PDA

View Full Version : Characters you hate



Jayngfet
2008-06-05, 11:33 PM
I was wondering what characters the various playgrounders didn't like for various reasons, this can range from annoyance to outright hatered.

Mine are Ryoko from Tenchi Muyo and Quenthel and Jegred Banre.

Ryoko I find irritating because of what she's done prior to the series and early on, the whole murdering thousands of people and threatening to kill Sasami in front of everyone and getting away with it, not that I don't like everything else about her.

Quenthel and Jegred get outright hatered, Quenthel's a bratty premadona, for example:She learns she's being attacked, she's staved off similar attacks twice now, she has an arsenal of magic items better than a good deal of the worlds wizards and clerics, and yet she wakes up the whole school to defend her when she knows that betrayal in danger is a common trait among drow(later on a craftsperson stabs an ally in the middle of a fight because she was a business rival), and refuses to put up alarms or traps. llater in the series she takes from her allies, the ones who've proven themselves by normal standards and aren't even a threat, she were trying to tend to her wounds when she took her things as her home was crumbling around her, she fails to lead, fails to uphold her goddesses name in front of her, fails to figure out the person trying to kill her(Hmm, all clerics have lost magic, my brother unofficially rules with me gone, only wizards can still call demons, my brother is quite possibly the worlds greatest wizard and obviously calls demons, I'm stumped).

Jeggred is a two dimensional idiot, all he does is kill people for fun, he rarely gets the spotlight and exists to be quenthels enforcer because she claims leadership over the party despite losing all of her spells and using her best magic items, and he fails. Other characters influence her, disrespect her(where such a thing would normally earn them execution or torture), and he fails to do anything other than kill things weaker than him, often when he has backup.

Anyway, enough ranting, what characters do you dislike?

SurlySeraph
2008-06-05, 11:37 PM
Holden Caulfield. Just... Holden Caulfield.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-06-06, 12:51 AM
You're kinda supposed to hate Holden...I think. At least, you are if you're older than 16.

Emperor Tippy
2008-06-06, 01:10 AM
Holden Caulfield. Just... Holden Caulfield.
Did you actually manage to finish that piece of literary ****? I think I got the first chapter read, flipped through the rest, realized it didn't get any better, and just payed attention to inclass discussions so I could pass the tests.

Only worse book we had to read in school was Beloved.

Hmm, characters I hate. Let's see. Can't think of any off the top of my head, a few in SoIaF but I can't remember names (need to reread those books).

SurlySeraph
2008-06-06, 01:45 AM
Did you actually manage to finish that piece of literary ****? I think I got the first chapter read, flipped through the rest, realized it didn't get any better, and just payed attention to inclass discussions so I could pass the tests.

I virtually always read books through no matter how bad they are, and I always read school books through. What kept me going was that Salinger has a decent writing style, even if he wastes it on dull, incredibly cliched works about how angsty children are much more intelligent than everyone else and how emotional sensitivity is a more important trait than basic competence.

I was the only one in my class who hated Holden (this was in 9th grade). And there was a girl in the class who kept saying she wished he was real so she could marry him. :smallfurious:

hanzo66
2008-06-06, 01:47 AM
Y'know, my English teacher (a 25 year old) stated that she herself has found Holden to be much too Wangsty and somewhat annoying.

Manga Shoggoth
2008-06-06, 04:13 AM
Ryoko I find irritating because of what she's done prior to the series and early on, the whole murdering thousands of people and threatening to kill Sasami in front of everyone and getting away with it, not that I don't like everything else about her.

There are three mitigating circumstances for Ryoko (at least, the OAV version, which is the only one I know being in the UK...):


The original crimes were committed under the influence of Kagato, who had a huge influence over her (including mind control).
Nothing could be done legally about them as the statute of limitation had passed (literally a few minutes after Ayeka found her).
Her threats to Sasami (in the OAV) were after she had been illegally imprisoned and tortured by Ayeka.


Characters I hate? Bane in the Batman film! In the comic a shrewd and able enemy who masterminds a plan to bring Batman down, and succeeds. In the film, a mook in an inflatable full body suit who goes "Urk" and hits things.

DomaDoma
2008-06-06, 08:52 AM
So, we're talking characters I hate as literary constructs, and not because I'm supposed to? All right, this'll be much shorter.

Yes, Holden Caulfield definitely tops the list, spending the entire book whining at nothing in particular with a core vocabulary the size of a tablespoon.

Emiya Shirou of Fate/Stay Night, at least in the anime, manages to be a stupidly-noble character I don't actually like by shifting the focus dramatically to the "stupid" part of the equation. Call Saber from the fray if you must, but for crying out loud, recognize that she, unlike you, stands a whiff of a chance against any adversary in the blooming show. Not to mention that it takes him until the third-last episode to realize he loves her, which was apparent to any audience member with brain cells in the second episode. Ngghgghh.

There's someone else on the tip of my brain, but I suppose they can't be that important.

Mr. Scaly
2008-06-06, 09:01 AM
Hmm...not sure if TV characters count here, but what the Heck. Jack McCoy. That whole 'go to any lengths to get justice' smells too much like obsession to sit completely right with me, and even though he's supposed to be a good guy some of the stuff he does gives me the chills. Seriously, when a guy indites a fellow lawyer for murder just because he was defending a guilty client, he should not be inn charge of pursuing justice.

It occurs to me that I should have Inspector Lunge on the list too but he can pull it off somehow.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-06, 09:09 AM
You're kinda supposed to hate Holden [Caulfield]...I think. At least, you are if you're older than 16.

The book is a kind of mirror for under 16s so they can look at a part of themselves and reflect on how other people see them.
The book, IMO is pretty bad anyway, but it serves its purpose to some degree.

The particular character that stands out for me is the kid called Jimmy in Raymond E. Feist's fantasy Riftwar saga.
The kid solves all problems, does all deeds, frankly acts as a panacea to every trouble the court of heroic nobles has ever encountered. A bit too much Marty Stu in an otherwise excellent series really. He even appears in later books as older and enobled .

Cristo Meyers
2008-06-06, 09:10 AM
Lesse...

Half the characters of Rent (which is weird, because I love most of the music...)

Cauffield goes without saying...

Carlos, the Jackal (Bourne Trilogy): just so bloody full of himself

I'm sure there's more, I just can't think of them right now.

Trizap
2008-06-06, 09:15 AM
huh, speaking of Holden Caulfield, my class just finished Catcher in the Rye, I didn't like or dislike it, I only found it mildly interesting, strange thing is a class assignment was to write a short story about Holden Caulfield in the Salinger style......and people who read mine said that it sounded exactly like Holden :smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

anyways, characters I hate? well huh, never really hated any character, not even Holden, maybe cause I know they are just characters in a book, fictional.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-06, 09:43 AM
You could try letting yourself feel emotional about the characters, briefly, not seriously. It's healthy to empathise with fictional situations.

This is why my wife shouts at the television when watching bad soaps (e.g. Eastenders), and why people cry when watching sad films. (E.g. Watership Down makes me cry)

Haruki-kun
2008-06-06, 04:05 PM
I HATED Light Yagami. :smallfurious:

Hated hated hated hated.....

Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated HATEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that explains my feelings quite well.

Oh, yeah, and... I didn't like Suiseiseki from Rozen Maiden much, but I don't think I hated her as much.

Sylar from Heroes. I get that he's the villain, but usually Villains have something that makes me like them just for that and he does not.

Hallavast
2008-06-06, 05:12 PM
I HATED Light Yagami. :smallfurious:

Hated hated hated hated.....

Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated hated Hated hated hated HATEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think that explains my feelings quite well.

Oh, yeah, and... I didn't like Suiseiseki from Rozen Maiden much, but I don't think I hated her as much.

Sylar from Heroes. I get that he's the villain, but usually Villains have something that makes me like them just for that and he does not.
:smalleek:

...Dare I ask why?

Tengu
2008-06-06, 05:19 PM
Werther, the second emo in literature (Hamlet was first). He had everything - talent in poetry, a nice home in the countryside, a girlfriend... and he spent his whole life moping instead of enjoying it. He couldn't even kill himself properly - he shot himself in the head in the evening but the bullet spent half the night looking for the brain. And we are supposed to be moved by his poor fate.

Terraoblivion
2008-06-06, 05:38 PM
Not sure Werther was only the second emo in literature. I am sure there were quite a few before him apart from Hamlet, but i cannot name any off the top of my head.

What i submit is every single one of the useless, annoying, middle aged American men with a midlife crisis i had to read stories about in high school English. They were all just annoying and pointless and with stories none of us had any reason to care about. Then again i hated most parts of high school English, so i guess it is to be expected.

Crow
2008-06-06, 05:54 PM
The particular character that stands out for me is the kid called Jimmy in Raymond E. Feist's fantasy Riftwar saga.
The kid solves all problems, does all deeds, frankly acts as a panacea to every trouble the court of heroic nobles has ever encountered. A bit too much Marty Stu in an otherwise excellent series really. He even appears in later books as older and enobled .


Are you talking about "Jimmy the Hand"? Or some other Jimmy?

GrassyGnoll
2008-06-06, 06:09 PM
The older sister to the midget in "Cat's Cradle"

ALL of the characters from Rent

Brienne of Tarth, Brandon Stark, and Hodor

Doctor Manhattan For not dying when Veidt zapped him.

Rabban the Beast

The mother from Little Miss Sunshine, the only character to not learn anything.

Knives. Not for being a bad character himself, but by being so eclipsed by Legato.

Rei, yeah, like we didn't see that coming.

The Doctor's new assistant. I want smexy Freema Agyeman back!

I think that's all the hate I can manage for now

AslanCross
2008-06-06, 06:14 PM
Not sure Werther was only the second emo in literature. I am sure there were quite a few before him apart from Hamlet, but i cannot name any off the top of my head.

What i submit is every single one of the useless, annoying, middle aged American men with a midlife crisis i had to read stories about in high school English. They were all just annoying and pointless and with stories none of us had any reason to care about. Then again i hated most parts of high school English, so i guess it is to be expected.

Like Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman? I didn't particularly enjoy taking up that play. To the average middle-class Filipino high school student, the angst of a middle-aged American father is a bit pointless.

I personally hate Oliver Twist, but that's likely because I can't stand the whole book. It wasn't really the character's fault that the author's style is particularly overbearing. I'm so glad we took that out of our curriculum. Writing a test on it was as painful as actually answering it.

DomaDoma
2008-06-06, 06:22 PM
:smalleek:

...Dare I ask why?

Do you really need to ask why?? Certainly past the five- or seven-episode mark (volume two), you must get some indication...

This does seem the wrong sort of hate thread for it, though...

mentatzarkon
2008-06-06, 06:26 PM
Not sure Werther was only the second emo in literature. I am sure there were quite a few before him apart from Hamlet, but i cannot name any off the top of my head.

Dare I suggest Job?
/ducks for cover

Terraoblivion
2008-06-06, 06:34 PM
Job wasn't an emo. He lost everything before he even complained in the slightest. He was more like psychotically cheerful and accepting. In short Job was a rare, male Yamato Nadeshiko. I am sure his looks were also good but in a modest non-threatening way.

Kane
2008-06-06, 06:38 PM
Holden Caulfield. Just... Holden Caulfield.

What book inspires so much loathing?

Also, just about the whole cast of Lord of the Flies. (For school! I'd never read that on my own!)

And, Napoleon and to a lesser extent, Snowball from Animal Farm. (Does pseudo-fiction count?)

NinjaHippy
2008-06-06, 06:47 PM
Man, I liked Lord of the Flies...

However, most "hey-look-at-me-I-am-awesomly-badass" characters from video games irritate the crap out of me (Marcus Fenix from Gears of War comes to mind) just because that style of character is so overused it makes me ill. Also, Judge Swan(n?) from Pirates, as well as any other character that actor has played. That voice... dear heavens, that voice.

Hallavast
2008-06-06, 06:47 PM
Do you really need to ask why?? Certainly past the five- or seven-episode mark (volume two), you must get some indication...

This does seem the wrong sort of hate thread for it, though...

Exactly.


He may be a sociopath that doesn't care about anyone but himself, but at least he has style. I mean, if I took the time to hate every arrogant psychotic villain out there, then fiction just wouldn't be the same for me. One of the reasons I like Death Note is the dramatic interactions between Light and L.

I was just wondering if there's some other reason that would spur on such deep seeted vehemence.

Jorkens
2008-06-06, 07:07 PM
The Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe is pretty good for hateable characters, ie pretty much all of them. That's the point, obviously, that's part of the reason it's such a great book, but still - if there's not enough bile in your life, this could be the book for you.

Sotextli
2008-06-06, 10:27 PM
I am sure there were quite a few before him apart from Hamlet,

Why exactly is Hamlet considered emo?

Jack Squat
2008-06-06, 10:31 PM
Why exactly is Hamlet considered emo?

Have you not read the play? He mopes around for 30 years when he's supposed to be getting revenge. Also that whole "to be or not to be" speech, where he's contemplating suicide.


EDIT: I hate every last character in Wuthering Heights except Heathcliff. Yes, I even despise Fanny.

