comes at the expense of the Cybermen, and it's also not his story anyway. However I will defend Ainley on the basis of Survival alone which is one of the best Master stories and one of the best portrayals of him. Eric Roberts meanwhile, well I don't know if its because what came after was so toe curlingly awful, that maybe I'm a bit easier on him, but I at least get the impression that he's meant to be a version of the Master. He might be a bit Hollywood, but they've got the basic characterisation down right. The only problem I really had with him was that it was just the same basic plot as The Deadly Assassin again, only nowhere near as well done. Master is dying, needs a new body, his old body is even decaying, and he dupes a guy into helping him who he then kills, he plans to open the eye of harmony to restore his life, and doesn't care about destroying a planet in the process and even "dies" by falling into the eye after a fight with the Doctor over it. I'm amazed people don't criticise the movie for that more often, though granted that's probably because the half human bit is such a shit retcon. Re Ainley, I get what you're saying, and for those brought up on '80s Who I can see why he was 'their' Master. But for me he just lacked the natural charisma of Delgado, and he tried to make up for by going for the panto/emperor Ming approach and just relying on laughing half the time. But I think Yak is spot on about why trying to model him on Delgado was a mistake. As for Survival, I always found him a bit phoned-in on that one, like he went too far the other way. Poor old Ainley, He just couldn't get the balance for me. He Master lacked character. All that said, I don't think he's terrible, but just comes up short in comparison. You could say he's my 4th favourite Master. Meanwhile, I just can't get into TVM. I thought McGann was ok, and he went on to be a good Doctor in Big Finish, but TVM on the whole is not for me. The whole feel and focus of it was too Americanised. Obviously, it's not as bad as what was to come, but it planted some seeds. The biggest shame for me was realising how good McCoy was as a Doctor who was a bit older. He really looked the part. Much more than McGann did in his 19th century romanticism wig, The best I can say about Sim is that he was a perfect match for Tennant. Over the top to the point of farce. The Doctor has become a superhero by this point, and The Master is more like Joker. The other guy who came after was much the same. Neither of them had any gravitas whatsoever. NuWho to me aren't giving me the 'real' characters of either the Doctor or the Master. They just give me people who are pretending to be those characters, but not the actual characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Apr 3, 2024 9:28:48 GMT
Part 2: 6. Pazuzu. The demon behind everything that happens in The Exorcist. This film is my favourite horror film of all, outside of Hammer/Amicus. Mostly manifesting through the character of Regan McNeil, the sense of evil malevolence is palpable and potent. Perhaps even more so in the book than the film. This might not quite fall into the category of a mere 'villlian', but I'm going with it because I love this film so much.  7. Barlow and Straker. A Nosferatu styled vampire going by the name Kurt Barlow, and his henchman and protector, Richard Straker, played by James Mason. The 1979 Salem's Lot mini-series is another huge personal favourite. Of course the vampire is an extremely formidable and effective presence, but it's really James Mason's cool, suave and icy portrayal as Straker that I really like. This guy could've played The Master in another universe.  8. Fu Manchu. I've never read the original stories, but Christopher Lee's portrayal in three 1960's movies were cracking good adventure stories, and Lee's cold, detached menace really nails it. There were two further films, but unfortunately Jess Franco directed them and they are pretty dull going. But Face of, Brides of, and Vengeance of, are big favourites.  9. Annie Wilkes. A second Stephen King based entry. You can keep The Shining, I'll take Misery, and watch Kathy Bates show Nicholson how to do it.   10. Finally, Considering we see the name embedded into the forum everyday, I'm sure this character does not need any introduction. But nevertheless, Ringu is another personal favourite movie.   Runner upThe Cybermen. 60's versions please. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 3, 2024 10:50:31 GMT
I think Ainley suffered from being in more lackluster stories. The Davison era Master stories barring the first and last are mostly utter crap. He is great in the Five Doctors mind you, but it's a shame that it comes at the expense of the Cybermen, and it's also not his story anyway. However I will defend Ainley on the basis of Survival alone which is one of the best Master stories and one of the best portrayals of him. Eric Roberts meanwhile, well I don't know if its because what came after was so toe curlingly awful, that maybe I'm a bit easier on him, but I at least get the impression that he's meant to be a version of the Master. He might be a bit Hollywood, but they've got the basic characterisation down right. The only problem I really had with him was that it was just the same basic plot as The Deadly Assassin again, only nowhere near as well done. Master is dying, needs a new body, his old body is even decaying, and he dupes a guy into helping