Watched the three hour (!) program on CBS tonight listing the 100 heroes and villains in movie history. Most of them I agree with, but…Cruella DeVille and not Maleficent? Han Solo but not Luke Skywalker? Tarzan but not Sherlock Holmes? Can’t say I’m loving some of the omissions. I think Jimmy Stewart was just a touch overrepresented.
PAD
• 
I always considered Rocky evil.
Atticus Finch? What did he do that was so great? He’s basically a hero for *not* being an ignorant racist? That makes him more heroic than James Bond?
That he stood up amongst adversity to declare that fact makes him more heroic than Bond ever could be. Heroism does not always have to involve action. In fact, many times it has to do with in-action and an internal matter which is more important.
Who is the greater hero… the man who saves the world, or the man who helps the helpless silently? Probably a debate that can go on forever.
Travis
I’m very disappointed that Luke Skywalker is not on the list. Maybe not number 1, but not in the top 50? And the argument that the “heroes” are the protagonists doesn’t work with Obi-Wan. If Luke would have been too much Star Wars, then take Luke instead of Obi-Wan.
And what about Sam Spade? I checked the original list of 400 and didn’t even see him there.
The man who will risk everything to do the right thing is a hero. One could argue that heroes essentially behave as we *should* behave but are to selfish to do so.
Elizabeth:
I commented on my Web site about how top-heavy in the villain category women were, as opposed to being heroes (I won’t get into a black/white thing, though Shaft probably deserved a nod simply for historical impact — probably more so than Keaton’s Batman).
Anyway, women, for some reason, have made the most impressive villains, going back to the Wicked Witch of the West. Disney certainly believed as much (start naming the Big Bads in Disney films, for example).
There was a period in film in which villains (the Vincent Price characters) were somewhat feminized (again, Disney does the same with Scar and Jafar). I don’t know what that implies. It is interesting to think about. I mean, the more sexual a woman is, the more dangerous she seems (Alex from Fatal Attraction, Phyllis from Double Imdemnity, Nurse Ratched in her way). Perhaps it’s that overt control she has over a man. *Shrug*
I would also point out that Ripley and Clarice Starling were distinctly masculine (Ripley was written as a male, I think, and Starling/Lector is a good example of gender switching — Sterling is reserved, taciturn. Lector is flirtatious, seductive…)
Luke is a little whiny punk, not a hero 😉
I must admit to be disapointed that Godzilla was not a villain 🙁
I thought that the #1 hero was a PC move.
So, here’s the two-fers match-ups (where a hero directly fought a villain and vice versa):
#6 Starling vs. #1 Lecter.
#37 Kenobi and #14 Solo vs. #3 Vader
#9 Bailey vs. #6 Potter
#8 Ripley vs. #14 Alien
#13 Schindler vs. #15 Goeth
#48 Terminator vs. #22 Terminator 🙂
#46 Batman vs. #46 Joker
#3 Bond vs. #48 Goldfinger
8 total pairs, roughly one in six of the best had a similarly strong foe.
I was disappoited neither Harper Lee or Thomas Harris was even mentioned once.
Without them the top characters would not exist.
Writers get shafted again.
Well, I can’t say I’d necessarily agree with the order, but most of my picks would be there.
As for Atticus Finch being number one on the heroes side, I say “You’re dámņëd right.” Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch (and Gregory Peck’s depiction of the character) make me proud to be attending law school…if I can be half the lawyer and the man that Atticus was, I’ll be pretty pleased with myself.
As for Jimmy Stewart being over-represented, I’d disagree. Both George Bailey and Jefferson Smith are incredible performances by the man, and display the craft of acting at its finest. Of course, I’m a huge Jimmy Stewart fan anyway, but those two characters, Stewart’s best performances, display the craft of acting and the qualities of heroism, and for that, they’d be high on my personal list.
As I said, I’d quibble about the order, and maybe the omission of Luke Skywalker, but aside from that, I’d agree with the choices themselves.
Disappointed by a few choices… The glaring… GLARING lack of Spidey from the list, for one. Holmes should have been there as well. He’s one of the greats.
And Joel Schumacher for villain! He ruined Batman movies!
Oh, yes… GODZILLA shoulda been on the list! GO GO GODZILLA!
A HUGE “Villain” omission: Ricardo Montalban as Khan in “Star Trek II”. He’s the villain by which all other Star Trek movie villains are always measured against. Additionally, any sci-fi movie review from the past two decades usually judges the film’s villain against Darth Vader or Khan. Easily overlooked, and should’ve been there.