Terraoblivion
2008-06-06, 10:41 PM
I am pretty sure it isn't thirty years, but only a few years at most. Now Amled the original character Hamlet is based on mopes around for a lot longer, as his father was explicitly killed while he was a kid. The story is quite different though, so it is not really fair to call them the same character.

Sotextli
2008-06-06, 10:46 PM
Yes, I did happen to read the play. I think he had every right to "mope" around, what with his father's disembodied manifestation haunting his dreams, and the contemplation of killing his own flesh and blood, not to mention the insanity that was slowly creeping in on him.

As for the To Be or Not To Be soliloquy; did we read the same play? There was hardly anything "emo" about musing on the act of suicide, especially when things seem so incredibly hopeless.

Incompetent perhaps, but not emo.

AslanCross
2008-06-06, 11:09 PM
Yes, I did happen to read the play. I think he had every right to "mope" around, what with his father's disembodied manifestation haunting his dreams, and the contemplation of killing his own flesh and blood, not to mention the insanity that was slowly creeping in on him.

As for the To Be or Not To Be soliloquy; did we read the same play? There was hardly anything "emo" about musing on the act of suicide, especially when things seem so incredibly hopeless.

Incompetent perhaps, but not emo.

I agree. I tend to take the emo label with a grain of salt. I see it as merely a convenient (but possibly inaccurate) term that we apply a bit too readily to characters with dark, brooding attitudes. When I took up Hamlet in High School, we would use "nihilistic" to describe his soliloquy. And that was only around 10 years ago.

Jack Squat
2008-06-06, 11:12 PM
See, I believe he was wrong to put off the vengance. Seriously, he basically just kept forgetting to kill Claudius, he had plenty of reason to kill him right off the bat, and IIRC, he was actually planning on it at first.

As for the To Be or Not to Be...things weren't hopeless, he had plenty of chances to off Claudius. Hamlet was just too lame to kill his muderous uncle, and was thinking of a way out. He's saying that things are so bad that it'd be better not to exist...how's that not emo?

Raging Gene Ray
2008-06-06, 11:13 PM
It's been many years since high school...but I remember hating Polonius in that play. Not the character, just how contrived he was as a literary device. He hides behind a curtain to spy on Hamlet, Hamlet sticks his sword into the curtain thinking it's Claudius, Hamlet tells Polonius he deserved it. It seemed more like a sitcom than a play that was supposed to embody all that loftiness associated with Shakespeare.

Terraoblivion
2008-06-06, 11:25 PM
What makes Hamlet emo is that he spends so much time agonizing over what to do and telling us about how he agonizes over it and terrorizing people in the castle because of his turmoil, instead of just making a decision. I personally don't believe in murder being justify, but Hamlet is just such a large ham who wants to make it perfectly clear to both the audience and the rest of the court that he suffers more than they can possibly imagine. Sounds like emo is a pretty fitting description of that.

Sotextli
2008-06-06, 11:45 PM
See, I believe he was wrong to put off the vengance. Seriously, he basically just kept forgetting to kill Claudius, he had plenty of reason to kill him right off the bat, and IIRC, he was actually planning on it at first.

As for the To Be or Not to Be...things weren't hopeless, he had plenty of chances to off Claudius. Hamlet was just too lame to kill his muderous uncle, and was thinking of a way out. He's saying that things are so bad that it'd be better not to exist...how's that not emo?

Could you, assuming that you are in fact a youth, probably a schoolboy with very little knowledge of the more vicious side of life, possibly even contemplate the murder of your own uncle, on what basically amounts to a delusional fantasy? I think that Hamlet is justified in his hesitation. Not just that, but what exactly was Hamlet supposed to do after he offed Claudius?

@Terra; I guess it comes down to different interpretations. I didn't get the same message out of the play that you did, it seems. I don't think that Hamlet's acting the fool was a product of his madness, but in fact is the reverse. In order to make it so that no one suspected that he was possibly up to no good, he acted like a complete loon. After a while, he gets so used to the act that the line between this facade and his actual personality becomes blurred.

SurlySeraph
2008-06-07, 01:29 AM
I hate every last character in Wuthering Heights except Heathcliff. Yes, I even despise Fanny.

Wait. You hate everyone EXCEPT Heathcliff? How do you not hate that manipulative prick?

TigerHunter
2008-06-07, 02:09 AM
Cersei Lannister needs to die a horrible, painful death.

Zenos
2008-06-07, 08:14 AM
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Eragon.

All the Lannister family with the exception of Tyrion.

cnsvnc
2008-06-07, 10:16 AM
I hated each and every single major character in Wheel of Time, and a lot of minor characters. All were either pricks, dumbasses or a combination of two.

I also hate Paris. One stupid, horny bastard had his entire country all but destroyed. Damn wanker...

My hate for Arthas is semi infinite. A jerk, a dumbass and the second worst "paladin" ever, all in one disgusting package. (No, the first is not Miko)

And the single most disgusting character ever is Jack of Fables. He easily trumps Arthas and Paris combined in jerkassery. He is the incarnation of obnoxiousness.

bosssmiley
2008-06-07, 10:31 AM
Holden Caulfield. Just... Holden Caulfield.
Willy Loman from Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" - self-deluding idiot
Othello from Shakespeare's eponymous play - idiot without the sense to check his facts
Romeo and Juliet - she's a manipulative little c*w, he's a lovesick wimp who isn't a patch on Mercutio :smalltongue:
Arthur in "Tom Brown's Schooldays" by Hughes - boring little angelic child in a book otherwise filled with interesting people
Little Nell in "The Old Curiousity Shop" and Tiny Tim in "A Christmas Carol" by Dickens - neither is a character, both are nothing but schmaltzy, two-dimensional appeals to sentimentality :smallyuk:
Pheobus in "Hunchback of Notre Dame" - leaves Esmeralda to die simply because he can't be bothered to save her. :smallconfused:
Most of the characters in Virginia Woolf - tedious ciphers and solipsistic self-inserts
Jane Eyre - "Reader I married him, after he was crippled and helpless..."
Anyone and everyone in "Wuthering Heights"

Wallbangers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WallBanger) one and all!

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-07, 10:33 AM
Could you, assuming that you are in fact a youth, probably a schoolboy with very little knowledge of the more vicious side of life, possibly even contemplate the murder of your own uncle, on what basically amounts to a delusional fantasy? I think that Hamlet is justified in his hesitation. Not just that, but what exactly was Hamlet supposed to do after he offed Claudius?.

Just a quick thing, but I believe Hamlet was originally supposed to be about 30 something. 32 if I am right. I also believe that he was something of an emo, though not the cliche type, but the one that pretends to cut to get attention. Or in Hamlet's case, throw off suspicion.

Course, to quote my final project on Shakespere.

"Hamlet is his greatest character, simply because he can fill any fantasy you want and be everything from a whiny little emo child to a magnificant bastard who plans everything out. Odd thing is, there's evidence that could support both in the same line."

I hate Cersai Lannister a lot. A REAL lot.

I also hate any character that "loses his faith" but still follows it for any reason other then habit.

I also hate the Baron Harkonnon. From Dune. But that's more of a good hate. I don't have many problems with his character itself. He's just hatable.

Jack Squat
2008-06-07, 10:41 AM
Could you, assuming that you are in fact a youth, probably a schoolboy with very little knowledge of the more vicious side of life, possibly even contemplate the murder of your own uncle, on what basically amounts to a delusional fantasy? I think that Hamlet is justified in his hesitation. Not just that, but what exactly was Hamlet supposed to do after he offed Claudius?

What would you consider a youth? I am in college, so schoolboy could still apply, although I believe you were assuming I was younger.

And yes, I could contemplate the killing of my uncle under the circumstances...my father being dead and my uncle marrying my mom in (IIRC) less than two weeks after? With the ghost, even if it was a hallucination, I'd consider that a enough evidence.

As to what he'd do after...Hamlet was by no means an idiot, just a wimp. Even if he had been wrong, he could have set up evidence to expose his uncle as a murderer; or at least have actually killed him in the confession scene, and it could have been blamed on one of the guards. I mean no one else was around, who'd know?


Wait. You hate everyone EXCEPT Heathcliff? How do you not hate that manipulative prick?

Because he was the only one that brought the slightest bit of interesting events into the book. I mean, I'm not going to say that he's my role model or anything, but that book would have been even more mind-numbingly boring if he'd been all kind and accepting of how he was treated...or just didn't come back to get revenge. I'm also not going to pretend he saved the book...I'd still put it on the top of the list of books I wouldn't mind being burned.

The_JJ
2008-06-07, 10:43 AM
Rand al'Thor, for doing nothing but wangst his sanity into oblivion since book two the end of book one. (It wasn't the evil taint thing that drove him crazy, it was the wangst.)
Eragon... Yeah.
Catelyn Stark. For not loving Jon (How could you not love JON?! He's badass. A little emo but that's ok. He has reasons and gets over it soonish. Unlike the above.)
Most of the Bond girls.
Jillian (just a little bit. just a little bit.)

Cristo Meyers
2008-06-07, 10:46 AM
[LIST]
Jane Eyre - "Reader I married him, after he was crippled and helpless..."


*twitch*

God, I'd almost forgotten about her...oh how I hated that book...

Then we had to read Wide Sargasso Sea, an unofficial prequel, and it was even worse...

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-07, 10:53 AM
Marche, from FFTA. As much as I understood and loved the game, he was a sck, twisted bastard now that I look back on it.

Kane
2008-06-07, 11:09 AM
Marche, from FFTA. As much as I understood and loved the game, he was a sck, twisted bastard now that I look back on it.

Games too?

Ooo! Oo!

Dycedarg from Final Fantasy Tactics. (Need spoiler tags, can't find 'em.)

And, from the same game, Delita.

Brand, from the first five books of the Amber Chronicles. (BASTARDBASTARDBASTARDBAST-)

cnsvnc
2008-06-07, 04:39 PM
Hey, Brand's cool! Bleys was the greatest bastard.

Kane
2008-06-07, 04:52 PM
Hey, Brand's cool! Bleys was the greatest bastard.

Well, as far as I know, it's "Evil sociopathic bastard with magic powers" or "Not really evil, but sociopathic bastard with slightly less magic powers."

Guess who's who?

However, I may be wrong. If so, please enlighten me.

puppyavenger
2008-06-07, 04:58 PM
Well, as far as I know, it's "Evil sociopathic bastard with magic powers" or "Not really evil, but sociopathic bastard with slightly less magic powers."

Guess who's who?

However, I may be wrong. If so, please enlighten me.

umm, soiciopathic is a pretty good description of anyt memeber of that faimily till Trumps

Thatsd why I like the first 5 better:smallamused:

Kane
2008-06-07, 05:37 PM
True, dat. But I prefer the good, or, failing that, cool members of the family. Sure, Brand has some nifty powers, but he's not all that great in my opinion.

puppyavenger
2008-06-07, 06:53 PM
True, dat. But I prefer the good, or, failing that, cool members of the family. Sure, Brand has some nifty powers, but he's not all that great in my opinion.

oh, yah, he was a completly bat-**** insane( as aposed to normal "amoral" insane) and thought he was pretty pathetic.
on topic, the lamister faimily, Joffery and Cerci espesialy.
off-topic does Corwing only use his magic once in the entire book (guns of Avolon, the attempted asasanation)

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-07, 09:07 PM
Rand al'Thor, for doing nothing but wangst his sanity into oblivion since book two the end of book one. (It wasn't the evil taint thing that drove him crazy, it was the wangst.)

Oh hell YEAH.
And most of the other characters from those books, but Nineve also deserves special mention.

GoC
2008-06-07, 11:21 PM
Sylar. Too much puppy rape.

Anteros
2008-06-07, 11:35 PM
There is no way anyone ever hates Mat Cauthon from those books. You can't do it. Just can't be done. I'll agree that Rand's self pity gets old though. Perrin though is just too forgettable to hate. It's like Jordan changed his mind about him being a main character or something.

hanzo66
2008-06-07, 11:41 PM
Well, not sure about hate, but I never did enjoy Kamina from Gurren Lagann. Call me a heretic, but I just did not find him inspiring and such, seeing him only as a suicidal moron who stands for everything that I stand against (Friendship, Determination and such). For some reason I found Simon less grating.

NinjaHippy
2008-06-08, 12:49 AM
Officer John McClane, from the Die Hard series. Just obnoxious, without really being a hardass.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-08, 06:13 AM
There is no way anyone ever hates Mat Cauthon from those books. You can't do it. Just can't be done.

Yes. Yes I do.

Drascin
2008-06-08, 06:35 AM
Well, not sure about hate, but I never did enjoy Kamina from Gurren Lagann. Call me a heretic, but I just did not find him inspiring and such, seeing him only as a suicidal moron who stands for everything that I stand against (Friendship, Determination and such). For some reason I found Simon less grating.

More than accusing you of heresy, since I guess you're entitled to that opinion, my mind is more going through another path - namely, I can't help but wonder, a) how can a human being be against friendship, and b) just why did you watch one of the most hotblooded Super Robot shows ever if you hate determination of all things?! :smallconfused:. It's like despising fantasy in all forms and going to watch a marathon of the three LotR extended movies!

