Bar none.
Attachments:

The MP who was always trying to catch the A-Team.

evah.

i always wonder how hard acting rally is. then i see this guy in other roles or doing some PR or on some talk show. and then i know GOOD acting is tough.

He played as one of Christopher Walken's henchmen in King of New York. One of my favorite movies....

Who is that? Obama? Then yes, he's the most evil villain ever.

..
Attachments:

"Baby talk, baby talk..It's a wonder you can walk!"

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

Caesar Romero as the Joker, of course.
Attachments:

a
Attachments:

Frank Underwood is one fucked-up evil dude. Next season should be great.

Is that a good show Meeper? A made for Netflix show sounded kinda lame, but if it has Kevin Spacey it can't be bad.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that a good show Meeper? A made for Netflix
> show sounded kinda lame, but if it has Kevin
> Spacey it can't be bad.


I think it's great. It starts off as a good amusing political drama but the story takes some majorly dark turns from there. Spacey is great, his character is fucked up in the head, like in a psycho/serial killer type way. And he's funny too.

The face of the Red Chinese menace in the '70's.
Attachments:

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spacey is great,
> his character is fucked up in the head, like in a
> psycho/serial killer type way. And he's funny
> too.

And his character's wife. Both are power-hungry nuts.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frank Underwood is one fucked-up evil dude. Next
> season should be great.

Frank Underwood is a pale imitation of Francis Urquhart. However I suspect the writers this time around will be smart enough not to bump off their villain too quickly.

.
Attachments:

Dr. Megalito Loveless (Michael Dunn) was a diabolical little chap.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bar none.


Is that Kaizer Soze?

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Is that a good show Meeper? A made for Netflix
> > show sounded kinda lame, but if it has Kevin
> > Spacey it can't be bad.
>
>
> I think it's great. It starts off as a good
> amusing political drama but the story takes some
> majorly dark turns from there. Spacey is great,
> his character is fucked up in the head, like in a
> psycho/serial killer type way. And he's funny
> too.



Oh OK. I'll try to watch it when I'm done with Breaking Bad.

Walter White

Hank gets killed, Walter dies at the end, and Jesse lives

Mads Mikkelsen makes a great Hannibal Lecter.

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

Wild Wild West Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Megalito Loveless (Michael Dunn) was a
> diabolical little chap.


+1
Attachments:

jhey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mads Mikkelsen makes a great Hannibal Lecter.

Yeah. I'm working my way through season 2 of Hannibal. The level of "fucked-up" on that show is amazing, especially for a braodcast network show. Mikkelsen is fucking scary, just as bad as Anthony Hopkins. Great show and great villian.

Its a tie between

Dr Smith who was always fucking over the Robinson's
(and sexually abusing poor Will Robinson) and

Eric's Dad, Reginald Albert "Red" Forman who was always
wanting to put his foot in someone's ass, which is also sexual abuse.

Dr Smith


Red Forman

Hannibal is a good show? I thought a made for TV version would be all family friendly and lame.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheMeeper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > eesh Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Is that a good show Meeper? A made for
> Netflix
> > > show sounded kinda lame, but if it has Kevin
> > > Spacey it can't be bad.
> >
> >
> > I think it's great. It starts off as a good
> > amusing political drama but the story takes
> some
> > majorly dark turns from there. Spacey is
> great,
> > his character is fucked up in the head, like in
> a
> > psycho/serial killer type way. And he's funny
> > too.
>
>
>
> Oh OK. I'll try to watch it when I'm done with
> Breaking Bad.


Oh, ok. I'll watch it............ OMG, I'm talking to my fucking self.

tomahawk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah. I'm working my way through season 2 of
> Hannibal. The level of "fucked-up" on that show is
> amazing, especially for a braodcast network show.
> Mikkelsen is fucking scary, just as bad as Anthony
> Hopkins. Great show and great villian.

It's probably my favorite show on TV right now. So glad it was picked up for a 3rd season.

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

.
Attachments:

Walt dies at the end and frees Jessie from the white supremicist meth dealers in the process. Jesse then goes on to star in a really shitty need for speed movie.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hannibal is a good show? I thought a made for TV
> version would be all family friendly and lame.