Yes, absolutely, without question: Luke Skywalker belonged on that list. 20 million Luke Skywalker action figures and pajamas can’t be wrong.
And why isn’t Bela Lugosi’s classic portayal of Dracula MUCH higher on the list? (Oh yeah. Because it’s pretty much an arbitrarily chosen list, requiring at least some inclusion of industry “trendy” people like Meryl Streep….)
I’m for Lugosi’s Dracula being on the list, but I thought we should also have seen either Karloff’s Frankenstien or one of Chaney’s characters. The makeup on Phantom of the Opera is still just dámņ scary to me.
I had very few real disagreements with the selections made. I think Superman should have ranked higher, of course. I don’t think Kirk should have been nominated as an individual. Instead, I think the Enterprise crew should have been nominated as a whole, and should have been in the top 50 somewhere. I was mildly disappointed that Khan didn’t make the list, but gave up on him once they hit the top 15 or so.
The biggest problem I had was with the villain top 4 as a whole. I would have put money on Darth Vader and the Wicked Witch of the West taking the top two spots, one way or the other. I daresay that those two are the most iconic villains in cinematic history. There’s no way that Bates or Lechter have had the impact of either of those two.
I was happy with Indy at #2, and was surprised to see Finch at #1 for a minute or so. Then I realized that, particularly at this point in history, there was no more wonderful choice for top hero. While most of the others on the list are fun and exciting heroes, Atticus Finch is a role model.
I didn’t watch the show, but I will say this: When I was a kid, Maleficent scared me. Cruella de Vil didn’t. The moment when the camera focuses on a dark, cold fireplace and Maleficent’s eyes suddenly open in the darkness, for my money, was and is far scarier than any amount of shrieking about Dalmatian pelts…
Paul
Oh, and even though I can’t say I was terribly surprised, I was still kinda disappointed that the Predator didn’t make the cut.
PAD and everyone else: Why put any stock in this show? The AFI are just a bunch of people making a dámņ list. For all its pomp and circumstance, the AFI show is no more important than TV Guide’s latest list of great something-or-others (from which they invariably leave out something that weakens the entire premise of listmaking) or the E! show Rank, the show that declares people like Chris Rock and Tom Green to be among the 25 funniest people in the world. Sorry, but “list” shows are worthless.
The AFI are the same group that declared Citizen Kane to be the #1 movie in American history. Gee, thanks. We never would have figured that one out. Their 100 Funniest Movies list includes movies that were never funny, movies that haven’t been funny for decades, and movies that less than ten percent of living people even remember. Buster Keaton was funny, it’s true, but there’s been a lot funnier stuff since. For a more approachable list — one that, while you may not agree with it, you’ll enjoy reading it — follow this link: http://www.seanbaby.com/ifls/index.html — Here’s a quote from irreverent internet funnyman Seanbaby: “Keeping [#96, Laurel and Hardy’s Sons of the Desert] on the Top 100 Funniest Films list is like Consumer Reports adding Horse Drawn Carriage to their list of Top 100 Greatest Automobiles.” Whether you agree or not, it’s certainly easier to associate with. Forgive them for having not yet finished it.
Oh, and Peter: Well said over on Newsarama. I prefer to think of [YJ] as underrated by its detractors.
Couldn’t agree with you more. I was about to comment when I saw yours.
Sherlock Holmes deserved a spot in the top 10!
I’m grateful that Superman and Tarzan were mentioned at all. I would’ve liked to see Luke Skywalker on the list, but I can live with the choice of Han Solo.
But ANY list of movie “heroes” that includes Butch Cassidy and omits Hopalong Cassidy is totally f—ed up!
Mike
Don’t know if this was mentioned or not cause I didn’t have time to read the whole blog… But why did Freddy Kruger get on the list and not Michael Myers… Freddy was cool and all for a villian but Michael was far crepuer because he could almost exist…
PAD and everyone else: Why put any stock in this show? The AFI are just a bunch of people making a dámņ list
Yes, exactly. And it’s fun to debate. I agree that some of the responses have gotten a bit vociferous, but, what the hey, it beats the political debates.
Their 100 Funniest Movies list includes movies that were never funny, movies that haven’t been funny for decades, and movies that less than ten percent of living people even remember
Sorry, I can’t agree with you on that one. Like anything else, it’s a matter of perspective. No two people are going to laugh at the same things all the time, and while I agree that this makes such a list irrelevent, it doesn’t mean that something isn’t funny based on whether or not X or Y laughs.