Verruckt
2008-06-08, 06:43 AM
I don't know which I hate more, Drizz't or Salvatore for what he did to him.

Bear with me. The first few books Drizz't was a calm collected sword master with a perfectly understandable chip on his shoulder and that cool little "puree" setting. The musings that he fronted some of the chapters with were actually intelligent and well thought out arguments/observations on a variety of subjects from a unique vantage point.

Later books... The pre-chapter musings become downright painful self pitying messes. The one thing that can save us from said pit of despair (Wulfgar pounding the "pulse" button on his back until everything in the room is the consistency of a nice stew) is stripped out in favor of more soliloquies on the nature of being an Emo bitch.

It's like if, at the apex of tension in 300, Leonidas breaks off from the combat to have a 15 minute brainstorm on the nature of Existentialism and it's merits compared to Platonic Dualism with Xerxes and James Lipton a chimp. I mean, it's not just out of place, it's badly written and out of place.

ehh... can anyone else say "Spike-ification"? At least Salvatore made up for it with Jarlaxle, the only character who hasn't spent 3 chapters wallowing in self doubt as a vague excuse for adding more dimension to his character.

Forgive me if I'm not entirely cogent, it's 5 in the morning here and I'm running on mountain dew fumes and aspirin. Anyway, my two cp.

hanzo66
2008-06-08, 07:24 AM
More than accusing you of heresy, since I guess you're entitled to that opinion, my mind is more going through another path - namely, I can't help but wonder, a) how can a human being be against friendship, and b) just why did you watch one of the most hotblooded Super Robot shows ever if you hate determination of all things?! :smallconfused:. It's like despising fantasy in all forms and going to watch a marathon of the three LotR extended movies!

1. It's more like I don't agree with the show's idea of friendship. Generally just didn't like the overly positive message of the entire show, about how believing in your buddies to help you out and believing in yourself. In my experience a "Friend" is just someone who you merely ramble on with on a distinct topic (you don't even need to look at their faces when you talk to them in my opinon) rather than anybody who would save your life, since in my opinion I would not do that for them (riches or a friend for life? My mind is made up).

2. I really only started watching it out of the fact that the community that I hung around with wouldn't stop posting Gifs/shut up about it. I caught it really initially for ****s and giggles. I found the show amusing and Kamina more Satirical than anything else and I really only watched the show for the action. The show was never really anything beyond "Good" for me.


Then again, that's just me. I generally am a bit overboard on the misanthropy in certain aspects and I'm generally rather cynical when it comes to certain ideals.

Eco-Mono
2008-06-08, 08:01 AM
That space marine that shows up in so many Media Discussions topics.

Seriously. Like, everyone from that canon is a barrel of jerks.

Echowinds
2008-06-08, 08:09 AM
Well, there's friend (friend) and friend (acquientance). Really, most of the "friends" we know are of the latter type. The former is the kind that will stick with you through thick and thin, and a person can probably make 1 or 2, or maybe none at all, of those kind of friends in a lifetime. That's what I think, anyways. Could be wishful thinking.

Anyways, TTGL is generally regarded as anti-eva, which is known for NOT having friendship, determination, or really, really anything postive attributed to humans.

puppyavenger
2008-06-08, 08:17 AM
Well, there's friend (friend) and friend (acquientance). Really, most of the "friends" we know are of the latter type. The former is the kind that will stick with you through thick and thin, and a person can probably make 1 or 2, or maybe none at all, of those kind of friends in a lifetime. That's what I think, anyways. Could be wishful thinking.

Anyways, TTGL is generally regarded as anti-eva, which is known for NOT having friendship, determination, or really, really anything postive attributed to humans.

so eva is a sci-fi ASOIAF?

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-08, 08:19 AM
All space marines, and just about everyone from Warhammer 40k overall.

Exceptions! Papa Nurgle, to a point, the Tau, and CAIPHAS CAIN!

puppyavenger
2008-06-08, 08:39 AM
All space marines, and just about everyone from Warhammer 40k overall.

Exceptions! Papa Nurgle, to a point, the Tau, and CAIPHAS CAIN!

hey, how can you hat Tzeetch? or the nids?
I hate the imperium, but religios zelots leave a bad taste in my mouth.

MrEdwardNigma
2008-06-08, 08:46 AM
Characters I hate?

Let's see, Superman.
Yes, superman.
That ****.

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-08, 08:50 AM
hey, how can you hat Tzeetch? or the nids?
I hate the imperium, but religios zelots leave a bad taste in my mouth.

The guy ho will forget about you and kill without a 52nd thought the very MOMENT you outlive your usefulness, or the uncaring, all devouring HORDE that will never hesitate to rip you apart an kill you?

I mean, I love them as concepts and everything they add, but still. It's more the principle.

At least Nurgle cares about his followers. If in an odd way.

Tengu
2008-06-08, 08:51 AM
Characters I hate?

Let's see, Superman.
Yes, superman.
That ****.

It takes no detective to guess why. (http://superdickery.com/)

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-08, 10:10 AM
<Verrukt's rant about Drizz't and Salvatore>

Awesome :)
Plus, don't forget how the emofication led to waves of fanboys devotion.

Attilargh
2008-06-08, 10:29 AM
Verrukt, the bloke's name is spelt "Drizzt". Yes, without the apostrophe. Salvatore uses them enough already, there's no need to add some more.

VanBuren
2008-06-08, 02:27 PM
...even if he wastes it on dull, incredibly cliched works about how angsty children are much more intelligent than everyone else and how emotional sensitivity is a more important trait than basic competence.

Good thing that actually isn't what The Catcher in the Rye is about. Sure, that's how Holden paints it. But Holden isn't an impartial narrator. Quite the opposite, he's biased as hell.

He's a hypocrite, first of all. Paying any attention to the text will alert you to the fact that he's just as phony as the rest of 'em. The whole book is really about growing up, and how Holden is so afraid to do so, that he's polarized the world into child and adult, innocent and phony.

Raging Gene Ray
2008-06-08, 04:25 PM
Good thing that actually isn't what The Catcher in the Rye is about. Sure, that's how Holden paints it. But Holden isn't an impartial narrator. Quite the opposite, he's biased as hell.


If everyone who read the book kept in mind that Holden was NOT supposed to be a role model, then John Lennon might still be alive...sorry if I struck a nerve with anyone there.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-08, 04:57 PM
I really wish Catcher in the Rye wasn't mentioned so much, it's really not great literature and doesn't deserve the recommendation.
As far as I know it's only mentioned because it's on every US school reading list.

Cristo Meyers
2008-06-08, 05:07 PM
I really wish Catcher in the Rye wasn't mentioned so much, it's really not great literature and doesn't deserve the recommendation.
As far as I know it's only mentioned because it's on every US school reading list.

Eh, not every US school. I was mercifully spared it...

...though I was an idiot and sought it out myself...that's what we call a "mistake" children. Can you say "mistake?" I knew you could.

SurlySeraph
2008-06-08, 05:09 PM
Good thing that actually isn't what The Catcher in the Rye is about. Sure, that's how Holden paints it. But Holden isn't an impartial narrator. Quite the opposite, he's biased as hell.

He's a hypocrite, first of all. Paying any attention to the text will alert you to the fact that he's just as phony as the rest of 'em. The whole book is really about growing up, and how Holden is so afraid to do so, that he's polarized the world into child and adult, innocent and phony.

I know. And he wants to protect other children from growing up. And he realizes his mistake at the end, and letting his sister reach for the brass ring is symbolically allowing herself and himself to grow up. And the fact that Holden is hypocritical proves that he is being honest and earnest. :smallsigh: My class spent well over a month on that book, and inspected it from every possible point of view. I soon learned Holden's behavior can be interpreted to prove anything you want about him. (Fun fact: if a character ever expresses homophobia or discomfort at being touched by men, this proves that he is gay and repressing it!) I'm just writing from my perspective on his behavior, which I consider the most obvious and supportable perspective.

VanBuren
2008-06-08, 05:22 PM
I know. And he wants to protect other children from growing up. And he realizes his mistake at the end, and letting his sister reach for the brass ring is symbolically allowing herself and himself to grow up. And the fact that Holden is hypocritical proves that he is being honest and earnest. :smallsigh: My class spent well over a month on that book, and inspected it from every possible point of view. I soon learned Holden's behavior can be interpreted to prove anything you want about him. (Fun fact: if a character ever expresses homophobia or discomfort at being touched by men, this proves that he is gay and repressing it!) I'm just writing from my perspective on his behavior, which I consider the most obvious and supportable perspective.

Regardless of how you interpret his character, it seems obvious to me at least that the book's point is a far cry from angsty teens being better than adults.

GoC
2008-06-08, 06:07 PM
Characters I hate?

Let's see, Superman.
Yes, superman.
That ****.

Superman isn't actually a bad person. They just take funny out of context covers.

Jayngfet
2008-06-08, 06:44 PM
Verrukt, the bloke's name is spelt "Drizzt". Yes, without the apostrophe. Salvatore uses them enough already, there's no need to add some more.

W'ell wh'y no't, it's not li'ke it's n'ot f'unn'y.

bosssmiley
2008-06-09, 08:01 AM
Characters I hate?

Let's see, Superman.
Yes, superman.
That ****.

Odd, I'd have thought that with a screen name like yours you'd hate Batman more.


I really wish Catcher in the Rye wasn't mentioned so much, it's really not great literature and doesn't deserve the recommendation.
As far as I know it's only mentioned because it's on every US school reading list.

"Catcher in the Rye" is on every American school reading list for the reason that "Lord of the Flies" is on every British school reading list. Your teachers are trying to get across (but aren't allowed to overtly say) that 'this is you you obnoxious, self-regarding little pukes!'

The 'message' of Catcher is that teenagers are idiots with a lot of growing up to do, just as the message of Lord of the Flies is that they are poorly-restrained savages. The irony being that the target audiences are - by-and-large - way too self-absorbed to even realise this. :smallbiggrin:

Nerd-o-rama
2008-06-09, 08:43 AM
Superman isn't actually a bad person. They just take funny out of context covers.Aha! I knew it! GoC is a superhero in disguise. Admit your secret, Captain Obvious!

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-09, 09:03 AM
What about the Red Son Superman?

If he isn't a ****, then Napoleon was a pacifist and Gandhi wrestled bears before shooting babies.

As well, and because they aren't real characters really. I dislike most "adaptations of non original characters in fanfiction.

GoC
2008-06-09, 09:47 AM
Aha! I knew it! GoC is a superhero in disguise. Admit your secret, Captain Obvious!
My secret identify may have been discovered but I will continue my mission to point out the obvious things that people miss!

Mordar
2008-06-09, 11:51 AM
I virtually always read books through no matter how bad they are, and I always read school books through. What kept me going was that Salinger has a decent writing style, even if he wastes it on dull, incredibly cliched works about how angsty children are much more intelligent than everyone else and how emotional sensitivity is a more important trait than basic competence.

Well, this is sort of a derail...but I think it might be good to consider that the reason the topic of angsty children etc is cliche' is because of Salinger's work. He didn't light upon a trend in US lit and run with it so much as be pivotal in its development (at least that's how I've viewed it, but I could be missing other authors that were pre-JD that were more important in developing this style/mood).

So it's not too much of a derail...

Hate Dr. House (Karie Weaver from ER too) - a ridiculous caricature of a doctor that feeds the egos of all the already-too-full-of-themselves med students I've had to teach...

Keeping with "medical" TV, John "JD" Dorian from Scrubs. Started off being funny, now he's just an endless pile of stupidity from which we're supposed to extract a few nuggets of wisdom.

Kira Nerys from DS9...

Willm Dafoe's John Clark in Clear and Present Danger...

Will have to think a while about literary characters...

- Mordar

Arioch
2008-06-09, 12:46 PM
"Catcher in the Rye" is on every American school reading list for the reason that "Lord of the Flies" is on every British school reading list. Your teachers are trying to get across (but aren't allowed to overtly say) that 'this is you you obnoxious, self-regarding little pukes!'

Lord of the Flies isn't even recommended reading at my school. Guess the Head of English doesn't like it. We did Of Mice and Men instead. Ugh. But now I have done my English Literature GCSE, and I am free! No more dwelling on Curley's stupid gullible wife! :smallbiggrin:

Hmmm, characters I hate...Sephiroth, for being really irritating and not nearly as cool as everyone made out.

I don't really analyze the books I read closely, so I don't really have any from literature.

WalkingTarget
2008-06-09, 01:19 PM
See, I think the biggest problem that a lot of people have with certain books/characters is that they were part of a curriculum.

I really liked Of Mice and Men. I read it in a day during my free time in class, finished it, thought about it a bit, and then read it again the next day because it just got to me. To date it's the only book I've read that got a second reading immediately following the first.

I only read Catcher in the Rye recently (maybe a year ago) and I didn't particularly love it or hate it. I have the same general feelings about The Great Gatsby (heck, I liked the "train wreck waiting to happen" aspect of the whole book), but I wasn't forced to read any of these.

Of the required reading I had to do, I disliked Great Expectations at the time, but thinking about it later I figure that I may have liked it if I'd been reading it on my own time and hadn't had to nitpick and analyze every paragraph.