him who he then kills, he plans to open the eye of harmony to restore his life, and doesn't care about destroying a planet in the process and even "dies" by falling into the eye after a fight with the Doctor over it. I'm amazed people don't criticise the movie for that more often, though granted that's probably because the half human bit is such a shit retcon. Re Ainley, I get what you're saying, and for those brought up on '80s Who I can see why he was 'their' Master. But for me he just lacked the natural charisma of Delgado, and he tried to make up for by going for the panto/emperor Ming approach and just relying on laughing half the time. But I think Yak is spot on about why trying to model him on Delgado was a mistake. As for Survival, I always found him a bit phoned-in on that one, like he went too far the other way. Poor old Ainley, He just couldn't get the balance for me. He Master lacked character. All that said, I don't think he's terrible, but just comes up short in comparison. You could say he's my 4th favourite Master. Meanwhile, I just can't get into TVM. I thought McGann was ok, and he went on to be a good Doctor in Big Finish, but TVM on the whole is not for me. The whole feel and focus of it was too Americanised. Obviously, it's not as bad as what was to come, but it planted some seeds. The biggest shame for me was realising how good McCoy was as a Doctor who was a bit older. He really looked the part. Much more than McGann did in his 19th century romanticism wig, The best I can say about Sim is that he was a perfect match for Tennant. Over the top to the point of farce. The Doctor has become a superhero by this point, and The Master is more like Joker. The other guy who came after was much the same. Neither of them had any gravitas whatsoever. NuWho to me aren't giving me the 'real' characters of either the Doctor or the Master. They just give me people who are pretending to be those characters, but not the actual characters. Well it's all just taste in regards to the Master's performance. Incidentally one thing I disagree with you on that I meant to mention earlier is the burned Master. I do NOT think he was too different to Delgado at all. He has the same motivation, they both want to conquer the galaxy "MASTER OF ALL MATTER." Contrary to what guys like Moffat and tv tropes say, the Master NEVER wanted to be his friend in the Delgado era. Their past friendship is mentioned in ONE story. Delgado tried to provoke a double genocide to spite the Doctor, tried to condemn him to an eternity of torment and wanted to keep him alive to torture him in Frontier in Space. All of this is reflected in the burned Master who hates him. Delgado was also a miserable coward who was happy to sacrifice a world for his own safety as seen in Claws of Axos which again is reflected in the burned Master being happy to sacrifice Gallifrey to save his own miserable neck, also both Delgado and the burned Master were manipulative and twisted the minds of those around them in a predatory way, like Goth and Trenchard. Also both have hypnotic powers and use the TCE. To me the burned Master is a perfect reinvention in that respect as it sticks to the core template that defines the Master, but not only does something new without breaking it, it moves the story on too. Now we are seeing the Master in a more desperate position near death, and we also get to see his bitterness as at this stage he knows he might die and all of his plans were for nothing. He thought he'd rule the galaxy as a god, but he never even had an empire like Davros. He was just a murderer who will be forgotten about by the universe at large, which for his ego is hell. Of course he'd pin all the blame on that on the Doctor, due to his not only foiling him, but distracting him with their feud. Ainley then develops that again at first, by the Master trying to revert to his old ways, but clearly being more unhinged like with the gamble he takes in Logopolis, though admittedly Ainley's Master as we've been over then becomes just a stock villain for a while until Survival, when the Cheetah virus infects him. It brings out dark urges that even he is ashamed of, like wanting to hunt the children at the start, but in time as the last tiny illusion of sanity is stripped away, the Master embraces it and becomes the sick psycho he always wanted to be by the end. Roberts finally continues this, showing us a Master who thanks to losing his regenerations, being forced to steal a Trakenite body, the virus (which is still references in Roberts having those glowing eyes) and the Daleks destroying his body, is now a mere shell of his former self, but still just as cunning as ever and therefore deceptively dangerous. To me the Master has one of the best arcs of any villain to be honest. I love watching him go from a charming rogue, who claims that his evil is a for a greater good in stories like the Daemons, Colony in Space etc to a savage animal in Roberts time. It's a combination of outside factors like losing his regenerations, the virus, and also his own failings, like his lust for power, his pettiness and cowardice (all of which were present in Delgado) that turn him into a caricature of his former self. That's why the new who versions to me are objectively awful, because they don't try and carry that story arc on at all and blatantly contradict it, turning the Master from an actual character into a mess of contradictory bullshit. Not