Cinema is typically a medium of absolutes and opposites, big vs small, restrained vs over-blown, but most of all good vs evil. It is a contradiction that tends to appear in all genres, whether horror, epic or romance, with the most intriguing films often those that deal most explicitly with a blurring of the distinction.
And at the simplest stage, the idea of good vs bad inspired one of the fundamental relationship dynamics that exists in cinema – the clash of the hero and the villain. As a rule, villains must be equal to or greater than their virtuous adversary, or the film lacks soul and conviction, and we end up with something unbalanced and disjointed that feels like little more than a missed opportunity. After all, villains have to be the counterpoint of the hero – without darkness there can be no light, and without the Joker, or the Wayne murderer, there can be no Batman; no Flash Gordon without Emperor Ming…
If they represent a significant threat, we rejoice in their defeat, and herald the hero doubly so. Adversity is the chief marker of heroism after all, and great villainy is the chief exponent of adversity.
But sometimes, Hollywood gets it all wrong, presenting a great villain or villainous foe, who we are enchanted and captivated by, and has them defeated by the kind of bumbling oaf who would probably struggle to function in the real world. This article is dedicated to those hopeless souls, destroyed and embarrassed by the whims of poor writers…
Honourable Mention
The Aliens From Independence Day
The Hero: Windows 95
Yeah, because we all believe that Window 95 would have been capable of uploading a virus to an alien mothership…
Read on for the 12 dastardly villains who made the list.
We are currently seeking Film contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Film contributor, click here.
You Might Also Like...
- Doctor Who: 50 Greatest Ever Stories
- 25 Best British TV Shows Of The Last Decade
- 50 Sexiest Video Game Girls Of All Time
8 Actresses Who Tricked You Into Thinking You Saw Them Nude
11 Irresistible Movie Moments That Wore Out Your Pause Button
100 Things Wrong With The Dark Knight Rises [Video]
10 Scenes You Won't Believe You Missed in 2012
10 Most Infuriating Movie Cliffhangers
10 Major Plot Holes You Probably Missed
10 Happy Movie Endings That Probably Had Horrific Consequences
10 Movies That Didn’t Know When To End
80 Comments
The reason for Vader’s defeat at the hands of Luke is nothing to do with physical force or strength. For starters, Vader is Anakin Skywalker, a misled, emotionally crippled man whose bad choices led him down a dark path. He is a very complex character and far from a simple villain. He’s a tragic hero. And Luke is his son. Beneath the black mask is a man wrought with regret and misery about his past and how his anger took everything from him that he loved. As evil and ruthless as he may have appeared to the galaxy at large, Darth Vader is still only an alias for Anakin Skywalker and Anakin Skywalker would not kill his son. Especially after what happened to his wife. From Anakin’s point of view, all of his villainous acts are for the greater good. In his mind, he’s not evil. Therefore he has no reason to kill his own flesh and blood. He’s also a cyborg, who never reached his true potential in terms of Force power because of what happened to him on Mustafar. By the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke had become more powerful in the Force than Vader and that’s why he was defeated. However, personally I wouldn’t say he was defeated by Luke. He was saved by Luke and as a result defeated the darkness within himself and the true personification of evil and the dark side – Palpatine. So in terms of the story and rules of nature within the fictional Star Wars universe, Vader’s fate makes complete sense. He wasn’t simply bested by some random farm boy.
Also, Marty’s victories over the various Tannen’s was basically a case of brains triumphing over brawn.
@Dave
Mate that post was awesome and succinctly made the point of Anakins tragic story all too well! Kudos to you good sir!
Exactly. Biff always bullied or somehow fell into a situation of power. (The almanac.) Marty clearly outsmarted him and George McFly has the power of the punch.
Couldn’t have been said better :bd nice
If Marty outsmarted Biff, why did he leave the Almanac in a vulnerable place where Biff could steal it?
Please fix the embarrassing grammar in the final sentence of the BACK TO THE FUTURE review: “In reality, this would have all went differently.” It’s “would have gone” instead of — ouch — “would have went.”
You’ve made the character complex. Aside from being a tragic hero, barely anything you said here is presented in the film; it all comes from other people adding to the story.