More than anything, it made me realize my own dislike of Literary Criticism (which isn't to say that there's something wrong with it, it's just not a way for me to enjoy written works). I think that many books that get so much hate thrown at them would be less reviled if they were just read on their own without the analysis. Then again, I'm a narrative junkie, so I'm likely to have different opinions of what is "interesting" than a Literature major.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-09, 01:31 PM
You see, Lord of the Flies and Of Mice and Men are good books, with interesting stories. Catcher in the Rye is just blah, blah, whiny, blah, blah, phony.
I am British and only read the book at 19 because I'd heard so much about it. I'd have rather read the screenplay for Waterworld.

While I'm on the subject:
Kevin Costner characters = hate
Kevin Spacey characters = win


See, I think the biggest problem that a lot of people have with certain books/characters is that they were part of a curriculum.

I really liked Of Mice and Men. I read it in a day during my free time in class, finished it, thought about it a bit, and then read it again the next day because it just got to me. To date it's the only book I've read that got a second reading immediately following the first.

I only read Catcher in the Rye recently (maybe a year ago) and I didn't particularly love it or hate it. I have the same general feelings about The Great Gatsby (heck, I liked the "train wreck waiting to happen" aspect of the whole book), but I wasn't forced to read any of these.

Of the required reading I had to do, I disliked Great Expectations at the time, but thinking about it later I figure that I may have liked it if I'd been reading it on my own time and hadn't had to nitpick and analyze every paragraph.

More than anything, it made me realize my own dislike of Literary Criticism (which isn't to say that there's something wrong with it, it's just not a way for me to enjoy written works). I think that many books that get so much hate thrown at them would be less reviled if they were just read on their own without the analysis. Then again, I'm a narrative junkie, so I'm likely to have different opinions of what is "interesting" than a Literature major.

Yeh some can be ponderous if over-analysed but some (I'm thinking Shakespeare here) need it. Compare to a film where you need to just suspend your disbelief and enjoy rather than answer all the plot holes.

I read Great Expectations and Wuthering Heights in the same year, off my own back. Loved them both and really enjoy being able to discuss them with people.

TheCleric
2008-06-09, 02:17 PM
I hated first season Zuko.

Ah yes, and Odysseus. Actually, thanks to friends of mine, I dislike almost all characters of Greek mythology. But Ody is tops.

puppyavenger
2008-06-09, 03:06 PM
I hated first season Zuko.

Ah yes, and Odysseus. Actually, thanks to friends of mine, I dislike almost all characters of Greek mythology. But Ody is tops.

why? if I may ask. I mean, yah a lot of them were soiciopathic bastards but you can't argue that they didn't get the punishment the deserve and then some.
Actualy Odyssios and Hercules are the only exceptions that I know.

Arioch
2008-06-09, 03:55 PM
Yeh some can be ponderous if over-analysed but some (I'm thinking Shakespeare here) need it. Compare to a film where you need to just suspend your disbelief and enjoy rather than answer all the plot holes.

Ugh, Shakespeare analysis. I don't see why he is regarded as the greatest literary genius of all time, really I don't. I've read Macbeth and Much Ado About Nothing, and they were both unbearable. I'm sure they'd be better as plays, but that's exactly the problem - they're plays. They were written to entertain a Tudor audience, not to be disected and be analyzed and have books written about their hidden meanings, which, I'm convinced, were usually not concieved by the playwright himself.

Books are written to be read. There isn't some magical quality which makes books written a hundred years ago four times as packed with hidden meanings and subtext as modern ones. If you enjoy it, go ahead, but I feel that a) none but the most obvious "meanings" should ever be presented as fact unless the author stated that that was what s/he was trying to achieve, because they could just as easily be your own imagination, and b) you shouldn't, as many do, present analysis as some great art which is essential to understanding. This latter point also often leads to people viewing the simple act of reading a book, as was intended, as somehow lesser.

Not that you did either of those things, Gygaxphobia. I'm making a point about my experience so far with English teachers and other people who spend their time analyzing literature.

I read more than anyone I know, quite content to sit down with a book without dwelling on it. Whenever I have to analyze a book, It kills the enjoyment.

But that's just me.

Bandededed
2008-06-09, 06:44 PM
Winston Smith (1984) - Why didn't he kill himself! He ruined the whole book by being a pansy...

Light Yagami (Death Note)
Major spoilerbecause he turns from a genius who will get his way into an idiot after L dies. N totally whips his rear without even trying, because he makes so many mistakes. Mistakes he did not make against L, or Light'd be in jail and L would still be alive

Sothe (FE, Path of Radiance)
HE CAN'T CLASS UP! WHY CAN'T HE CLASS UP?!?!?! Not even mentioning that his blossom ability would make him awesome, but because he can't, his ability caps are still thief level, so he sucks hardcore.

Dr. Frankenstein (Frankenstein)
He makes all of his own problems, then doesn't take care of them in any way, shape, or form. He then proceeds to make boneheaded moves and generally be stupid until everyone he cares about dies. That, and the random "I get sick from being anxious like a stereotypical Victorean female character when I'm a man..."

Notes:
I like Light before said happening happened. Yes, he's evil, but that's the point. I can't say I wouldn't do something similar.

I hated the entire Frankenstein book, and that's because Mary Shelly was a horrible 19 year-old writer. Her writing is full of holes (which were confirmed by my English teacher, no less), and annoying.

NinjaHippy
2008-06-09, 07:56 PM
While I'm on the subject:
Kevin Costner characters = hate
Kevin Spacey characters = win


This. Goddamn, do I hate Kevin Costner movies.

comicshorse
2008-06-09, 08:08 PM
Even ' A Perfect World ' and 'Mr. Brooks ' ?

NinjaHippy
2008-06-09, 08:25 PM
Haven't seen those. I've seen Waterworld, Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves, and a few others, and been uniformly unimpressed.

Tirian
2008-06-09, 08:41 PM
Superman isn't actually a bad person. They just take funny out of context covers.

Hmmmm, no. The writers decided that there were some core principles about Superman (he needs to maintain his secret identity, not marry Lois Lane, and remain supreme above anyone else on Earth) and then wrote stories in which he needed to transcend morality and even decency to keep that status quo. There turned out to be a nominally sensible reason why Superman is performing the outrageous act that is on the covers, but no one ever holds it against him that he actually did.

If you're near a comic book store, check out the Showcase Presents: Supergirl, which reprints all of the Supergirl stories from 1958-1961 for a long chain of this super-richardry. Supergirl shows up, and Superman decides that it would undermine his strategic breadth if she revealed herself to the world as a second Kryptonian, so he forces her to live in an orphanage with a brunette wig (as her ordinary blonde hair would invite too much comparison to a superhero that no one has ever seen). But she has to put all of her efforts at the orphanage into not being adopted, because her foster parents would find out that she is secretly a teenaged girl that no one knows the existence of. She was forced to spend a year banished from Earth because she revealed herself to Krypto, and was mortally afraid that she would get in trouble when she went back in time and met Superboy. And regularly he would offer her the ability to have a normal superhero life with a loving family and public adoration, only to yank it away at the last moment when he decided that she committed a miniscule error of the sort that he himself commits twice a month.

Add in the multitude of pranks against Jimmy Olson, the incessant flip-flopping with Lois Lane, and the website essentially has it right. His character greatly improved in the seventies and became completely awesome with John Byrne's post-Crisis reboot, but that was all because they finally became more interested in telling a story than in ensuring that huge things would happen but nothing would change.

I'm so-so on the Kevin Costner thing, love Bull Durham, meh on everything else. The thing that tends to amaze me is that Bruce Willis seems to be in good movies even though I never never ever like his character.

GoC
2008-06-09, 08:41 PM
Ugh, Shakespeare analysis. I don't see why he is regarded as the greatest literary genius of all time, really I don't. I've read Macbeth and Much Ado About Nothing, and they were both unbearable. I'm sure they'd be better as plays, but that's exactly the problem - they're plays. They were written to entertain a Tudor audience, not to be disected and be analyzed and have books written about their hidden meanings, which, I'm convinced, were usually not concieved by the playwright himself.
Yeah they're actually pretty unimpressive (I read five Shakespeare plays in my free time) but are considered amazing because they are basically the first pieces of tolerable writing to be created.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-06-09, 09:08 PM
Hmmm...could probably splash lots of characters in here actually...

Shinji (EVA)
Peter (Heroes)
Batman (Mostly because of how impervious his fans make him out to be, despite...well...actual non-imperviousness)
Superman (I'd kill him without a second thought if I could.)
Jean Grey/The Phoenix. :smallsigh: She's just plan boring. Most reality benders are for that matter.
Willy Loman (Death of a Salesman, for being a crappy father and trying to guzzle natural gas)
Bif (...I just don't like him.)
Walter (Hellsing)
Lady Macbeth (Fight against the times instead of just whining about it for god's sake!)
Lady Anne (The Tudors *Twitchtwitch*)
Will (Pirates movies, though I don't see how somebody wouldn't want to kill him)
Jack Sparrow (From the second movie on though with slight redemption in the third)
Master Chief (Also a boring character in my eyes)
The Witch-King (Because of de vs. threads)
Space Marines (Yes, even the Primarchs and the named ones. I despise every last one of them that isn't dead.)
Zoey (Firefly, don't ask me why...something about her just rubs me the wrong way)

I know theres more, I just can't remember them.

Holy_Knight
2008-06-10, 08:27 AM
Characters I hate? Bane in the Batman film! In the comic a shrewd and able enemy who masterminds a plan to bring Batman down, and succeeds. In the film, a mook in an inflatable full body suit who goes "Urk" and hits things.

Well, yeah, but picking out an individual thing that sucks about Batman and Robin is like saying: "Man, a five-foot square section of that river of sewage really stinks!"



Doctor Manhattan For not dying when Veidt zapped him.

You know, I'm with you here. Even though I was firmly against Veidt, I really wanted that to work. Dr. Manhattan sucks.


It's been many years since high school...but I remember hating Polonius in that play. Not the character, just how contrived he was as a literary device. He hides behind a curtain to spy on Hamlet, Hamlet sticks his sword into the curtain thinking it's Claudius, Hamlet tells Polonius he deserved it. It seemed more like a sitcom than a play that was supposed to embody all that loftiness associated with Shakespeare.
Still, he had an awesome death cry, right?

"O! I am slain!"

Heh. :smalltongue:



Okay, as for me... there may not be that many fans of this show here given our demographics, but a character I hate is Rory Gilmore.

Good god, she spent most of the series being selfish, disloyal, dishonest, inconsiderate and manipulative, and all the while the rest of the characters on the show inexplicably all acted like she was some kind of perfect celestial being. She was okay in season 1, but from season 2 onward she just got more and more horrible. Every other main character on that show was really likeable, even with their flaws, but Rory just increasingly pissed me off the more episodes I watched.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-10, 08:34 AM
Yeah they're actually pretty unimpressive (I read five Shakespeare plays in my free time) but are considered amazing because they are basically the first pieces of tolerable writing to be created.

"Unimpressive"? Sheesh. Do you at least see why millions of people do rate them above virtually everything else? And I mean scholars, I'm not even talking about a pop vote.
Try Taming of the Shrew if you want something different. Or Othello for black comedy. But until you find something to appreciate about them, you are doing yourself a disservice.

First tolerable peices of writing? Illiad & Odyssey were several thousand years earlier? How about Chaucer? Canterbury Tales was a couple hundred years earlier and still makes me laugh. Plus its rude.

WalkingTarget
2008-06-10, 08:57 AM
Winston Smith (1984) - Why didn't he kill himself! He ruined the whole book by being a pansy...

Out of genuine curiosity, at what point do you think he could have killed himself to make it a better book? At the beginning would have made it a very short book, in the middle would have ruined the budding romance, and at the end he was captured, tortured, and broken, which is the entire point. My personal opinion of the book is such that it couldn't have ended in any other way. If you change the ending it becomes much less interesting. Dystopia books are depressing by nature. If you're looking for happy or uplifting stories you're looking in the wrong place. Not liking a character for being weak-willed in and of itself is one thing, but I don't agree that it ruins this particular book.


Dr. Frankenstein (Frankenstein)
He makes all of his own problems, then doesn't take care of them in any way, shape, or form. He then proceeds to make boneheaded moves and generally be stupid until everyone he cares about dies. That, and the random "I get sick from being anxious like a stereotypical Victorean female character when I'm a man..."

Victorian is the wrong word as Queen Victoria wouldn't be born until the year after the book was published (and wouldn't become queen until she was 18). George III, her grandfather, was still king in 1818. I don't know if similar behavior was stereotypical in Georgian pieces (which I do think likely, for both male and female characters, given the understanding of mental and physical illness at the time), but complaining about similarities to characters written later is unfair.

Otherwise, yeah, he was an idiot who had trouble maintaining any sense of control over his life.

Dervag
2008-06-10, 09:41 AM
I know. And he wants to protect other children from growing up. And he realizes his mistake at the end, and letting his sister reach for the brass ring is symbolically allowing herself and himself to grow up. And the fact that Holden is hypocritical proves that he is being honest and earnest. :smallsigh: My class spent well over a month on that book, and inspected it from every possible point of view. I soon learned Holden's behavior can be interpreted to prove anything you want about him.That's probably why so many English teachers assign it.