Furthermore, the list is not “The 100 Funniest Movies” but “100 Years, 100 Laughs” (IIRC). It wouldn’t make sense if a list with that name consisted only of movies from the past two or three decades. The Seanbaby quote doesn’t make sense; the horse-drawn carriage obviously isn’t an automobile, and “Sons of the Desert” is obviously a comedy, so it’s apples and oranges. What would you think of a list titled “100 Years, 100 Automobiles” that didn’t include the Model T? Just because not many people drive them now doesn’t mean they were never important.
Gee, thanks. We never would have figured that one out.
So now they’re being criticized for a statement most people would agree with? Talk about dámņëd if you do, dámņëd if you don’t…
In point of fact, if you go to the AFI website (www.afi.com), which Seanbaby and pals obviously didn’t, you’ll note that a film’s legacy was one of the specific criteria the voters were grading on. Which makes sense, since their goal is to celebrate film history. (Their definition of “hero” and “villain” for the purposes of their list.)
They also explain how the films were voted on. A lot of people need to remember that. This was not a list selected by one person with the intent of placing one character above another for specific reason. Nor is it automatically the unanimous opinion of every member of the AFI. A lot of people are trying to make this something it isn’t.
A film had to come out before January 1, 2002 to be considered for this list. As such, SPIDER-MAN missed the cut-off. Harry Potter and the Fellowship of the Ring (hmmm…. there’s a parody in that if you take it as a title…) were eligible by a couple of months. Gandalf was on the nomination list, the only representative of LOTR. Harry Potter was not even nominated.
A lot of the other characters being noted as glaring ommissions WERE on the nominations list, they just didn’t make the final cut.
Frankly, I think Kirk, Spock, and Khan didn’t amke the cut because despite ten STAR TREK films, TREK is still seen as primarily a television phenomenon.
Much more commentary on this at my new blog.
Was anyone bothered by the inclusion of “Man” as a villain, to wit, the villain in BAMBI? I don’t hunt, but I know many good men and women who do. To me, this just seemed more like a pc jab at hunters than a serious entry in the list.
For a lot of people, the death of Bambi’s mother was a major point in their childhood. I suspect that the hunter (and the Wicked Witch of the West, and Captain Hook, and possibly Darth Vader) have had more impact on peoples’ lives than Hannibal Lechter ever has (or will). (And remember my point about this not being a designed list–any perceived message is likely in your imagination.)
Gary Robinson:
Was anyone bothered by the inclusion of “Man” as a villain, to wit, the villain in BAMBI? I don’t hunt, but I know many good men and women who do. To me, this just seemed more like a pc jab at hunters than a serious entry in the list.
Actually, that was my favorite choice, but mainly because I don’t like people. 🙂
I suppose I’m not really stating my issues with the AFI, I’m merely lashing out, seemingly at random, and you’re absolutely right; I’m being unfair.
My big problem with what they do is… why all the fanfare? Why is their list so important? Why is it important at all? The AFI lists are a pointless exercise in pomp and circumstance that just serve to let a group of (as far as I’m concerned, anyway) random people to pretend their personal choices carry any weight.
Tons of people agree that Citizen Kane is among the greatest movies ever made. There are plenty of other movies that are up there that didn’t make the list, or even get voted on. Unless every single one of these people has seen every American movie ever made and each represent in attitude and taste each aspect of American culture, the list says nothing of value.
I can’t see that it has no value. A friend and I have started watching through the original list of 100, as it happens (which might be why I’m a bit defensive here). I find it of value because it’s a list of films that people who know something about film believe to be worth seeing. That doesn’t mean it’s all-inclusive or definitive (although being voted on by a group does reduce the effect of individual bias). But it’s a good starting point. Without the list I would probably never have seen “Yankee Doodle Dandy” or “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” but I’m glad I did. And if the lists get other people to take a second look at good films they might otherwise have overlooked, then that’s of value too.
I disagreed with putting Thelma and Louise on the “hero” list. I suppose I have a skewed perception from being a prosecutor (lawyer, therefore villain, but public interest, therefore hero…) but even as a high school student when that movie came out, I kept a body count of probable police fatalities in that last chase. If they belong anywhere it’s probably as “villain.” I did think it was pretty cool to see someone else voice a similar opinion in this thread, though. We rock.
Atticus Finch was a perfectly reasonable choice to be the top hero. One post inquired whether merely being NOT racist was heroic, but when you are the only non-racist in town, I’d have to say yes, that is impressive, and when you take a stand for it, it rises to the level of heroism. It’s all the more impressive for being an heroic feat that virtually everyone could accomplish but that almost no one did, at least in that era. (No opinion expressed as to what the percentages are now.)