Actually, all of that can be inferred from the movies. Lucas (and Christensen) didn’t convey much of it very well in the prequels, but I don’t think you’d have to read anything else to glean pretty much everything Dave said.
the brain form pinky and the brain
narf
I agree. And for all the power, keen skills, and talents that Darth Vader had, wouldn’t one have expected his son to have some of them as well? Also, it is likely because of Luke’s “moral integrity” that he appears unassuming
It was actually Mac OS in Independence Day
I thought that was fairly obvious as well.
That makes it much more believable.
Windows 95 could have been used as the virus.
Aliens on the war of the worlds both the books and films. Come on aliens travel across the universe, a species with a lot of advanced technology couldn’t forsee that the plant they decided to invade had an adverse number of patological viruses? Really?
KK so it as a MAC OS that uploaded the virus not windows 95
Would it be more accurate to say that Darth Vader was defeated by Hayden Christensen and George Lucas? The original trilogy featured a ruthless villain who would destroy a planet and would knowingly cut off his own son’s arm. The new trilogy features a whiny tween to thirty who complains about sand getting into things. I’d say the demotion from iconic, nightmare fueling villain to pathetic Internet meme/viral video fodder is a much greater defeat
so true
It seems like the unwritten law of the Hollywood universe that great and powerful evil will always be defeated by a couple of snot nosed teenagers bumbling between hook-ups and detentions.
On that note maybe that’s why the bad guys are always so much cooler.
“Ah Hank, I have a small convesson. I only like zee Batman cuz he haz zee best villonsss.”
- Jean Claude Le Tueur, Venture Bros.
I would add everyone in Twilight defeating the Vulturi and everyone else that they fought.
Matthew Broderick’s character in Ladyhawk versus the Evil Bishop
The Ralph Maccio’s character in the first three Karate Kid movies (In fact this should be number 1)
The survivors of the first Night of the Living Dead movies
Nerds in Revenge of the Nerds versus the jocks who would also be
…considered fools
What always bothered me about the Terminator was, after the first one failed, why didn’t the second one go back further in time and kill sarah connor as a girl? then when that one failed (cuz it’s a hollywood movie), have the third one go further back and try to kill sarah’s mother as a kid, etc, etc. etc. The series could go on indefinitely and the time periods would be amazing -terminator vs nazis, terminator vs. Napoleon. terminator vs. the Romans
You’re welcome, Hollywood. now go build that time machine to follow my idea (c).
Hello…The Wizard of OZ!!! A bucket of water was all it took to defeat the Wicked Witch? Really?
I’d stick Bane on that list from The Dark Knight Rises. Bruce Wayne needed a walking stick and had no ligament in his knees at the start of the film, while Bane would break your neck with one firm grip and literally break Batman in half.
After having the go through the traction of re-fusing his own spine, Wayne discovers the ability to beat Bane in a fist-fight just by punching him a bit harder.
Not to mention that he was killed by getting blasted through the room by someone other than the title character while he was distracted… Makes all the fighting pointless to a degree
Oh and while we’re on the subject….Dave Lezewski? AKA “Kick-Ass” killing Frank D’Amico. He was pretty stupid, he pretending to be a super-hero knowing he had no powers or specific fighting qualities apart from being able to withstand a decent beating vs. a New York crime lord with pretty good martial arts ability.
It’s not just that actually, even Kick-Ass armed with a bazooka is good enough. But why was he allowed the glory of that moment? It was Mindy/Hit-Girl that got rid of 90% of D’Amico’s bodyguards (a Nine-year old kid) and she also had the ax to grind for him murdering both her parents (sort of).
RE: the terminator.
your logic about killing sarah conner when she was just in kindergarten is the same logic about killing john connor before he was born. you can keep going back, but the point of the movie is that someone will stand up for themselves. you would have just inspired a movie in which sarah conner’s parents had to save their own child. and john conner would have been there to send his own terminator through to that time, and help save the day.
I’ll have to defend Harry Potter for my daughter and fans of the book who actually READ this story.
Voldemort’s demise was brought on by himself. He shattered his soul into several pieces and when Voldemort tried to kill Potter as a baby, his mother had cast a powerful spell (is mother’s love a spell?) that countered the effect but didn’t altogether eliminate it.
Fast forward 17 years and the Dark Lord has put his soul pieces back together recreating his physical form. However one piece was still missing. The piece he inadvertantly transferred to Potter when he tried to kill him the first time. This is the explanation as to why Harry can talk to snakes and perform all of these powerful spells better than most others. When Voldemort tries for a second time to destroy The Boy Who Lived, he actually destroys the last piece of his own soul that was parted out to Potter and now scar head is fully himself for the first time. Now that Voldemort is incomplete, all Harry has to do is take the initiative and use the natural power that was given to him.