Like The Scarlet Letter, the text is so ambiguous and confused that you can prove almost anything you want about it. Therefore, it is to literary analysis what fruit flies are to genetics- easy to manipulate and a good place to start training people. Since English class is often more concerned with getting you to do literary analysis than with actually exposing you to readable books, both books are good from the English teacher's perspective even though they are of little merit if you're looking for something a sane person would want to read.


"Catcher in the Rye" is on every American school reading list for the reason that "Lord of the Flies" is on every British school reading list. Your teachers are trying to get across (but aren't allowed to overtly say) that 'this is you you obnoxious, self-regarding little pukes!'

The 'message' of Catcher is that teenagers are idiots with a lot of growing up to do, just as the message of Lord of the Flies is that they are poorly-restrained savages. The irony being that the target audiences are - by-and-large - way too self-absorbed to even realise this. :smallbiggrin:"Lord of the Flies" is on nearly every American school reading list, too.

I'm not sure the target audience should get the 'message' of the book that way. It's popular in the culture of the (Anglo-?)American world to say that teenagers are a bunch of oversized children with hormones thrown in.

But it isn't really true of all teenagers. Quite a lot of them deal fairly well with the world as it's presented to them; the problem is that the aspects of the world industrialized societies present to teenagers afford them very little in the way of flexible roles to take on. They're up to their neck in socialization with their peers, and unless they're absolutely driven to pursue some other goal there's nothing else in their life to absorb their energies. So they end up oversocialized.

Meanwhile, the teachers are jumping up and down and shouting "Oh, if you would only grow up and listen to me! TO ME!." Needless to say, that doesn't go over well. All the self-righteous lectures in the world won't convince someone a thing is important when they're obviously given by a biased party. Especially not when there's a very real percentage chance that the person giving the lecture is in fact personally incompetent, as is the case in a lot of school systems.

Jerthanis
2008-06-10, 06:33 PM
Try Taming of the Shrew if you want something different. Or Othello for black comedy. But until you find something to appreciate about them, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Please tell me you aren't making the worst pun I've seen in a long time.

I agree with you though, Taming was awesome, Othello was pretty good and I personally liked Macbeth a lot.

Diamondeye
2008-06-10, 07:29 PM
Great topic. Let's see:

Holden, for numerous reason already stated
Most of the Wheel of Time cast, for reasons stated already
The entire cast in of Mice and Men, and Lord of the Flies. I wish that book had ended with someone testing a nuke on that island.
Quenthel and Jeggred, for reasons already stated. I'm actually reading the series for the first time right now, and what I really want is for the rest of the party to finally figure out she can't do **** to stop the and just tie her ass up and leave her in Aunoroch.

As for Jeggred, I want him to meet the buisness end of a Disintegrate spell, just because his sole purpose is to make up for Quenthel's complete impotence. He's really just a plot device.

Actually I wish almost the entirity of drow society would get wiped out in this series, and the remainder dispense with this "lolth-induced chaos and backbiting in an outwardly orderly society" thing they have going. The Matron Mothers ceased coming across as devious, scheming masterminds of intrigue and ruthlessness long ago, and now seem like a bunch of bratty 15 year olds wielding far more power than their maturity warrants, and concerned primarily with petty tit-for-tat snottiness. I wouldn't mind if Khleban and Elminster just showed up and cleaned house.

Moving on...

The entire cast of that book series that started with Flowers in the Attic. I read that book when I was outrageously bored once... I think I can chalk that up as permanently mentally scarring.

Wulfgar, once he turned into the wandering sack of self-pity.

Narm, Shandril's husband, for basically being useless baggage.

The entire cast of Days of our Lives. Why my wife finds this entertaining is beyond me. "They're trapped on an island with a force field, honey!"

"Really? Why hasn't anyone noticed this major energy signature with a satellite and sent the Navy to investigate?"

"Shut up!"

The entire cast of spongebob squarepants, jimmy neutron, and whatever that show with Raven on it is, and pretty much any other show my teenager likes. I wish spongebob would run across a dud WWII torpedo and put a violent messy end to the series.

The entire cast of Friends, Seinfeld, and Everybody Loves Raymond.

Bandededed
2008-06-10, 08:22 PM
Out of genuine curiosity, at what point do you think he could have killed himself to make it a better book?

I thought, that when the picture fell and the telescreen appeared or whatever exactly happened there, he should have thrown himself out of the window in a final gesture of his defiance. He states earlier that some of the inner party will kill themselves once they find out that they are to be captured. He just somehow can't find the will to do it himself.
And I believe that if he had killed himself, it would not have improved the book, but kept it at the same level - done right, anyway. This is one of the few books assigned to us by English class that I enjoyed, up to the very end, where the entire thing just started to rub me really wrong.


Victorian is the wrong word as Queen Victoria wouldn't be born until the year after the book was published (and wouldn't become queen until she was 18). George III, her grandfather, was still king in 1818. I don't know if similar behavior was stereotypical in Georgian pieces (which I do think likely, for both male and female characters, given the understanding of mental and physical illness at the time), but complaining about similarities to characters written later is unfair.

Well, I didn't mean that, exactly. I meant that he acts as a stero-typical Victorean women, not that he was modeled after one. Still, you're right. :smallsigh:, I need a better reference for earlier books...

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-10, 08:34 PM
Anakin Skywalker. Vader is awesome, but man if George Lucas and Hayden Christensen didn't manage to completely screw up the character in the prequels. His fall was totally nonsensical, his hissy fit in front of the Jedi Council upon not being made a Master is even more so (he was wrong; Ki Adi Mundi was a Knight who sat on the Jedi Council, so not only was it unjustified, it wasn't even correct!), and his failure to turn on Palpatine upon learning of Padme's death when the whole reason he was following Palpatine in the first place was to save her life just makes no sense at all. Even apart from these gaping plot holes and violations of the character's motivation, he was a whiny bastard. This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5F22sYA67j0) sums it up pretty well, especially Obi-Wan's line at the end. :smallamused:

Anteros
2008-06-10, 09:32 PM
Anakin Skywalker. Vader is awesome, but man if George Lucas and Hayden Christensen didn't manage to completely screw up the character in the prequels. His fall was totally nonsensical, his hissy fit in front of the Jedi Council upon not being made a Master is even more so (he was wrong; Ki Adi Mundi was a Knight who sat on the Jedi Council, so not only was it unjustified, it wasn't even correct!), and his failure to turn on Palpatine upon learning of Padme's death when the whole reason he was following Palpatine in the first place was to save her life just makes no sense at all. Even apart from these gaping plot holes and violations of the character's motivation, he was a whiny bastard. This (http://youtube.com/watch?v=5F22sYA67j0) sums it up pretty well, especially Obi-Wan's line at the end. :smallamused:

I disagree with you to an extent. I mean, Anakin originally did the right thing in regards to turning Palpatine in. It wasn't until the Jedi revealed themselves to be complete hypocrites by wanting to kill Palpatine that he chose to destroy them. I'd have probably killed Mace Windu as well if I were in Ani's shoes. Palpatine has always been his good friend, and this overbearing jedi who is completely full of himself is just going to murder him with no trial or anything? Not my friends buddy.

It's what happens after that that's so baffling though. One would imagine there would be a longer period between "oh my God, what have I done!" to "Hey, let's go kill some children!"

However, after learning of Padme's death, it really makes no sense for him to turn on Palpatine. Palpatine has always been his friend, and aside from Obi-Wan (Ya'know...the guy who just cut him in half) he isn't particularly fond of any of the Jedi. I find it personally reasonable that he would stick with Palpatine. I mean, from Anakin's view, Palpatine was just trying to help him save Padme's life.

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-11, 02:32 AM
Recall that Anakin pulled a lightsaber on Palpatine himself as soon as he discovered that he was a Sith Lord; the prospect of saving Padme was the only concern he had preventing him from killing Palpatine. It's plain to see when he's pleading with Mace that Palpatine must stand trial; you may notice that he was thrashing around looking for a reason, with the last thing he yelled before actually moving to stop Mace being "I need him!"

As for turning on Palpatine, sure Palpatine was his friend before he knew he was Sith, but even taking what Palpatine told him about his wife's death at face value says that it was the Sith teachings that caused him to kill her, and that he should therefore stop following them. Especially when Palpatine stands there cackling at his initial reaction.

Holy_Knight
2008-06-11, 02:46 AM
One would imagine there would be a longer period between "oh my God, what have I done!" to "Hey, let's go kill some children!"

Yeah, that transition needed to be just a wee bit longer...

Plan to Use Dark Side of Force to Keep Wife From Dying:

Step 1: Murder children in temple
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Padme lives after all



aside from Obi-Wan (Ya'know...the guy who just cut him in half)
Now this is the biggest thing that bothered me about Episode 3 (maybe about any of the movies). A question for everyone:

Your friend has just gone insane and attacked you, and now he's had both legs and an arm cut off, and is on fire. As a good friend, you would:

A. Kill him quickly out of compassion to end his unfathomable suffering
B. Try to get him to a doctor as fast as you can
C. Walk away, leave him writhing in anguished misery next to a river of lava

Am I the only one who was horrified at Obi-Wan there?

poleboy
2008-06-11, 05:03 AM
Your friend has just gone insane and attacked you, and now he's had both legs and an arm cut off, and is on fire. As a good friend, you would:

A. Kill him quickly out of compassion to end his unfathomable suffering
B. Try to get him to a doctor as fast as you can
C. Walk away, leave him writhing in anguished misery next to a river of lava

Am I the only one who was horrified at Obi-Wan there?

My theory is that while filming the scene, they suddenly realized that if Anakin dies, it would screw up continuity and rewrote the script (and the dialog... oh my, they did a number on that one) on the spot. Within the frame of the movie it makes little sense for Obi-Wan to just walk away.
It's pretty out of character for a jedi to leave a friend to a slow, almost certain death BUT on the slight off-chance they survive, a powerful sith is left alive. Plot armor is the only answer that makes any sense here.

About Anakin's fall:

The real problem is that they spent waay too much setting up his backstory and life as a Jedi, life with Padme and all that rot. Probably to flesh out the Darth Vader character. But this resulted in the movie being already quite long when he finally did fall, and leaving only about half an hour to wrap the whole thing up and get him in a big black shiny robot suit so people can go "OMG it's Darth Vader!"
I haven't read the books, does the whole thing happen in the course of like a day there as well? I'm hoping it is simply because of the medium that it seems so contrived.

LesterLester
2008-06-11, 05:41 AM
1)Well, most characters from the new star wars trilogy.
Tha animated ones being plain boring(in the best case) and Jar Jar Binks (in the worst case). Even most of the "real" characters were unbearable after a while.
The wooden acting, the awkward dialogues, it was just sad.
2)Mary Sue-characters...good old Wesley Crusher:smallmad:

Oh! And Arcturus Mensk From Star Craft!(among others)
and that Jehova dude from the old testament*ducks*

Turcano
2008-06-11, 05:50 AM
The real problem is that they spent waay too much setting up his backstory and life as a Jedi, life with Padme and all that rot. Probably to flesh out the Darth Vader character. But this resulted in the movie being already quite long when he finally did fall, and leaving only about half an hour to wrap the whole thing up and get him in a big black shiny robot suit so people can go "OMG it's Darth Vader!"
I haven't read the books, does the whole thing happen in the course of like a day there as well? I'm hoping it is simply because of the medium that it seems so contrived.

I personally think it would have been a lot better if the Anakin/Vader transition were due to a case of an Enemy Within (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnemyWithin). It's cliched as hell, but most of the relevant events make a lot more sense under that interpretation. Plus, it allows you to severely downgrade the whole Anakin/Padme thing; I have to fast-forward through the parts when they're in the same scene.

Manga Shoggoth
2008-06-11, 09:04 AM
Characters I hate? Bane in the Batman film! In the comic a shrewd and able enemy who masterminds a plan to bring Batman down, and succeeds. In the film, a mook in an inflatable full body suit who goes "Urk" and hits things.

Well, yeah, but picking out an individual thing that sucks about Batman and Robin is like saying: "Man, a five-foot square section of that river of sewage really stinks!"

While I agree that there were one or two pieces of crap in the film (using a very large value of two), I picked that because it was the most pestulant example of character decay I had ever seen.

Ironically, the only good part of that film was Arnie as Mr Freeze.

WalkingTarget
2008-06-11, 09:12 AM
I thought, that when the picture fell and the telescreen appeared or whatever exactly happened there, he should have thrown himself out of the window in a final gesture of his defiance. He states earlier that some of the inner party will kill themselves once they find out that they are to be captured. He just somehow can't find the will to do it himself.
And I believe that if he had killed himself, it would not have improved the book, but kept it at the same level - done right, anyway. This is one of the few books assigned to us by English class that I enjoyed, up to the very end, where the entire thing just started to rub me really wrong.

Ok, I see what you're getting at. I still disagree, but I see your point of view.

