My own self

This past extended weekend, I've watched through all the Harry Potter-movies released on DVD so far. One on New Year's Day, one on the second, one on Saturday and two on Sunday. The first one I'd seen two or three times before. The second and third, once each. Additionally, I've read the first three books a number of times, and the fourth book once. Not surprisingly, then, I found myself enjoying the movies more and more and the series progressed and I had less and less of a memory of what would happen.

First impression? With the possible exception of the third one, the movies felt a little long whenever I knew the story. However, the choice to make them long keep them closer to the books and heavier on the details, which is good. But it does damage the re-watching enjoyment somewhat when you look at the watch and realise that dear lord, there is still a good hour and a half left of this thing.

That aside, I had a pretty decent time. Harry Potter has always rubbed me the wrong way due to the (I feel highly unjustifiable) hype, but the actual stories are quite alright. The the ones I've read were not the stellar gift to the genre that so many people seem to think by a far cry, but they were alright and enjoyable. I also like that they seem to get increasingly adult and dark as the characters grow up.

The choice to have my two favourite characters from the books be played by some of my favourite actors (Gary Oldman as Black and Alan Rickman as Snape, if you wondered) is obviously a nice treat. And even though my third favourite from the books was not played by someone I knew from before, I thought that David Thewlis did a nice job with him. Dumbledore was alright, though I wasn't impressed by neither Richard Harris nor Michael Gambon's interpretations of him. Harris was a good notch better than Gambon, though, as Gambon seems to have this inexplicably aggressive interpretation of the character which rubs all sorts of wrong ways.

Voldemort was cool until he finally appears in person, at which point he looks like a circus freak sans nose and I start to wish that Lucius Malfoy was the main villain instead.

The world is very well done and looks beautiful, scary and impressive whenever it needs to. The continuity impresses as well, frequently making sure to put bits of information and hints into the movies one or two entire installments before it is relevant. Also, the increasingly dark nature of the stories is handled very well. Mostly, the musical theme has struck me as immensely memorable and mood-inducing. And the Dursleys are absolutely perfect.

Rundown:
The Philosopher's Stone: 7/10
The Chamber of Secrets: 7.5/10
The Prisoner of Azkaban: Weak 8.5/10
The Goblet of Fire: 7.5/10
The Order of the Phoenix: 8/10

Or so I think. It's hard to keep it all apart, books and movies and all.

I wanted to make a post. I can't think of anything to post about. Thus, I search my mind. What do I come up with?



Please, as if you don't know it'll be Whedon-related.




Well, it won't. Not per se.


It'll be LISTS! LISTS! LIIIIIIISTS!



Ehrm. I'm calm now. Really, I'm calm.




LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIISTS!


TOP FIFTEEN VILLAINS OF ALL BOOKS, TV-SERIES, MOVIES AND COMICS I CAN THINK OF.
Many of these characters have lots of different incarnations, and I list only those I am both familiar with and like.

1. The Joker (from the comics "Batman" and the television-series "Batman the Animated Series")
2. Lex Luthor (from the modern-age comics "Superman" and television-series "Smallville" and "Lois & Clark")
3. Darken Rahl (from the book-series "the Sword of Truth")
4. Grand Admiral Thrawn (from the "Thrawn-trilogy" book-series of Star Wars)
5. Angelus (from the television-series "Angel" and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer")
6. Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr (from the comics "X-men", "Ultimate X-men" and the "X-men" movies)
7. The Phantom Blot (from the "Mickey Mouse"-comics)
8. Doctor Victor von Doom (from the comics "Fantastic Four", "Ultimate Fantastic Four" and the "Fantastic Four"-movie)
9. Shere Khan (of the "Jungle Book"-book, Disney's "The Jungle Book"-movie and the "Jungle Book: Shaonen Mowgli"-television series)
10. Scar (of the "Lion King"-movie)
11. Holland Manners (of the "Angel"-television series)
12. Lionel Luthor (of the "Smallville"-television series)
13. Martel (of the "Elenium"-books)
14. Saruman (of the "Lord of the Rings"-book and ditto movies)
15. Hans Gruber (from the "Die Hard"-movie - there's probably lots of villains I like better that I'm just not trying hard enough to remember, but I just had to get Alan Rickman on the list)

(notable characters who'd probably have made the list if I had considered them true villains: The Janitor from the "Scrubs" television-series, Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish from "A Song of Ice and Fire"-fantasy book-series and Lucifer from the "Sandman" and "Lucifer"-comics.)