As far as not using death spells in battle, those dark spells have terrible consequences which is why good wizards and witches as a matter of not only common sense but wizard law don’t use them. The Death Eaters don’t care because they are on a dark path already. But someone who practices magic that isn’t dark wouldn’t risk these spells in even the most dire situations.
(I hope I have avenged 8 through 12 year old girls everywhere, including my daughter.) :)
only a little bit.. since Voldemort wasn’t remotely trying to put his soul back together. Each of the pieces basically gave him a chance to resurrect himself if he died, giving him a whole lot of do-overs. The ‘good guys’ were on a quest to find and destroy all the pieces before killing him, so he couldn’t come back again. Your version almost makes Voldy sound noble, trying to reclaim his soul (slash-humanity) or something. Maybe you just got confused by him trying to find the pieces to protect them from being destroyed so he could still live “forever”, in which case.. maybe time for a reread.
Yeah I have to agree with Tobi here. You did almost make him sound like a good guy though your description was admirable, it didn’t really hit all of the fine points.
I hardly believe that Harry was a fool. I mean yes he had help from Dumbledore, the Order, Ron and especially Hermione throughout the series, but he was intelligent in his own right. In the beginning he asked the Sorting Hat not to put him in Slytherin already separating him from those who were placed in that house such as Voldemort. He wanted nothing more to be free of the connection he had to such a Dark Wizard. The story actually is a perfect circle to the story of the 3 brothers Hermione tells in the film (also in the book). Harry died willingly because he was the last piece of the puzzle. If he would have killed Voldemort before dying, the man would have been able to come back because of Harry himself. By sacrificing himself, he saved everyone. I fail to see why that makes him a fool.
By the way Fred, most of the loyal fans to Harry Potter are actually probably in their early 20s because it was during our generation that the book was created.
well, no offense but u cant expect voldemort to kill harry using harry’s elder wand(i know its silly)…
secondly, voldemort may be lord voldemort… but harry had the the elder wand under his control, and also had the resurrection stone (a gift from dumbledore) n he had the cloak of invisibility passed on by his father which according to the story makes him the master of death, a lot more powerful than a nose less punk who calls himself ‘Lord’, i mean, thats what the phrase ‘Master of death’ means…
plus, voldemort by the time of the final fight was only 1/8th of what he actually/originally was… i mean, the 7 horcruxes (1.Tom riddles diary, 2.slewyns locket, 3.marvolo gaunts ring, 4.ravenclaw’s diadem, 5.hufflepuffs cup, 6.harry himself, 7.nagini the snake) have already been destroyed… the only part left was his own soul(1/8th part of his soul)…
so u gotta accept it, everybody knows harry aint that powerful, but the odds were completely in harry’s favor… and harry somehow managed to kill the so called ‘Lord Voldemort’…
Remember, Harry Potter did use a unforgivable curse, when he kept on forcing people/goblins to take him, ron, and hermione through the Goblin’s bank. So the question is: what state is Harry’s soul in?
I’m glad you brought up the Voldemort example, although I think you give Harry too much credit. The primary conflict of the entire series comes down to Voldemort vs. himself. It is an example of the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ story. Voldemort, hearing the forewarning that an infant will be ‘marked as his equal’ and will one day have an essentially 50% chance of killing the Dark Lord or being killed by him, decided to proactively subvert the prophecy by killing the infant before he has the chance. He chooses Harry as his target and, in trying to prevent the prophecy by murdering a child, fulfills the primary conditions of the prophecy.
By ruthlessly seeking immortality, Voldemort ensures his own death; accidentally lodging a piece of his soul into his self-appointed mortal enemy. This soul fragment provides Harry with access to power, talents and knowledge about the Dark Lord that make his demise possible.
Harry Potter is an average Wizard, and sub-par in the battle of Good vs. Evil. Harry has no choice. He must either fight or die. The fact that he occasionally fights for selfless reasons is ancillary. His penchant for jumping into life-threatening situations suggests that he either is unable to fully process the stakes of his actions, or, that being hunted since birth by a sociopathic super-human has left him with a sense that he has nothing to lose. The true gravity of his his own mortality does not seem to hit him until the very end of the series. Even then, the choice Harry is given isn’t much of a choice at all. He can either sacrifice himself to make Voldemort’s death possible, or he can… what? Run away? Spend the rest of his life hiding in fear, knowing that his pathetic existence has put the entire world, possible for the rest of eternity, in peril?