He was only on the 2nd floor of the building, hardly far enough up to ensure death and the building was surrounded and somebody came in through the window via a ladder just a few moments later anyway. It probably could have been written so that his first impulse was to leap out of the window, but that would require the character to be able to disobey a direct order from the Authority that, while he'd been trying to work against it in secret, he'd been conditioned to fear and obey for almost his entire life. It would also have meant either abandoning Julia (betrayal) or pulling her with him (murder, assuming the short fall would kill in the first place) as I don't think they had time to discuss it. I also think the shock of being discovered in their safe haven was enough to justify them hesitating. I also don't agree that you can excise Part III of the book and keep it at the same level. Parts I and II are there precisely to set up his torture and reeducation and to have it end in Smith's suicide would require alteration of much of those sections. It'd change the tone of the book from "resistance is futile" to "defiant to the end" which is rather a radical shift. Not to say that you're not free to dislike it anyway, though. :smallsmile:


Well, I didn't mean that, exactly. I meant that he acts as a stero-typical Victorean women, not that he was modeled after one. Still, you're right. :smallsigh:, I need a better reference for earlier books...

Yeah, it occurred to me that you may have meant it that way. I think the problem is that, looking back from our perspective, people getting ill due to "nerves" or whatever seems ridiculous but it was standard procedure of the day. Since so little was known about illness in general, and even less about mental illness, that nervous breakdowns (which I've always equated Vic's illness to) were probably treated, or at least viewed, similarly to other maladies doesn't surprise me much. That's just my interpretation though.

Lizardfolk Lich
2008-06-11, 10:30 AM
I hate Naruto but I also hate most anime.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-11, 12:28 PM
Please tell me you aren't making the worst pun I've seen in a long time.

I agree with you though, Taming was awesome, Othello was pretty good and I personally liked Macbeth a lot.

Oh totally, my humour is normally so dry that I don't use smilies.

Othello has got some funny though. I saw Tim McInnerny (from Blackadder) play Iago and he was hysterical.

Glad you liked them. The Branagh film version of Taming is well worth watching. If only for Keanu Reeves actually playing a decent part.

There's another one: Keanu Reeves, any character he plays is made of win, but he manages to destroy just about any characterisation they have. Except Constantine where he was perfect (-ly wooden).
I like the guy a lot as a person, but as an actor he is ten tons of poo.

Oh, and Colin Farrell too. Sorry to divert this into Actors I Hate.

Holy_Knight
2008-06-11, 05:01 PM
My theory is that while filming the scene, they suddenly realized that if Anakin dies, it would screw up continuity and rewrote the script (and the dialog... oh my, they did a number on that one) on the spot. Within the frame of the movie it makes little sense for Obi-Wan to just walk away.
It's pretty out of character for a jedi to leave a friend to a slow, almost certain death BUT on the slight off-chance they survive, a powerful sith is left alive. Plot armor is the only answer that makes any sense here.
I've always thought that what they should have done was have the emperor and his troops show up while Obi-Wan was still there. He could barely escape from overwhelming forces, which would explain why he would leave Anakin alive and suffering. But I guess that would have been too reasonable.



About Anakin's fall:

The real problem is that they spent waay too much setting up his backstory and life as a Jedi, life with Padme and all that rot. Probably to flesh out the Darth Vader character. But this resulted in the movie being already quite long when he finally did fall, and leaving only about half an hour to wrap the whole thing up and get him in a big black shiny robot suit so people can go "OMG it's Darth Vader!"
I haven't read the books, does the whole thing happen in the course of like a day there as well? I'm hoping it is simply because of the medium that it seems so contrived.
I can't answer your question about the books, but I agree with the rest of what you said. Also, surely I'm not the only one who thought going into episode 3 that he'd spend a good amount of time as Vader during the movie, right?


1)Well, most characters from the new star wars trilogy.
Tha animated ones being plain boring(in the best case) and Jar Jar Binks (in the worst case). Even most of the "real" characters were unbearable after a while.
The wooden acting, the awkward dialogues, it was just sad.
2)Mary Sue-characters...good old Wesley Crusher:smallmad:

Oh! And Arcturus Mensk From Star Craft!(among others)
and that Jehova dude from the old testament*ducks*

That's actually pretty offensive, Lester. Out of respect for other forum-goers, it would be a good idea to edit that.


While I agree that there were one or two pieces of crap in the film (using a very large value of two), I picked that because it was the most pestulant example of character decay I had ever seen.

Ironically, the only good part of that film was Arnie as Mr Freeze.
I wouldn't agree that he was good as Freeze overall, but I will admit that the one good scene in that movie is when he's locked in his cell, looking at the figurine representing his wife.

You're right about Bane's character decay, though--it was like, why even bother using a named character when all you really want is some big strong brainless guy? They could have just used some kind of plant monster that Poison Ivy had created. The movie was abominable in most respects, but in that case it's like they went out of their way to make it even worse than you'd get from general incompetence and lack of talent.

GrassyGnoll
2008-06-11, 05:47 PM
Since she's been mentioned before and will no doubt be mentioned again I've gotta defend Cersei. For all the characters she's tortured or killed she makes a great antagonist. Even if I was bummed that they killed Davos "offscreen"Cersei is living proof a villain does not need a hideous scar, spiky armor, claws, etc. to be intimidating.

She's flawed (paranoid, penis envy, immeasurable cruelty) like a good baddy should be. Besides, there aren't enough villainous mother characters.

Essentially she's a less idealized Littlefinger. Whom, while I love, is not focused on enough to be a real villain.

SurlySeraph
2008-06-11, 05:58 PM
I can't answer your question about the books, but I agree with the rest of what you said. Also, surely I'm not the only one who thought going into episode 3 that he'd spend a good amount of time as Vader during the movie, right?

Yes. Hell, I thought he'd become Vader near the end of the second movie.

Episode 3 was such a waste. It had a couple decent action scenes and nothing else. The only thing that made it worth watching was getting to see Hayden Christenssen catch fire.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-11, 06:45 PM
The only thing that made it worth watching was getting to see Hayden Christenssen catch fire.

Quoted for awesomeitude.


Even if I was bummed that they killed Davos "offscreen"

I'm really holding out hope that it was mistaken identity

Executor
2008-06-11, 06:56 PM
Xykon from our own Order of the Stick. Both incredibly powerful and vastly stupid... bad combination.

Black Mage from 8-Bit Theatre. What the hell is wrong with him.

Prince Tarvek from Girl Genius. Oh so you love this Agatha girl do you? Then why the HELL did you let the mind of the DESTROYER OF EUROPE take over her body for so long... dumbass.

DomaDoma
2008-06-11, 07:10 PM
Prince Tarvek from Girl Genius. Oh so you love this Agatha girl do you? Then why the HELL did you let the mind of the DESTROYER OF EUROPE take over her body for so long... dumbass.

Hey now, that's the Geisterdammen's doing. Besides, as near as I could make of where Tarvek is coming from (he's, frankly, pretty confusing), he also wants the Other as an ally in order to supplant Wulfenbach.

comicshorse
2008-06-11, 07:17 PM
Marc Remillard not only a mass-murderer ( which hardly seems to do someone who killed BILLIONS justice) but an arrogant, mind-raping bastard who thought nothing of toruring and adusing his best friends and childeren in the pursuit of his own goals. The only person I though was worse in the whole 'Many coloured Land' series was his girlfriend ( name temporarily escapes me) Marc at least did it for his own twisted belief in the evolution of humanity she murdered billions just to keep her boyfriend happy

Executor
2008-06-11, 08:52 PM
Hey now, that's the Geisterdammen's doing. Besides, as near as I could make of where Tarvek is coming from (he's, frankly, pretty confusing), he also wants the Other as an ally in order to supplant Wulfenbach.

Meh, i've been rooting for ol' Gilgamesh the whole time when it applies to Agatha. He's not a bastard like Tarvek, nor is he a little wuss like Lars.

Besides, neither Lars nor Tarvek had crowning moments of awesome like this (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20060306) or this (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20071126). This is why Gil is my favourite in Girl Genius :smallbiggrin:

Now about Agatha... is it just me or is she something of a Mary-Sue sometimes? She's ridiculously beautiful, and crazy intelligent, and has all kind of crazy abilities because she's the lost heir to a noble family. She's guarded by a trio of genetically engineered super-warriors and a green haired Amazon, and served by an army of cute mini-robots and advised by a talking cat, who is also the Emperor of all Cats. The force of her personality can make people her servants, as can the perfection of her coffee. She's probably in love with the son of the most powerful man in Europe, who is also in love with her, and there's also a scheming prince who very well could be the next most powerful man in Europe who is in love with her, and there was a dashing Gypsy prince in love with her as well, but he got killed... wuss that he was. And what about that bosom of hers? That balcony is worthy of Shakespeare.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 09:00 PM
[QUOTE=Bandededed;4441939]
Light Yagami (Death Note)
Major spoilerbecause he turns from a genius who will get his way into an idiot after L dies. N totally whips his rear without even trying, because he makes so many mistakes. Mistakes he did not make against L, or Light'd be in jail and L would still be alive

Um, what are you talking about. There was no season too. The anime ended on ep 26. Nothing ever happened after that. There was no near, there was nothing. I'm confused how you could think otherwise
from
EE

DomaDoma
2008-06-11, 09:12 PM
The anime ended on ep 26.

I don't get why you people want that, I seriously don't.


Meh, i've been rooting for ol' Gilgamesh the whole time when it applies to Agatha. He's not a bastard like Tarvek, nor is he a little wuss like Lars.


No complaints from this quarter! Or from any, I suspect.

I'll forgive every bullet point on the ol' Mary Sue Litmus Test if the character is likable and the obstacles are a challenge.

Innis Cabal
2008-06-11, 09:15 PM
I don't get why you people want that, I seriously don't.

Because Near and Melo are mary sue's, its as simple as that. That manga-ka has an awful ability to ruin any good he did half way through the series simply by removing a single character(Hikaru no Go).

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 09:20 PM
I don't get why you people want that, I seriously don't.

[SPOILER]
Because after the fist season, Death note goes from a logical chess styled mystery to a more shallow uninteresting tone. It becomes less smart, less interesting and the characters lose their appeal. It attempts to outdo the first season and fails spectacularly. Light looses what makes him cool and Near is only an L knock off. THe first season ended greatly and without L the second suffered. Light become a moron and Near was pretty much a cannon sue with no real personality. it felt like it was written by somebody else without any of the orginial talent



[\SPOILER]
from
EE

DomaDoma
2008-06-11, 09:23 PM
Mello is not remotely a Mary Sue. Near, I could see, with a little bit of soreness applied, but the only really Sueish moment in the anime - the scene where he finds Mikami - had a perfectly logical explanation in the manga. But Mello? You're definitely sore.

ETA: The most common argument for Light suddenly going stupid involves that (on topic, blood-boiling) tactic established in the fifth episode. Can't blame that one on the second arc. Near - not really a likable character. He's got a personality, but that personality is "single-mindedly victory-oriented; has sense of obligation but doesn't give a damn about people." The mind-games were still awesome, and anyhow I was rooting hard for the regular Joes of the NPA and SPK.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 09:26 PM
Mello is not remotely a Mary Sue. Near, I could see, with a little bit of soreness applied, but the only really Sueish moment in the anime - the scene where he finds Mikami - had a perfectly logical explanation in the manga. But Mello? You're definitely sore.

No mello is simply uninteresting compared to the other characters. Near is a total Cannon sue in both versions. L was cool because he wasn't perfect. He made mistakes and for a while Light was dragging him around. He was always at a disadvantage. He made mistakes and wrong assumptions, and yet very logically came to his conclusions in narrowing light down. He took a while to figure stuff out and seemed more human. Near pretty much read the novel, and tried to steal L's personality


Also Mello's stealing of the Death note was pretty bad
from
EE

Innis Cabal
2008-06-11, 09:32 PM
Near is far and away the most Mary Sue character ive seen to date. Second, the anime dosnt even have the same ending as the manga, and thats the reason i dont watch anime based off manga, its like watching a movie based off a book, disapointment....every.....single....time.

As EE said, Mello was uninteresting, a small distraction in an otherwise wonderful plot line. Near is utter garbage in comparison. There is no soreness, just an evident and recurring theme with the manga-ka. He kills off a well liked, and interesting character, and introduces a cast of otherwise ho hum chowder heads that detract from his otherwise well laid out idea's. Near makes so many leaps of faith in his "logical" discourses that i had to put the manga down and just bang my head on the table. It was more like he looked 20 pages ahead and just said, oh...well ill do this, arnt i an awsome character?!

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 09:36 PM
What make L cool was the fact that he wasn't perfect. And his relation ship with Light was a very good one

When it was Light vs. near, it was light going "Damn, logic logic logic" and near going "good thing i can read the panel next to me to know everything he does"



from
EE

DomaDoma
2008-06-11, 09:40 PM
Gah! Spoiler tags, people, spoiler tags!

Anyway, I humbly disagree. Let's leave it at that so we can get back on topic.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 09:44 PM
Gah! Spoiler tags, people, spoiler tags!