Yeah, it's good. I can't believe some of the shit they show on broadcast TV, lots of mutilated bodies and stuff, but for the most part the show is a psychological thriller. It's basically the back story to Silence of the Lambs, Hannibal is working with the FBI to catch serial killers, while himself doing his own thing on the side. And he plays mind games with the FBI, especially Will Graham (who was played by Edward Norton in Red Dragon). It's really good.

What? No mention of Khan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cpc9b Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What? No mention of Khan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





If you want to talk Star Trek, then I'd have to go with Weyoun. That character was brilliant.

>Weyoun

Jeffery Combs has played several notable villains. But, as any Trek fan will tell you, DS9 does not count -- it was character driven not plot driven (and "dark").

K7Yyn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Weyoun
>
> Jeffery Combs has played several notable villains.
> But, as any Trek fan will tell you, DS9 does not
> count -- it was character driven not plot driven
> (and "dark").





DS9 was a real Star Trek show. It just turned some off because it took place on a station and not primarily on a ship. Plus it didn't have the naivete of TNG or TOS, or even the hope of Voyager.

>Plus it didn't have the naivete of TNG or TOS, or even the hope of Voyager.

Which is why you can consider to not be in style of Gene Roddenberry, and ergo not be "Star Trek". Problems weren't solved in an hour (via the use of the holodeck or the transporter). Some problems actually didn't have a solution (the Bajorans and the Cardassians were not going to resolve their differences in an episode or a season, or even who "owns" the wormhole?). I don't think Gene would have been comfortable with fuzzy problems like this.

Personally, I liked the show. But I don't think you can classify it as Star Trek.

Y9Jkp Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which is why you can consider to not be in style
> of Gene Roddenberry, and ergo not be "Star Trek".
> Problems weren't solved in an hour (via the use of
> the holodeck or the transporter). Some problems
> actually didn't have a solution (the Bajorans and
> the Cardassians were not going to resolve their
> differences in an episode or a season, or even who
> "owns" the wormhole?). I don't think Gene would
> have been comfortable with fuzzy problems like
> this.
>
> Personally, I liked the show. But I don't think
> you can classify it as Star Trek.

Bingo. Real Star Trek series have camp. DS9 was too serious, therefore not a part of Star Trek.

DS9 had Terry Farrell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lZayNvimSU

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cpc9b Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What? No mention of Khan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> If you want to talk Star Trek, then I'd have to go
> with Weyoun. That character was brilliant.

Neelix

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bar none.

Omg! I can't believe I agree with you 100%!

>Neelix

Ah... The Jar-Jar Binks of Star Trek.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DS9 was a real Star Trek show. It just turned some
> off because it took place on a station and not
> primarily on a ship. Plus it didn't have the
> naivete of TNG or TOS, or even the hope of
> Voyager.

DS9's weakness wasn't that it was on a station rather than a ship. They had no problem resorting to Defiant adventures.

The problem with DS9 was the station's characters. It seemed like they wanted Sisko to be a new Kirk, but Avery Brooks couldn't pull it off, and you couldn't tell what was so special about Sisko anyways. Keira and Odo got tiring after a while (aside from Keira in the alternate universe), Dr. Bashir never measured up to Bones or Beverly, and O'Brien was no Scotty. Terry Farrell's Dax was along with 7 of 9 the only real "eye candy with substance" character in the Star Trek series, but it was only when Worf arrived that the full potential of the Dax character was realized. Once TF left the show declined. Quark was the only character who got progressively more interesting throughout the show.

And why would you rate Weyoun above Gul Dukat as a DS9 villain?

mYh7m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Neelix
>
> Ah... The Jar-Jar Binks of Star Trek.



Voyager had a lot of unnecessary characters, a lot of them in the name of diversity.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > DS9 was a real Star Trek show. It just turned
> some
> > off because it took place on a station and not
> > primarily on a ship. Plus it didn't have the
> > naivete of TNG or TOS, or even the hope of
> > Voyager.
>
> DS9's weakness wasn't that it was on a station
> rather than a ship. They had no problem resorting
> to Defiant adventures.


Defiant was only introduced later on.