It is the reactions of the secondary characters of the series that makes the themes of the story take hold. It is Ron and Hermione choosing to put themselves in harm’s way to protect their friend. It is Neville, having been told his whole life that he is useless as a wizard and as a human being, finding the resolve to take a stand against evil and turn a group of students into an army. It is Draco, having everything to gain by following Voldemort, and everything to lose by failing him, who, during not one, but several moments of truth, cannot bring himself to give into true evil. In a darker sense, it is Dumbledore, the seemingly genial old man whose projected/misplaced feelings of love and guilt lead to an appeasement that results in wide-scale tragedy.
I don’t think that calling Harry an “average wizard” and “sub-par” is exactly fair. By all accounts he was a talented wizard with above average skill, and the top of the class in Defense Against the Dark Arts (he even beat Hermione in that class). But more importantly than skill, his bravery, “saving people thing,” and his ability to love make him a strong wizard. I think you missed the point of the entire series that Dumbledore has to reiterate over and over: that love, which Harry is full of, is the most powerful magic.
@Chris
“Ability of love”. No. Stop it. I’m sick of that being used as an excuse for Harry. Hermione was the exceptional wizard, Harry was just lucky and happened to be labelled as the boy who lived.
You don’t say Gandalf or Saurman was an exceptional wizard because of “love”. It’s because of magic. Jesus.
Ok,
So the article is MOVIE villians defeated……… Which means any discussion of Moldy Vort from the Potter books is MOOT at best. We should all remember that in the MOVIE Lord Voldemort died right after the last HORCRUX was destroyed. MEANING that Harry Potter doesn’t defeat Voldemort, NEVILLE LONGBOTTOM does. THIS clearly should have been #1 dufus to defeat an all time MOVIE Villian!
Not entirely true. In the movie, Voldemort does not die right after the snake is killed. Neville kills it and then Harry and Voldemort engage in one final wand battle that results in Harry’s victory.
However, there is no way he could have won without Neville. But that is the moral of Harry Potter, friends are important.
I love the series but there are so many gaping holes in the whole thing it’s a bit hard to take any of it too seriously.
1) Time turners just made everything irrelevant, they give one to a school girl so she can attend more classes but they don’t use on to find what’s attempting to murder kids all around the castle…?
2) The whole wand law thing was pretty weak, JK just tried for some loose wankey connection near the end to make it all work out for Harry. If wands’ allegiance changed if the wands were won then the whole DA class were screwed and would have no idea what wands had allegiance to anyone. The amount of disarming that goes on throughout the books and all the wands were still chilling back then.
3) Snape was still an arse. Don’t care if he helped harry, still an arse.
The whole thing was just a bunch of poorly made decisions by Harry and other characters. (Harry not using the two way mirror to contact serius etc).
Love harry potter, but best to not try and find the logic in it all
In my opinion all the existence of time turners proved is that teachers like Dumbledore, maybe even Snape or McGonnagall spent so much time perfecting and aligning of the rising action type events of the series (or at least the background, unobvious ones) that they foiled all of the subplots and obvious logical error type things so that the correct timeline, the only one that would have taken Voldemort out (all the horcruxes destroyed, Harry facing him in single combat) had a chance of happening, and for Harry’s choice and resolve to make it work.
To offer the perspective of a former 8 to 12 year old boy who read all the books and watched all the films of Harry Potter, I have to say that Harry was a powerful and worthy wizard/hero of his own right and that he had a TON of help until the final few battles. Not to mention he was Lord Voldemort’s prophecized equal and that he was protected by the advantages of 1;
his mother’s love/spell
2;
all 3 deathly hallows/the invisibility cloak (only one he really used)
3;
The connection between his own wand and Lord Voldemort’s
4;
The “extra life” in the form of Voldemort’s soul fragment
Harry’s parents were both said to be strong/talented witches/wizards by their own merits, genes he inherited (*spoiler* tracing back to Ignotus Peverell on his father’s side), and the thing about magic is that it’s magic. Everyone who can use it has a chance at a fair fight in the wizarding world. So who wins in such a fight? The one who has prepared the most through the years? Because then it would certainly be Voldemort (Well, really Dumbledore (and really relly Nicholas Flamel). But, in reality, once the students know a basic repertoire of spells, which Harry did seem to excel at, the victor is the quickest thinker, the bravest and most measured, and those who can defeat the psychologies of their enemies.