Anyway, I humbly disagree. Let's leave it at that so we can get back on topic.

fair enough but second season of death never did happen
from
EE

DomaDoma
2008-06-11, 09:51 PM
Well, I can understand dislike of Near and Mello, really. It's the implications of ending it at episode twenty-six that I take issue with. :smalltongue:

Executor
2008-06-11, 09:57 PM
Other characters I absolutely hate:

Legolas from the LOTR movies. Not not the first one, that was good, but ol' Pete Jackson got full of himself in Two Towers and Return of the King. Does Legolas ever exhibit any of those "OMFG ELVES ARE SO COOLEZ!!!1" surfer boy stunts in the books or in the first movie? No! He's just a good archer, that's reasonable. Taking down a rampaging 30-metre tall war mumakil with arrows is not reasonable.

Sauron from the LOTR movies. The moment, the moment, they gave Sauron a face, the moment they gave Sauron a physical form which we could identify, that was the moment they killed all of Sauron's menace. Sauron was such a great villain in the books because you never saw him, you were never presented with limits to his power, you only heard about it, you only sensed what he could do. In the books you got a sense that Sauron was not a person but rather a force of nature, something elusive, immaterial, indiscriminate and unstoppable. He remains the only Dark Lord who never made me think "Oh my god how stupid are you!". He was a Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard), I admired the sublime skill with which he laid, prepared and executed his plans. Even though you never saw him, you KNEW that the heroes could not defeat Sauron by any normal means. Even though a small hobbit slipped through the one chink in his armour, the Sauron of Tolkien's books is still the one true Dark Lord in his Dark Tower. But when they gave him a form and a face and... and limits, they killed Tolkien's Sauron and took away about all of his formless, limitless, natural menace.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 10:08 PM
Other characters I absolutely hate:

Legolas from the LOTR movies. Not not the first one, that was good, but ol' Pete Jackson got full of himself in Two Towers and Return of the King. Does Legolas ever exhibit any of those "OMFG ELVES ARE SO COOLEZ!!!1" surfer boy stunts in the books or in the first movie? No! He's just a good archer, that's reasonable. Taking down a rampaging 30-metre tall war mumakil with arrows is not reasonable.

Totally seconded. Ug, Legolas lost the limited personallity he had with the two most absurd stunts in the movie. And considering that Bloom played him and taht was his best role......ug



Sauron from the LOTR movies. The moment, the moment, they gave Sauron a face, the moment they gave Sauron a physical form which we could identify, that was the moment they killed all of Sauron's menace. Sauron was such a great villain in the books because you never saw him, you were never presented with limits to his power, you only heard about it, you only sensed what he could do. In the books you got a sense that Sauron was not a person but rather a force of nature, something elusive, immaterial, indiscriminate and unstoppable. He remains the only Dark Lord who never made me think "Oh my god how stupid are you!". He was a Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard), I admired the sublime skill with which he laid, prepared and executed his plans. Even though you never saw him, you KNEW that the heroes could not defeat Sauron by any normal means. Even though a small hobbit slipped through the one chink in his armour, the Sauron of Tolkien's books is still the one true Dark Lord in his Dark Tower. But when they gave him a form and a face and... and limits, they killed Tolkien's Sauron and took away about 90% of his menace.
I agree. In the first movie they took away a lot of of his menace. But the giant eyeball, then he is just retarded


Sauron was the MB in the book, because he wasn't seen. He didn't have many of the typical villain flaws, his plans were hundreds of years in the making. He was a menencing presence of sheer awesome evil. Even in the books you only saw his servants at their weakest state

DD what do you mean?
from
EE

NinjaHippy
2008-06-11, 10:10 PM
Having just rewatched Robin Hood: Men in Tights, I can safely say that Maid Marion was horribly obnoxious in that movie and existed only as a motive for the hero to have zany whirlwind adventures.

Turcano
2008-06-11, 10:12 PM
Sauron from the LOTR movies. The moment, the moment, they gave Sauron a face, the moment they gave Sauron a physical form which we could identify, that was the moment they killed all of Sauron's menace. [snip] But when they gave him a form and a face and... and limits, they killed Tolkien's Sauron and took away about all of his formless, limitless, natural menace.

Is this in "real time," or in the flashbacks? (I never saw the last two movies.) Because in the flashbacks, they kind of had to.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 10:13 PM
Having just rewatched Robin Hood: Men in Tights, I can safely say that Maid Marion was horribly obnoxious in that movie and existed only as a motive for the hero to have zany whirlwind adventures.

wasn't that the point?
from
EE

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 10:15 PM
Is this in "real time," or in the flashbacks? (I never saw the last two movies.) Because in the flashbacks, they kind of had to.

They didn't have to, through it would take a good deal more skill and i don't think PJ, an extreme visualize could pull it off
from
EE

Lord Omberous
2008-06-11, 10:18 PM
A character I hate?
Vinculus from Johnathan Strange & Mr. Norrell

We're not supposed to dislike him, more feel detached. But I found his backstory, the King's Book on his skin, and his drunken-bad-mwandering-magician-thing extremely annoying.

DomaDoma
2008-06-11, 10:22 PM
DD what do you mean?
from
EE

It's kind of... obvious, isn't it? Suffice to say that the first time I heard the phrase "April 2012", I was extremely unhappy.

Anyhow, now that it's a character-hating free-for-all - Umbridge and Bellatrix; Melisandre, Slynt, Walder Frey and half the Lannisters (only half because I'm counting Myrcella and Tommen) - um, wow, that's a whole bedtime litany already, I'll stop.

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 10:24 PM
It's kind of... obvious, isn't it? Suffice to say that the first time I heard the phrase "April 2012", I was extremely unhappy.

oh sorry misread

No i think in both the manga and the anime the climax had been reached. Anything more is like jumping the shark. After L, nothing can be good


from
EE

Turcano
2008-06-11, 10:31 PM
They didn't have to, through it would take a good deal more skill and i don't think PJ, an extreme visualize could pull it off

The account of that battle in The Silmarillion clearly states that Sauron had a physical form, and there's nothing in The Lord of the Rings that contradicts that. And it wasn't the first physical form he had, either.

Which is not to say that the scene couldn't have been handled better (that goes for a lot of the movie).

EvilElitest
2008-06-11, 10:35 PM
The account of that battle in The Silmarillion clearly states that Sauron had a physical form, and there's nothing in The Lord of the Rings that contradicts that. And it wasn't the first physical form he had, either.

1) That books also established when he fought the high men, that he was an amazing bastard
2) I know he had a phyical form, dude i tend to support him in vs. threads. However even in the Silmarillion it is only a narrative, no detail. It is like a text book review to an extend, or a biblical styled account, not the same style of LotR where he never phyisally appears



Which is not to say that the scene couldn't have been handled better (that goes for a lot of the movie).
Ug, the giant eye
from
EE

TheCleric
2008-06-11, 11:06 PM
why? if I may ask. I mean, yah a lot of them were soiciopathic bastards but you can't argue that they didn't get the punishment the deserve and then some.
Actualy Odyssios and Hercules are the only exceptions that I know.

They've some kind of vendetta against me, knowing that I don't care much for Greek Mythology, yet forcing it into conversation, calling out everything that could have possibly taken a small hint from some old story, and generally bein' dooshs. (My friends)
Through their constant adoration and idolization I grew to resent the Greek heroes and their tales.
As for Zuko, he was a whiny punk.
And Shinji, oh gods I agree. Hate him, stopped watching Evangelion because I couldn't stand him.

Add Sasuke, Gaara, Gohan, and the second villian from Jackie Chan Adventures. The Wizard guy, did not like him.
Also, Starscream...I'm a fan of the Decepticons, but I do not like Starscream at all.

poleboy
2008-06-12, 01:44 AM
About LEgolas:

I thought Legolas was represented well. He's reasonably young by elf standards, and probably not used to hanging out with men or dwarves. I always figured he would be brash and a show-off. He shuts up most of the time though, which is great.

About Sauron:

The Sauron shown in the beginning of the first movie is kind of a strange mash-up of Morgoth and Sauron, wielding something which I immediately assumed to be Grond, Morgoth's signature weapon. It was perhaps a way to edge Morgoth into the story without confusing people who were not familiar with the books.
Aside from that, the scene in question takes place long before the events described in the books. Sauron did indeed have a physical form back then, and it is not a far-fetched idea that he would take on an appearance similar to his master. The scene was important, because it sums up the backstory of the ring quickly and again, prevents confusion among people not familiar with the books.

LBO
2008-06-12, 02:06 AM
I thought Grond was the bloody great battering ram?

poleboy
2008-06-12, 03:00 AM
The first Grond appears in The Silmarillion. In the First Age, Grond was the great mace of Morgoth Bauglír, the first Dark Lord, who wielded it when he fought with Fingolfin, High King of the Noldor Elves.

The second Grond appears in The Lord of the Rings. During the The Siege of Gondor in the Third Age, a great battering ram was named after the mace.

In some illustrations, the phrase "Hammer of the Underworld" is taken literally and Grond is erroneously depicted as a war hammer.

I have to write something here, because apparently a quote does not count towards the 10 character minimum post length. Hopefully, I distracted you from something important with this statement.

Revlid
2008-06-12, 05:26 AM
I have to write something here, because apparently a quote does not count towards the 10 character minimum post length. Hopefully, I distracted you from something important with this statement.

It is noted in LotR: Weapons and Warfare that Sauron's mace was intentionally forged to remind its Elven foes of the terror of Grond.

Dode
2008-06-12, 08:19 AM
[SPOILER]
Because after the fist season, Death note goes from a logical chess styled mystery to a more shallow uninteresting tone. It becomes less smart, less interesting and the characters lose their appeal. It attempts to outdo the first season and fails spectacularly. Light looses what makes him cool and Near is only an L knock off. THe first season ended greatly and without L the second suffered. Light become a moron and Near was pretty much a cannon sue with no real personality. it felt like it was written by somebody else without any of the orginial talent

[\SPOILER]
from
EE
For once, I completely agree with you. Once I read the issue-

-where L dies, the series steadily got worse. However, I'm not neccessarily blaming writer incompetence so much as the main premise of Death Note was a finite concept in nature. The main draw of the series was never Light writing down a name in a book and that guy falling over dead, instead it was the methodical cat-and-mouse game between two geniuses. Once the conflict between those two was resolved (and it needed to be resolved, otherwise the series would have gotten flat-out boring), the draw of the series was gone and it should have ended right there for the sake of closing the story. Trotting out L2 and hoping lightning will be caught in a bottle again is just stupid.

Some concepts were meant to sustain ongoings, others need to be closed at both ends for their own sake. Make no bones about it, a Watchmen ongoing would suck

WalkingTarget
2008-06-12, 08:29 AM
On Legolas (and Gimli): yeah, I was annoyed that they felt the need to add in a lot of crazy acrobatics for the Elf in the latter two films. I understand the need to add "awesome" to fight scenes these days, but I thought that the part near the end of Fellowship where he shot so many orcs in quick succession was bad-ass enough. I'm more upset with the degradation of Gimli to comic-relief in the second film. That might just be my preference for that character in the novel coming through, however.

On Sauron: yes, he had a physical form at many points in the history of Arda. Valar (and Maiar like Sauron) could take on bodies pretty much at will by nature (and Sauron does a fair bit of shapechanging in the First Age). After he takes over as Dark Lord he starts taking "permanent" forms in order to better run things. Tolkien wrote in a letter that "...in a tale which allows the incarnation of great spirits in a physical and destructible form their power must be far greater when actually physically present. Sauron should be thought of as very terrible. The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic. In his earlier incarnation he was able to veil his power (as Gandalf did) and could appear as a commanding figure of great strength of body and supremely royal demeanour and countenance." After his first "death" he loses the ability to conceal his power and is just supposed to be this large, powerful, terrible, naked singularity of hate. The same letter says that no mortal, "not even Aragorn," would be able to stand up to him at the time of LotR. He's got a body, sure, but it's nigh impossible to convey the full force of his presence on-screen since a great part of it is sheer force of will.

As for weapons, none of the books I've read addresses what type of weapon he used (if any at all, it's possible to interpret some of it so that he fights bare-handed). The choice of a big mace works as an homage to Grond, but there's no support for it in the books that I'm aware of.

VanBuren
2008-06-12, 09:55 AM
They didn't have to, through it would take a good deal more skill and i don't think PJ, an extreme visualize could pull it off
from
EE

You do realize that film is a different medium and as such, cannot handle everything the way a book can, right?

Drascin
2008-06-12, 01:52 PM
I thought Grond was the bloody great battering ram?

Yeah, the ram was called Grond - but that was a Mordorian-style shout-out to the true Big Boss's personal hammer.

EvilElitest
2008-06-12, 04:04 PM
About LEgolas:

I thought Legolas was represented well. He's reasonably young by elf standards, and probably not used to hanging out with men or dwarves. I always figured he would be brash and a show-off. He shuts up most of the time though, which is great.