only is his relationship with the Doctor completely different and nonsensical, but the new origin where he was completely insane from the beginning via the drums retcon throws out decades worth of development for the Master. Some of the new who Masters may have worked as rebooted versions, but not as the same character. Sorry to go on and on, but this is also why I'll subject anyone who says the burned Master was too different to a boring lecture LOL, because I do find a lot of new who fans will often say "Missy and Simm are perfect because the burned Master was completely different to Delgado and you're the type of fan who would have objected to that great change." That's another received myth about DW like new who being more popular than classic. To be honest the burned Masters differences from Delgado are fairly common in villains stories, where they have a fall from grace, or go from being a handsome, suave rogue to a pitiful wretch. You see them in two other villains in my list alone. Khan Noonien Singh goes through a similar story arc from his first story to Wrath of Khan. In the first he is a dashing rogue, who wants to take control of the galaxy to build his perfect empire, in the second, after years alone, he is a dishevelled, hateful, bitter, shell of his former self whose sanity has eroded. Alti from Xena meanwhile, as I explored is basically just a female version of the Master (more so than Missy ever was.) She literally goes from a stunning, sexy, dominatrix Amazon goddess to a walking skeleton when her resurrection goes wrong, and is similarly kept alive by her hatred for the hero as well as her magic.     Alti and the Master after their resurrections go wrong LOL. They'd maybe not make such a sexy couple in these forms, but yeah you can see how ultimately this is a fairly common plot point for villains. I think that we only notice it more with the Master because again it's a different actor playing him, unlike Khan and Alti. However the change over to Simm where he now has a totally different and contradictory origin story, relationship with the hero, and well pretty much everything with Missy, where we now have to accept that Delgado wanted to nob Pertwee, yeah those are not in any way comparable. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2024 10:55:13 GMT
Yeah, I couldn't rank the Cybermen too high, because while they're fantastic when they're at their best, they arguably haven't been in any truly great stories since the 1960s, and even a couple of those were naff. Much like the Master, they've had more bad/unnecessary appearances than the contrary.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 3, 2024 12:06:35 GMT
Yeah, I couldn't rank the Cybermen too high, because while they're fantastic when they're at their best, they arguably haven't been in any truly great stories since the 1960s, and even a couple of those were naff. Much like the Master, they've had more bad/unnecessary appearances than the contrary. To be fair you could probably say that about a lot of popular villains. Look at how many crappy versions of Dracula and Frankenstein there have been over the years? Similarly the Joker and Lex Luthor, given all the hundreds of times they've appeared across so many different mediums, the classic stories are probably in the minority. Hell the Green Goblin who is one of the most popular comic book villains of all time has arguably one or two classic stories and that's it. Meanwhile let's take a look at the Master/Cybermen's average for classic who just out of interest (and the Daleks while we're at it. ) Everybody feel free to post their own opinions here as obviously I can only reflect mine LOL. The Master Classic stories Terror of the Autons The Daemons The Sea Devils Frontier in Space The Deadly Assassin The Keeper of Traken Castrovalva The Five Doctors Survival. Okay/average stories. The Mind of Evil Claws of Axos Logopolis Planet of Fire Mark of the Rani The Ultimate Foe Doctor Who 1996 Crap/boring stories Colony in Space Timeflight The Kings Demons. I don't count any Master stories in new who as they are not Master stories LOL. The writers have been quite upfront about how much they dislike the character and refuse to write for him, so yeah those stories don't reflect any potential or lack thereof in the character. Cybermen Classic stories Tomb of the Cybermen The Invasion Earthshock The Five Doctors Okay/average/good stories The Tenth Planet The Moonbase Attack of the Cybermen Silver Nemesis Revenge of the Cybermen Crap The Wheel in Space The Daleks and Davros Candidates for the best DW story of all time LOL Genesis of the Daleks Remembrance of the Daleks Classic stories The Daleks The Dalek Invasion of Earth The Daleks Masterplan/Mission to the Unknown The Power of the Daleks The Evil of the Daleks The Day of the Daleks Death to the Daleks Resurrection of the Daleks Revelation of the Daleks Average/okay Dalek adventures The Chase Planet of the Daleks Destiny of the Daleks. Honestly they don't have a single bad story as far as I'm concerned from classic who, which is pretty incredible. Of course I'm sure everyone's tastes will be different LOL, but to be fair generally speaking I don't think any of those Dalek/Cybermen/Master stories ever make it into stories considered the absolute worst for most fans, apart from Timeflight, showing that actually there maybe was more in these villains than you'd think. Granted in the case