Most of the advantage gained from being a death eater is just using evil spells. It does not mean they’re smarter, quicker, stronger, or more powerful wizards.
For my final point, I would like to point out that Harry had Dumbledore (likely the greatest wizard of most of his lifetime), Hogwarts, and almost all of the good wizarding world on his side. Dumbledore proved himself more than Tom Riddle’s match in a duel, and continuously psychologically defeated his opponent from the time he was a student. The Horcruxes were the missing piece to the puzzle, and once Harry destroyed them, Voldemort was weak and mortal as any other wizard. Also, Dumbledore had been subtly grooming Harry from a young age to be able to win. Dumbledore was Harry’s second near-invincibility card until he came of the proper age to face Voldemort himself.
There were moments when Harry was weak and vulnerable, and where all of the plans could have failed, but it was because of Harry’s talents and character strength that he was able to persevere through them and win.
How about most James Bond villains, who came up with over-elaborated ways to kill off the British agent, when one bullet would have simply done the trick? Especially you, “Ernst Stavro Blofeld”!
Signs – Villains: Intelligent Alien Race invading Earth
Hero: Water
Great premise, but the decisions as to the membership of the list were quite lacking. Quite lacking indeed.
While I admire your willingness to take on beloved pop culture heroes, the bigger question to me is, do you understand the mythological significance of battles between good and evil? Evil is always meant to appear unbeatable, and good is meant to appear unlikely to overcome evil. From David and Goliath to Ripley and the Aliens, good beats evil AGAINST the odds, usually using the tools of goodness, love, compassion, selflessness and/or cleverness. It’s always about showing everyperson that they too can overcome the evil in their world if they demonstrate virtue. (Not that this really works out in real life, but it is the meme.)
In the original version of Snow White by the Brothers Grimm the evil queen isn’t defeated by the dwarfs, like in the disney version. She gets a haert attac, when she sees Snow White marrying the prince. She is overcome by her own hate and jealousy. To me this sounds much more plausible.
in the original one she didn’t have a heart attack. snow white and the prince invited her to their wedding. they had iron shoes made for her and when she arrived they took the iron shoes from the fire, they were put on her and she “danced” to death on their wedding day. it was punishment for trying to kill snow white over and over again for several years. one of my favorite stories :)
What about Hans Gruber in the original “Die Hard “? I love John Maclain as a movie hero but Hans was a criminal genius with a large amount of firepower and superior knowledge. He gets bested by a wise cracking cop crawling around air ducts without shoes on, C’mon son really.
Predator 2. Arnie can beat a predator, Danny Glover not so much.
Lots of fun! But Luke does not “defeat” Darth Vader in the traditional sense, that is why he does not need to be “super-powerful” and “super-competent” in the traditional sense. In fact, that’s the very familiar moral of the move. Love is more powerful than hate, and love does not destroy things (for the most part in Lucas’s world). For me, at least, that was the one logical scene in all the movies.
What about the Witch-king who was defeated by Éowyn (Lord of the rings)
That was a huge fail for me.
What about the aliens in ‘Faculty’? Defeated by a powder concoction? Really….??
And Starscream in Transformers 3 – killed by Sam Witwicky?! C’mon….
Windows 95 didn’t defeat the aliens in Independence Day, it was a Macintosh!
Maleficent from Sleeping Beauty. Possibly Disney’s greatest villain and she could turn herself into a dragon. Really.
That idiotic singing Prince Stephan was a fly waiting to be swatted by her.
Ah, typical Internet self-proclaimed expert article. Like the swimming expert who’s never been in the pool.
First, George McFly could conceivably knock out Butch because anyone can knock anyone out, regardless of size, with a clean enough strike.
Second, Rocky wasn’t a terrible boxer. He didn’t appear to be putting as much effort into his career as he should, as evidenced by his struggle during the first road run sequence. However, he was by no means a terrible boxer, as he had a decent win/loss ratio as a Pro.
Once he started training properly he went in against the champ, knocked him down in the first round, and lost a split decision (which means one judge thought he won the fight).
Also, we never see him actually outboxing an opponent. Outboxing your opponent means that you landed your shots without letting your opponent land his. Rocky is more of a ‘take 1 to land 1′ type of boxer. Although, in Rocky’s case, it’s more like ‘take 10 to land 1′. And this is the style that he uses throughout most of his career.