> The problem with DS9 was the station's characters.
> It seemed like they wanted Sisko to be a new
> Kirk, but Avery Brooks couldn't pull it off, and
> you couldn't tell what was so special about Sisko
> anyways. Keira and Odo got tiring after a while
> (aside from Keira in the alternate universe), Dr.
> Bashir never measured up to Bones or Beverly, and
> O'Brien was no Scotty. Terry Farrell's Dax was
> along with 7 of 9 the only real "eye candy with
> substance" character in the Star Trek series, but
> it was only when Worf arrived that the full
> potential of the Dax character was realized. Once
> TF left the show declined. Quark was the only
> character who got progressively more interesting
> throughout the show.


I never got the impression that they tried emulating the original series. Keira and Dax were hot, and I agree that Worf added a lot to the show.



> And why would you rate Weyoun above Gul Dukat as a
> DS9 villain?


Gul Dukat never had the power or Machiavellian ways that Weyoun had. Plus that Pah Wraith angle that the show took with Dukat was really lame.

>Sisko to be a new Kirk, but Avery Brooks couldn't pull it off

I rather have the feeling that Sisko couldn't hack it on a starship after Wolf 359. He appeared to be suffering from a bit of PTSD. I gather Starfleet put him out on this station where he couldn't get in trouble.

>Keira and Odo got tiring after a while

Sadly, this is just the star-crossed lovers meme. It was dull.

>Dr. Bashir never measured up to Bones or Beverly

His character was ret-conned with the genetic engineering. That was certainly not planned from the beginning. It was just a dumb plot twist. This ruined his character.

>O'Brien was no Scotty.

When you think about it, he must have been fairly competent. He had to learn Cardassian and deal with repairing a technology he probably only had limited experience with. Scotty did this with the Klingon warbird in Star Trek II/III. So comparable. He just wasn't a very interesting person.

>Terry Farrell's Dax was along with 7 of 9

Seven had to a be network executive decision. Dax was planned from the start. As a character, boring until the arrival of Worf. The previous lives of the Dax symbiant makes for interesting characters interactions.

>Quark was the only character who got progressively

He did play the lovable rogue. Not a unique character but played well.

>Gul Dukat

Reluctant spy. Ruthless but it was just a job to him.

yVdbK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> >Gul Dukat
>
> Reluctant spy. Ruthless but it was just a job to
> him.




You're thinking of Garak, the Obsidian Order agent turned tailor.

Kira was hot too.



-
Attachments:

Deanna Troi.
Attachments:

Best TV villians, people, not best sci fi boobs...that's for a different thread. A thread which will, no doubt, be very popular.

This one qualifies as an actual villian, who happens to have awesome boobs: Safron fron Firefly.

JR Ewing on Dallas.

One problem you run into with true villains on TV is that they don't tend to last very long. The hero of the show usually bests them in a season or less, or they morph into a more complex sometimes bad/sometimes good character to explain why the hero tolerates him. Shows like House of Cards and Dallas have an advantage in that the villain is the center of the show.

Bill.N. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One problem you run into with true villains on TV
> is that they don't tend to last very long.




Yeah, but Gus Fring probably had one of the best deaths on TV ever.

another lame thread posted by eesh the moron, clooging the board witrh stupid shit for years

It was one of the best TV deaths ever!


eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bill.N. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > One problem you run into with true villains on
> TV
> > is that they don't tend to last very long.
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, but Gus Fring probably had one of the best
> deaths on TV ever.

Boyd Crowder from Justified,,,
Attachments:

Hatemotor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boyd Crowder from Justified,,,

Yes. Boyd Crowder is awesome. Thing about him, though, is that he's not really a totally evil villian, more of a likeable outlaw who will kill you if you have it comin'.

"I may not know alot, but I do know how to blow shit up!" - Boyd Crowder

So was Gus a homosexual?

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So was Gus a homosexual?

Yes. I thought that was pretty obvious.

I'M A FIVE-STAR MAN!!

jhey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eesh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So was Gus a homosexual?
>
> Yes. I thought that was pretty obvious.




Okay, it's just a psychopathic homosexual that is violent and unpredictable is not something you see everyday.

Lydia on Breaking Bad is fucking hot. A shame she was poisoned in the end.

Clint Howard as the "Ice Cream Man", the clown Pennywhistle,

jhey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mads Mikkelsen makes a great Hannibal Lecter.




He's the best Hannibal ever. Much better than Anthony Hopkins.

Nellie bar none.