of the Cybermen and the Master sometimes the story can still be quite good and fun, like Silver Nemesis, but they are still served very poorly in it. Again I think the Daleks are the clear winners, not just in terms of having the best stories, but always being centre stage. Some might say they are undermined for Davros in Revelation and that's fair, but even then the story is actually still about him creating new Daleks and their feud with him is what resolves it, so I don't think that's comparable to say Silver Nemesis where the Cybermen are just one of three unconnected villains brought together, or Time Flight where it's not really making use of the Master's unique character and history and it could be any old villain. Honestly though I think we have Terry Nation and his family to thank for that. It's funny because fandom collectively hates Terry Nation and his family these days, viewing them as parasites, (hilarious that the guy who created the Daleks is viewed as that, not the Fitzroy Crowd) to me Terry protected the Daleks throughout classic who from other writers undermining them, making them doofuses or turning them into stock villains. For instance Eric Saward who has gone on record as hating the Daleks and thinking they are boring to write for, wanted to have Revelation of the Daleks revolve around the Daleks fighting another race of monsters. Whilst that sounds like a good idea on paper, clearly it was so that Saward wouldn't have to write about the Daleks, and could make the other monsters the focus, so Nation rightfully forbid it. Furthermore the fact that every Dalek story had to be run by him, meant that they couldn't ever just be tossed into a story like the Master was in Time Flight or the Kings Demons. I think the reason the Daleks are the only icon of the classic era not to be f*cked with by the Fitzroy Crowd is also because of the Nation estate. Pretty much everything else that's owned by the BBC alone, and therefore the Fitzroy Crowd have carte blanche over has suffered, regeneration, TARDIS, the Doctor, Cybermen, the Master, the Time Lords, but because they have to share ownership of the Daleks, then yeah whilst I'm not saying that new who hasn't had some shit Dalek two parters like the series 9 opener, overall I don't think their history, image or anything has been messed with in the same way probably because the Nation estate would go nuts! (I can only assume they don't have ownership of Davros in the same way?) I somewhat agree with Holmes. The Cybermen were stupid by then. And, while they were a chilling presence during the 60s, they were definitely overused in the Troughton era. I think Holmes recognised that often recurring villains would only be used as generic placeholder monsters whose shoes could've been filled by anyone.
That's the thing though that's where I think Holmes was being short sighted and snobbish. Much like the multiverse formula LOL, recurring foes are not a bad thing in general, only if you overuse them or if you do it with the wrong foes. There are many instances where a recurring foe could not be replaced with a one off villain, as the story is geared around the recurring foe, their history and relationship with the hero is important and could not be duplicated etc. Also it must be said, recurring enemies are when done right, lots of fun. They are one of the main ways people get into things. It's surely no coincidence that the three most popular superheroes of all time are Batman, Superman and Spider-Man who have the three largest, most colourful rogues galleries. Similarly a big advantage Buffy had over Charmed was its more interesting monsters and villains, Xena similarly eclipsed Hercules because she had a great rogues gallery and recurring threats. (On Hercules most of the villains were one offs, and even those he fought regularly like Hera, she was often represented by a pair of eyes in the sky. Very rarely was an actress able to actually play her and give her a character like Kevin Smith's Ares. Meanwhile Hercules became more popular when it started to bring in Xena villains like Ares, and Callisto and even Cesar.) Sherlock Holmes similarly, Moriarty is a big advantage he has over other characters like Miss Marple, whilst even in folklore, Robin Hood benefits from the Sheriff of Nottingham, Prince John and Sir Guy. It's a great trope if you do it right, and in the end even Bob Holmes ultimately came to see it that way, even if he didn't admit it, or else he wouldn't have brought back the Master for The Deadly Assassin. It's why I'm quite glad that the Nestenes have only been used once in the revival as a main baddie. There's just not an awful lot you can do with them beyond the usual mannequins smashing through the shop windows gimmick, as well as having them create a plastic facsimile of a character. Thus, the headline appearances they did make hold up perfectly well, and there was never a point where anyone thought that they were being overused or mischaracterised as generic grunts.
I agree, but again just because some villains don't have multiple appearances in them doesn't mean that others can't. The Nestenes were a fairly limited concept and really only became recurring because they didn't have time for a new foe in Terror of the Autons alongside the Master and because of nostalgia on RTD's part. I think Holmes was just bitter at being lumped with the Cybermen and decided to write a plodding story out of spite.