The only time Rocky ever tried to outbox an opponent was in his rematch against Clubber Lang, and that was after training with Apollo Creed. Despite his training with Apollo and early success in the fight, he reverted to his old style.
Jordan, you hit it right on the head w/”Rocky”; luckily he can take a few hits. ;)
Apollo says, of his and Rocky’s relative styles: “You fight great, but I’m a great fighter.” Rocky was skilled, and a punching bag, but not refined, is all. Not too many people called Mike Tyson refined, but dropping opponents in one shot worked fine for him. Rocky just preferred to hit people’s fists with his face until he won.
As to Biff, a good sucker punch or temple strike can indeed down nearly anyone. Admittedly, special ops guys are trained to handle pain, lack of air, and the like, but Biff clearly wasn’t one of them. Now, that all the Tannens always lost was made to seem inevitable (which it was), could be another matter. .
Rocky was a horrible boxer!
In a way, you could argue that everyone defeated by the Doctor in Doctor Who (and to relate it to films, the Doctor Who films) was defeated by a nerd. He may be represented as cool but he’s really clever and has loads of geeky gadgets. Plus he has to keep reminding the audience that he thinks he’s cool.
and I just read the title wrong… awkward ^^
Agree with the comment about starscream, and megatron for that matter. Sam witwicky??. . . Jesus christ!!!
The reason the terminator couldn’t kill Sarah Connor was because if it had, it would have created an even bigger issue. Because John Connor exists, he clearly was born. That means if Sarah Connor had been killed in 1984, John would have never existed and the Terminator would have never been sent back anyway. In other words, sending the terminator back means you failed already Skynet.
I believe that the defeat of Thulsa Doom in the original Conan the Barbarian movie was a very unjust loss. For starters, he had a large group of well-trained warriors to attack Schwarzenegger’s character. Secondly, Doom was the mystically powered leader of a serpent cult, able to mutate into an enormous snake, while commanding other snakes. And thirdly, Schwarzenegger’s character was a dim, brutish man who said maybe half a dozen words the entire film, accompanied by an asian archer of average ability and sometimes a feisty female character. It was just very unlikely. Especially at the end, as Conan beheaded Doom, there should have been dozens of guards waiting to thwart Conan and the crowd below should have swarmed him, even providing he had a chance to kill Doom. That’s my opinion.
The Witch-King from LOTR was a total badass, riding on his fell beast, killing at will, and even defeating Gandalf the White in the extended edition of Return of the King. Yet, in the battle of Pelennor Fields after killing King Theoden (which was also pretty badass), he had his fell beast decapitated and was killed by a woman and a hobbit? I know that’s how Tolkien did it in the book, but i’m sure the audience wouldn’t have minded if he’d been killed by Gandalf or Aragorn or someone who was actually cool! If not, he could of at least had a better death and battle scene.
Max, that was a very specific scene. The prophesy said he would be slain by “no man”, and a hobbit (using barrow-wight weapon in the books) and a woman dropped him: not a one of these a mannish thing.
Note also that Gandalf was charged with NOT USING FORCE. This is something those who only saw the movies would probably not know, as Jackson’s movies **completely threw out the primary moral points of the entire series**. Use of force was BAD in LotR, unless for a defensive measure. This is especially true for Gandalf, as he was basically an angel of sorts **sent to assist people making the right decisions in bad times**, not to arrogantly run in with guns blazing and *take away* the bad times that *required* people make those tough decisions! This all had a lot to do with free will and mortals’ relation to God, as Tolkien was a very devout Catholic.
If this seems too much philosophy to hold an average audience’s interest, it just means that we need to improve our schools and general social maturity (both of which which have become quite “dumbed down” in the past few decades) so viewers can grasp plots that require actual thought.
Vader was defeated *by his own buried love for his son*, and probably realization of how pathetic the (clearly psychotic) Emperor really was. Palpatine also wanted Luke to win (very strongly hinted) and likely reduced his “support” of Vader, which was implied as being considerable (note Vader’s statement “I *MUST* obey my master”).
In ESB, Vader was even holding back to capture, not kill, while Luke was going all-out. This was fairly obvious as, when Luke actually hit him, Vader than ended the fight by literally disarming Luke a matter of a just few seconds later.