Julio:
My own film nerd comments about the definition of villains, heroes, and anti-heros.
You’re mostly correct that Travis Bickle is an antihero. In fact, that’s the whole point of the movie! Because Travis, a certifiable nutjob, lets loose his rage on “the right people” after failing to assasinate a presidential candidate, he is hailed as a hero!
The irony of AFI’s list is that it labels Dirty Harry, a classic antihero of the film noir style (not someone you’d want to hang out with but definitely preferable to pretty much everyone else in the film), a hero, when really he and Bickle should be in the same support group.
(Scorsese based Bickle on John Wayne’s character in “The Searchers,” after all, which is telling.)
I’ve never seen “Friends,” but I find it hard to believe there could be a greater TV program villain than Killer Bob.
Regarding the Movie list, I’m another who thinks that, if Hans Gruber makes it, than John McClane should, also. I don’t understand how Clarice Starling could possibly beat out Ripley, or anyone else, for that matter. Frank Booth should have been much higher.
Okay, so the list of omissions is long and glaring (no Luke Skywalker? Heresy!), but I was still overjoyed to see the shark from Jaws get a nod! Few villians get quite the same primal reaction from moviegoers, and I was glad that a few “non-actors” got recognized. Hëll, if Lassie gets credit as a hero, then “Bruce” deserves his due.
Now if only the AFI will do The AFI’s Top 100 Stupid Award Shows and The AFI’s Top 100 Superficial Bûllšhìŧ Lists.
“24. Thelma Dickinson and Louise Sawyer (Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon), ??Thelma and Louise.??”
Agree with those who feel they should be classed as villains. Though, even as such, they hardly merit inclusion in the list.
“Has there ever been a really accurate portrayal of Holmes on screen?”
As someone else pointed out, Jeremy Brett got it down to a “T”. Even Moriarty was perfect.
“The Bond movies are a LOT better than the Tarzan movies.”
Both are so far from the books in some ways that they can scarcely be counted as representing the original stories.
“If they ever made a top 50 villians on TV my choice for the # 1 spot would be Rachel Green from friends.”
If you’re going to go the tv movie route (and pity they didn’t, because I know some which were far better than 99% of what Hokeywood puts up on one cinema screens), then I’d unhesitatingly nominate the main protagonists of the superb CITIZEN X to the lists.
The true story of a hunt for a horrifying serial killer in Soviet Russia, this film features a genuine monster (Chiakotely(sp?) who gruesomely sexually assaults and brutally kills over 50 people, most of them children. On the flip side is Burakov who spends more time fighting the Soviet regime as he does trying to catch this monster. The lack of support by the government – sometimes going as far as outright obstructionism – all the while the locality’s children are being killed off, is a good part of the reason why Burakov winds up suffering a near complete breakdown in the course of the relentless ten year investigation. Yet, he doggedly resumes the chase as soon as he is fit enough to do so, despite ongoing problems from the higher-ups. (“There are no serial killers in the Soviet Union. It is a decadent Western penomena.” – Politbureau officer)
To the poster named Alan M:
It is curious as to how you talk about Indiana Jones being at his least heroic in the Temple of Doom, yet in an earlier thread in which I was arguing about stereotypes, you resorted to insulting language, which is also something very un-heroic, and which makes you no better than me.
It is curious as to how you felt that way, yet you went to all that trouble to point out on a board that isn’t even your own, how you thought that my arguments were invalid and ridiculous.
Needless to say, if that’s how you’re going to behave on a website that isn’t even your own, then your arguments bear no weight and they lose credibility.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why you resorted to insulting language and sneering when you didn’t have to? And most importantly, perhaps you’d care to explain why you abused Mr. David’s board? Yes, why on earth did you abuse Mr. David’s website for the purpose of posting insulting messages against someone whom you don’t even know personally? Are you really a fan of PAD’s?
If you want to send me an e-mail to discuss this whole matter in private, you may do so. I have posted my e-mail address in the form there, and if you want to contact me in private to explain yourself, go right ahead.
i think harry should have been on the list as well, even though he is a litlle new… but Neo, he shouldn’t be close, he is way too over rated…
come on!!!!!!!! luke skywalker not in the top 50..absolute garbage..I guess ben kenobi and han solo are better heroes even though he was the main hero in those movies..NOT..that is the worst thing I have ever seen
Amon Goeth is a composite Nazi.
And you would be wrong! Thank you for playing! Wonderful parting gifts ect……..