Agreed, but again that was where I think he was a bit of a prick LOL. To start with it was a very unprofessional thing to do, second like I said, much like Sam Raimi with Venom, he actually f*cked himself over as if he had just looked into the Cybermen, he'd have seen that they were a perfect fit for his style. He could have done a Cyberman story as good as Tomb, but he just refused. Again love Holmes as a writer, he was most certainly the best DW writer there ever was, but like everybody he could be short sighted at times. He wouldn't even have done Genesis of the Daleks based on his bitchy snobbery about the Daleks, had it not been for Barry Letts twisting his arm. Again when you're not doing a story of that calibre based on that, then yeah you deserve to be called a snob. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 3, 2024 14:17:34 GMT
Where's the guy who keeps changing his name's post? I saw he made one that was quite interesting, had some cool choices that I wanted to comment on like Helen Cutter, but it's gone now? Did he delete it, or is it just that thing that happens where for some reasons you can't see random posts at certain points?
Also where's Zarius? I'd love to see his choices as there'd be some interesting niche choices I don't doubt there haha, just like some of mine. I know he is a Power Rangers fan and they had some wonderfully hammy villains.
My absolute favourite Power Rangers villain was Rita Repulsa. She was gloriously ridiculous and hammy and sexy as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Apr 3, 2024 20:52:08 GMT
Terry Silver (The Karate Kid Part III/Cobra Kai) A cocaine addicted billionaire who has nothing better to do with his time than torment a teenager for winning a high school karate championship. 4:41 I think it's worth applying Dr.Hare's psychopath checklist to your own favourite villain to see if he or she is a psychopath. I never knew about this. I've known people in real life with four or more of these traits. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 3, 2024 21:50:44 GMT
Checklist is a cool idea for other characters, but I don't think I need to apply it for my favourites.
Look at Jadis for instance?
Exterminated her people with a dark spell, to stop her sister winning.
Tried to corrupt a young boy by preying on his worry over his dying mother.
Trapped another world in an infinite winter?
Tried to murder several children.
I'm going to say she wasn't right in the head LOL.
|
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 3, 2024 21:55:42 GMT
Narnia never did top Jadis. Their only other memorable villain was that green witch in Silver Chair, and she's just a Jadis ripoff.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 3, 2024 22:08:18 GMT
Narnia never did top Jadis. Their only other memorable villain was that green witch in Silver Chair, and she's just a Jadis ripoff. Indeed, a lot of people believe that the Green Witch was meant to be a reincarnation of Jadis, which the tv series went with by casting the same actress. Again though her hilariously hamtastic performance as Jadis was more memorable. |
|
|
|
Post by rushy on Apr 3, 2024 22:11:55 GMT
I never did see the TV series. But I thought Tilda Swinton was perfect casting.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Apr 3, 2024 22:43:40 GMT
I never did see the TV series. But I thought Tilda Swinton was perfect casting. I do like Tilda Swinton and she did a good job, but to be honest her Jadis, I don't know compared to the book it was maybe lacking a bit? To start with she didn't look the part. Whilst extremely attractive, she isn't particularly tall, or powerful looking and she also doesn't have dark hair, which were the defining parts of Jadis' look. She was said to have been 7 foot tall, built like a wrestler whilst being extraordinarily beautiful and being part djinn and giantess.    Really with this in mind if you wanted to be book accurate, which I'm not saying you had to be 100 percent, but if you were, then honestly the best choices would have been. Lucy Lawless.  Big Fam obviously  Morgana Robinson  To be fair I'd cast those three actresses in anything LOL, but in this case they would be great fits for Jadis. My top choice back in the day would have been Claire Stansfield, who played another of my favourite villains Alti. She not only has experience playing an evil witch, but she is f*cking huge. Like 6 foot 2 or something, but honestly i think she is bigger than that. After all actresses often lie about being shorter to get more work LOL. She wasn't that much shorter than Dolph Lundgren and it's no surprise that she was only ever able to be the romantic lead in a Dolph movie with this in mind. Here she is opposite Lucy who is about 5 foot 10 at least.  and 6 foot 6 Dolph   That's a big f*cking lady. Just a shame she retired, as she became a big shot millionaire clothes designer LOL. Still she'd have been my dream Jadis. It's funny when you look at how much more popular Jadis is than all the other characters. I remember a Narnia fan fic site and it was like five for all the other characters combined and the rest in the hundreds were Jadis LOL. If you haven't read the Magicians Nephew I'd recommend. That's actually the book that made Jadis one of my top 10. Her backstory in that is fantastic. You should check it out too Ludders. Jadis' backstory was clearly an influence on the Daleks and you can draw a lot of fascinating parallels between Jadis development and character and that of the Daleks in those early Hartnell stories. She's almost a proto Dalek. |
|