The Terminator, on the other hand, was a drone. Not the sharpest tool in Skynet’s shed, obviously. Add to this, that Reese whittled him down, a factory of heavy equipment capable of crushing even a T-800, and that Sarah really did NOT want to die, and it all seems pretty reasonable.
The Ewoks primitive rocks & arrows versus Stormtrooper lasers.
I know! The Galactic Empire brought down by Teddy Bears!
Palpatine even said that a LEGION of his BEST TROOPS were awaiting them. What we saw saw was merely a squad of retards. Yet they were armored and had blasters, so there’s no way the Ewoks should’ve won that battle.
At first it was scripted that Wookiees, not Ewoks, should win the battle, but then Lucas wanted them to be a primitive race defeating the Empire, and as it was already established through Chewbacce that Wookiees were technological capable, he invented the Ewoks. In my opinion that’s one of his worst decisions ever. Had it been Wookiees, the victory could have made sense.
Whatever about Vader…. Boba Fett killed by a blind man! Purely by accident!!! And don’t go saying that he lives because some guy wrote a book about it… Boba got eaten!!!
underdog =/= complete fool
It wasn’t Windows 95 that uploaded the virus to the mother ship in “Independence Day” It was a Mac.
There’s a hole in your hole.
The thing about Harry Potter defeating Voldemort is that it makes (somewhat) more sense in the book. The book does a much better job of explaining that the special wand Voldemort uses (which he stole from Dumbledore’s grave) actually belong’s to Harry (there is a somewhat convoluted explanation of how Draco disarmed Dumbledore and Harry later disarmed Draco and therefore the wand’s allegiance belongs with Harry since, apparently, that’s how wands roll). So when Voldemort attacks Harry with a death curse the wand flat out refuses to attack its master and the curse rebounds immediately upon contact with Harry’s spell (unlike in the movie where they fight for like half an hour, which makes absolutely no sense, but Hollywood obviously wanted a satisfying prolonged climatic battle). Also Voldemort doesn’t desintegrate into ashes in the book. There was no reason for him to do so in the movie, either, since it had been well established that the death curse simply kills and nothing else, but once again Hollywood obviously wished for something more spectacular than him simply dropping dead…
I haven’t read the comments (as there’s bloody loads of them) but I should point out the Voldermort thing makes sense in the book, it’s just done really, really badly in the film
Sauron vs. Frodo anyone?
technically if the horcrux in harry gave him extra power then when it was destroyed what happened
Gadget was supposed to be an idiot. Dr. Claw wasn’t an incompetent villain, Gadget just had sheer dumb luck on his side. Claw’s henchmen on the other hand made even Gadget look intelligent.
What about Who Framed Roger Rabbit? I know it looked like a case of ‘watch me destroy Toontown’, but surely if Judge Doom killed Eddie Valiant quickly, as well as Roger, wouldn’t he be more able to destroy Toontown? Eddie Valiant solved the case and everything, but surely with all this suspicious behaviour, Doom could have caught him earlier? Especially considering during his revelation of his real identity, I don’t know why he didn’t just stop waving the saw around on his arm and actually kill an alcoholic depressed detective whose brother is dead and has to deal with a huge case involving a cartoon rabbit whose species he dislikes? These villains need to make sure that the hero and anyone else stops interfering with their plans, rather than ‘look at this while you still have time to defeat me’.
I have a strange feeling that this will happen in Star Trek Into Darkness. Not necessarily because the Enterprise crew is stupid – they are not. But one way of saying it would be from all the info we’ve got is that Harrison decides to destroy London and an HQ before choosing to surrender and perhaps wait for some kind of trial (if it happens – I’d like to know that). Considering he is supposed to be incredibly great at fighting and using weapons, it’s strange because due to the alternate timeline, he still could just kill the Enterprise crew. Anything could happen. Maybe Harrison was just being a show off, but if you want total revenge, maybe it would be better if he just killed them or something, he could carry on his destruction before someone else tried to defeat him. I’m saying this due to his actions, rather than Enterprise’s. I want him to be a truly ruthless villain who actually lays waste to everyone and everything. As well as that, we have to deal with the ethics, because the Starfleet probably wouldn’t know what to do with him. If this is just a simple ending involving him being defeated, I will be disappointed. I don’t want his personality to be the cause of his downfall, especially since Kirk and his crew are still growing into the Star Trek that everyone likes.
Very good is one of the very significant features linked to French translation.