Remember that this is probably highly dependent on my unreliable memory and moods.

Now, we have a list, what can we surmise from it? Well, if you dismiss characters acting out of uncontrolled insanity (The Joker), pure greed (Gruber, Saruman, Scar) or megalomaniacally based actions without further reasoning behind them than ego (Shere Khan, The Blot, Doom, Rahl), that means seven of my favourite villains can be considered, in their own ways, heroes. (That doesn't mean the eight I listed before can't, mind, it just means I'm not going to try)

- Lex Luthor
Lex is a fascinating example of what a really excellently made antagonist can be. Something that intrigues me about him especially is how he is the opposite to Superman. Superman is emotional, caring, emphatic, Lex is cool, distanced, cynical. What makes this so intriguing is that the same parallell exists between The Batman and The Joker. Batman is analytical, strategical, level-headed and surgical in his actions. The Joker is instinctive, random, unpredictable and insane. This, though of course not an exact parallell, places Batman and Lex on the same side of the scale. (And, amusingly enough, Joker and Superman on the other) This fascinates me - Superman's total antagonist have far more in common with Superman's arguably closest ally than with almost any other character in the DCU. I dunno, it just fascinates me.
To get back to the point, though, Lex is more than a mere villain who is wants to take over the world. Yes, he wants to take over the world, but he has reasons that, while questionable, are far more valid than the average super-powered warlord-wannabe's. Lex considers himself the most intelligent man on Earth - which may even be true. Thus, he considers himself best suited for leading mankind. Which, again, may be called a rational line of thought. He considers the greatest potential threath to humanity to be a Superman turned tyrant. Again, this is very probably a sound estimate, as Superman is one of, if not the, most powerful single creature in the earthly DCU, magics not taken into consideration. So, he reasons, as the world's natural leader, it falls on him to rid them of this potential threath before it is too late.
Lex, in his own eyes, is a self-sacrificing hero. His reasoning for innocents being killed as a result of his acquiring more power is "necessary casualties for the greater good". If he is to lead humanity, which he by his reasoning should do for humanity's sake, against a foe like Superman, he'll need whatever resources he can get.

- Grand Admiral Thrawn
Another "greater good" kind of person. He really just wants order, and like Lex, considers himself the best suited person to manufacture this order. In fact, putting him on the villain-list at all is something I do with doubt.

- Angelus
Is not crazy (in the sense that his actions are random and irrational), nor is he greedy or obsessed by his own ego. He's just evil. He likes it when bad things happen to other people. He may very well be the best display of a purely sadistic villain with no power-hungry main motive whatsoever I've ever seen.

- Eric Magnus "Magneto" Lensherr
He wants equality. Or, allright, not equality, he wants to practice a kind of humanitarian darwinism. Mutants are more developed than humans, ergo they should be put in better positions in society. This does not mean humans should be treated poorly, they are intelligent life, but they should ideally not be treated as as good as mutants - and under no circumstances as betters. He does, at times, go to extremes to reach his goals, and thus is considered a terrorist and a villain, but at heart, he's just a staunch defender of what he sees as his leaderless people, a people mistreated and bereft of priviligies. Sure, he thinks a hell of a lot of himself, but why shouldn't he? He is, after all, very intelligent and immensly powerful.

- Holland Manners
While it is dubious, Holland appears to at one time in his life has chosen to work for evil to be able to do greater good later in his life - at least this is the lesson he tries to teach his protegè Lindsey McDonald. This means he follows a code of ethics that will always allow him to let monsterous things happen with a clear conscience - he simply convinces himself "this will make me more powerful, and thus at a later point in time able to do even greater good than stopping this right now would be"...

- Lionel Luthor
As I see this character, though this can certainly be argued, he wants power for his son, not for himself. Everything he does is aimed at molding and shaping his son to be the greatest man who ever lived - as Lionel rates these things. This is very unegositical, and thus, I think, very un-villain-like.

- Martel
He's an odd one. He seems to have betrayed his order, mentors and boyhood friends for power, but he seems to half-way regret his choice throughout the entire trilogy of books. Due to some kind of personal set of ethics, he never tries to repent his misdeeds, though, he just seems to accept that he has chosen to be the bad-guy and, somewhat melancholy, acts like the bad-guy. His last words, though, were to the mentor he betrayed and the man who killed him - saying they were the only two people he ever loved.