Young by elven standards, Legolas in the book is simply naive, while in the movies he is simply silly. I do agree with WT that gimli suffered more




About Sauron:

The Sauron shown in the beginning of the first movie is kind of a strange mash-up of Morgoth and Sauron, wielding something which I immediately assumed to be Grond, Morgoth's signature weapon. It was perhaps a way to edge Morgoth into the story without confusing people who were not familiar with the books.
Aside from that, the scene in question takes place long before the events described in the books. Sauron did indeed have a physical form back then, and it is not a far-fetched idea that he would take on an appearance similar to his master. The scene was important, because it sums up the backstory of the ring quickly and again, prevents confusion among people not familiar with the books.
1) I know he had a phyiscal form, that doesn't mean we have to see it, he was far scarier when not seen
2) I realize the need of having the flashback. I personally could imagine it better without seeing him, because he acted pretty doppy and it did hurt the character. The giant eyeball ruined it however



You do realize that film is a different medium and as such, cannot handle everything the way a book can, right?

yeah, your point?


Dode, we've agreeded on stuff before


Really, what made Death note interesting was the conflicting personalities of L and Light. They were very good together. However after L died, and lost its interesting character element, because Near and Light didn't have the same relationship


from
EE

VanBuren
2008-06-12, 06:29 PM
QUOTE=EvilElitest;4453605]1) I know he had a phyiscal form, that doesn't mean we have to see it, he was far scarier when not seen
2) I realize the need of having the flashback. I personally could imagine it better without seeing him, because he acted pretty doppy and it did hurt the character. The giant eyeball ruined it however[/quote]

How would you have done it in the flashback instead? Shown it from Sauron's perspective? Had him just off-screen? All of these alternatives leave quite a bit to be desired. If you have an idea however, by all means speak up.



yeah, your point?

That just because Sauron works as an intangible oppressive force in the narrative doesn't mean that it works as well in the cinema. The cinema is a visual medium. Things need to be seen.

Turcano
2008-06-12, 07:24 PM
How would you have done it in the flashback instead? Shown it from Sauron's perspective? Had him just off-screen? All of these alternatives leave quite a bit to be desired. If you have an idea however, by all means speak up.

Personally, I would have depicted him burning a hole through Gil-Galad's chest with his bare hand and then exploding when he does bite it.

Chumbaniya
2008-06-12, 08:02 PM
Xykon from our own Order of the Stick. Both incredibly powerful and vastly stupid... bad combination.

Black Mage from 8-Bit Theatre. What the hell is wrong with him.

What? They're both brilliant. How anyone can fail to love Xykon I don't know. He's a complete badass with a twisted sense of humour and complete disregard for others. What's not to like? The same pretty much goes for Black Mage.

Anyway, I absolutely can't believe no-one has mentioned Harry Potter yet. He is the most ridiculous 'hero' I've ever encountered. He's a whiny brat who posesses absolutely no talent at all and relies mainly on other people who can actually do something bailling him out constantly, and yet he still has the cheek to think that everything is about him.

Turcano
2008-06-12, 08:27 PM
Anyway, I absolutely can't believe no-one has mentioned Harry Potter yet. He is the most ridiculous 'hero' I've ever encountered. He's a whiny brat who posesses absolutely no talent at all and relies mainly on other people who can actually do something bailling him out constantly, and yet he still has the cheek to think that everything is about him.

You, my friend, have obviously never read The Inheritance Trilogy.

SurlySeraph
2008-06-12, 08:52 PM
What? They're both brilliant. How anyone can fail to love Xykon I don't know. He's a complete badass with a twisted sense of humour and complete disregard for others. What's not to like?

Well, there's the whole "evil mass-murdering sadist who has never done anything remotely constructive" thing.

NinjaHippy
2008-06-12, 09:10 PM
Well, there's the whole "evil mass-murdering sadist who has never done anything remotely constructive" thing.

The point of Xykon, though, is that he's an utter parody (like a lot of things in OotS) of the "big bad villain" cliche. If he were a serious character he'd be horribly obnoxious, but as a mockery, he's excellent.

Reinboom
2008-06-12, 09:24 PM
Haruhi Suzumiya -
She's completely mean, and I can't actually say what I prefer to call her. She's the type of person I would love to just backhand if she was real (minus the god status). Of course, I would feel extremely guilty afterwards, but, it's so very tempting.

The special agent guy in Elfen Lied, the one who gets his eyes poked out and arms broken/amputated.
I don't think I need to go in to much detail here as to why.

The heel-breaking women in every other generic horror. Which goes along with,
The completely genre blind who should know better if the situation was applied to a semi-real world equivalent.

Callos_DeTerran
2008-06-12, 09:33 PM
The special agent guy in Elfen Lied, the one who gets his eyes poked out and arms broken/amputated.
I don't think I need to go in to much detail here as to why.

You mean Bando? Aww, why the Bando hate? :smalltongue:

Reinboom
2008-06-12, 09:39 PM
You mean Bando? Aww, why the Bando hate? :smalltongue:

Yes, Bando.
He just seems to be a complete jerk++ without any decent backstory to support it.

Maerok
2008-06-12, 09:41 PM
Meursault from The Stranger... Though that's kind of the deal...

But that book messed with me.

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-12, 09:48 PM
Scrappy Doo.

And Navi. Navi...


HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! DEAR GOD END IT! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen!

Reinboom
2008-06-12, 09:53 PM
Scrappy Doo.

And Navi. Navi...


HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! DEAR GOD END IT! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen! HEY! Listen!

I like navi... of course, I think I sort of programmed to not hear that over and over.. or something. I don't ever recall hearing it in the game much.

Scrappy Doo however? I hate scrappy doo as well.
*edit*
Actually, I think I hate all the Doos other than scooby.

Maerok
2008-06-12, 09:56 PM
Harry Potter is pretty bad, as previously mentioned. I haven't even read the 7th book. He's good at disarms and Patronus, I guess, plus the scar. The rest is a lot of grooming by the faculty... He has the innate ability to make the bad guy kill himself and, in terms of plot, walk a straight, unwavering line as the other characters scramble to push every obstacle out of the way and open every door from here to Hades.

ArtifexFelicis
2008-06-12, 10:06 PM
I like navi... of course, I think I sort of programmed to not hear that over and over.. or something. I don't ever recall hearing it in the game much.

It's actually my ringtone, so it's more of a built up hatred. I loved Navi for what help she did give, especially compared to Tatl or Midna at times. But Hey! LISTEN! Truly grates on your nerves when you hear it 4 or 5 times a day on your cell phone.

On the other hand, I NEVER miss a call.

While I'm here too.

Tatl has her bad moments, but the Skull Kid from Majora's Mask. I mean, he was meh. He didn't give me any feeling of hatred like Tingle did, nor did he creep me out like the Happy Mask Salesman. Just a bad villain. The mask was cool though. Just a bad wearer.

Volug
2008-06-12, 10:14 PM
Naruto, the character.
The anime is decent and I watch it from time to time when I'm bored.

I want that Navi ringtone now:smalltongue:

NinjaHippy
2008-06-12, 11:23 PM
Harry Potter wouldn't be so bad if his (obviously contrived) plot armor wasn't so darn thick. Seriously, he takes down Voldemort what, three? Four times? And wins a major tournament, takes down trolls singlehandedly, and all of this with admittedly mediocre magic skills, before he's old enough to legally buy alcohol?

I call BS.

GrassyGnoll
2008-06-12, 11:40 PM
Tatl has her bad moments, but the Skull Kid from Majora's Mask. I mean, he was meh. He didn't give me any feeling of hatred like Tingle did, nor did he creep me out like the Happy Mask Salesman. Just a bad villain. The mask was cool though. Just a bad wearer.

But he wasn't supposed to be a villain at all, it was the mask. Skull Kid was just some forest spirit who used to play with the giants and got lonely.

Majora's Mask was the only video game to make me shed manly tears. The way you find Deku Butler's dead son in the forest, Cremia/Kafiei's story, how each mask was a dead companion. The Song of Healing still gets me teary.

Cubey
2008-06-12, 11:45 PM
More on Xykon and Black Mage.

They're actually different archetypes. Both I consider a case of "awful person, great character", but for different reasons. Xykon isn't really ineffectual, he's just evil for the hell of it, the moustache-twirling variety of a villain who doesn't need or want deeper motivations, any emo crap or Freudian excuses. His acts of villainy would be horrifying, but they're so over-the-top that they usually (NOT always) come out as hilarious instead.
Black Mage on the other hand is hilarious because of how ineffectual he is. He became a much funnier character when Brian Clevinger decided the world exists to hurt Black Mage, and not the other way around. He succeeds in evil deeds sometimes, but that's almost always either a running gag of hurting his own team members (they get better) or carnage on some hapless civilians, which wouldn't be funny at all if they weren't so bloody STUPID. Sort of like over-the-top villainy of Xykon above, mixed half-and-half with Happy Tree Friends. The same applies to at least some extent to similar characters, like Belkar or Richard from LFG.

Haruhi Suzumiya is a domineering jerk, but she has her own moments of kindness and I'm really unsure on how can they not be enough to redeem her (Okay... maybe excluding the Computer Society "incident" - but they did save the president of it later, so it sorta evens out. Sorta because Haruhi indirectly caused the trouble.). The show proves that you can be a good person while still having a jerkass personality. And also, people she usually bosses around, that is the SOS Dan, seem to genuinely like being around her (not that they have a choice on this matter...). Except Itsuki, whose real thoughts are hidden from anyone but himself, but who the hell cares about him?

Holy_Knight
2008-06-13, 12:32 AM
Harry Potter wouldn't be so bad if his (obviously contrived) plot armor wasn't so darn thick. Seriously, he takes down Voldemort what, three? Four times? And wins a major tournament, takes down trolls singlehandedly, and all of this with admittedly mediocre magic skills, before he's old enough to legally buy alcohol?

I call BS.
I think you're being overly harsh on Harry. In terms of your specific examples, He was able to survive Voldemort so often because of a combination of Voldemort's hubris and need to vanquish him himself plus being "tuned" to being resistant to Voldemort, the tournament was rigged by the bad guys so most of the obstacles were taken out before Harry got there, and the only time I can think of him fighting a troll was when he had two other people helping him, not singlehanded. He also was supposed to be good at Defense Against the Dark Arts, despite being average in most other subjects. There's more that could be said, but I don't want to get the thread off track.

poleboy
2008-06-13, 01:30 AM
1) I know he had a phyiscal form, that doesn't mean we have to see it, he was far scarier when not seen
2) I realize the need of having the flashback. I personally could imagine it better without seeing him, because he acted pretty doppy and it did hurt the character. The giant eyeball ruined it however


1)
We're back at people who had their first encounter with LOTR through the movies here. You never see what he looks like inside that giant armor, so that leaves quite a bit for the imagination, while still giving people not familiar with the books a face to pin the name Sauron on. It's a fair compromise, I think. You can't expect everyone who sees a movie to have read the book first.

2)
Why was he dopey? Okay, he fell for the "Oh, the hero's down, I'll just take a moment to gloat before I kill him" trick, but anyone defeating Sauron is extremely unlikely in any event. It had to be a cheap shot.

GolemsVoice
2008-06-14, 11:30 AM
I must admit, I disliked Harry, too, and, much to my dismay, I cannot even pinpoint the exact reason. After the fourth book, I stopped reading, because it just failed to interest me, and the plot became tedious. The fourth book, as I remember it, was just: "Oh, I'm so depressed" "Hey, Harry, power of friendship!" "Woo, now I feel good again. Wait, my freinds hate me, let's hate back." "Aw, Harry is such a selfish bastard, let's hate him" "Hey, let's be friends again. Yay, friendship." After that up-and-down, there was the next, then than the next...

Lord_Asmodeus
2008-06-14, 12:07 PM
Incase he hasn't been mentioned (or even if he has, theres no such thing as "too much hate" where this guy comes in) I present you Superdick-Prime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman-Prime) Few beings are more worthy of hatred than this bastard. I hate him with the very fiber of my being, and I've never even read the comics he's in :smallyuk:

Dode
2008-06-14, 12:20 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/Primepunch.PNG

how could you possibly hate that or think the character and the people who wrote the character or were even peripherally involved were all stupid mongoloid wastes of oxygen?

Lord_Asmodeus
2008-06-14, 12:50 PM
Are you seriously asking me how I could hate the guy who killed hundreds of planets (many of them Earth) slaughtered his way through hero and villain alike, and basically took out his dislike on the way his life turned out on all of reality?

Renegade Paladin
2008-06-14, 11:19 PM
Episode 3 was such a waste. It had a couple decent action scenes and nothing else. The only thing that made it worth watching was getting to see Hayden Christenssen catch fire.
You just won the thread. :smallbiggrin:

MeklorIlavator
2008-06-14, 11:40 PM
I must admit, I disliked Harry, too, and, much to my dismay, I cannot even pinpoint the exact reason. After the fourth book, I stopped reading, because it just failed to interest me, and the plot became tedious. The fourth book, as I remember it, was just: "Oh, I'm so depressed" "Hey, Harry, power of friendship!" "Woo, now I feel good again. Wait, my freinds hate me, let's hate back." "Aw, Harry is such a selfish bastard, let's hate him" "Hey, let's be friends again. Yay, friendship." After that up-and-down, there was the next, then than the next...
Its kinda this way for me as well. I just can't bring myself to read the 7th book. Personally, I blame the way Harry stopped using that thing between his ears around book 4(at the very latest). I mean, why not confide in someone that X is torturing you? Or really, any of his decisions in the later books. I think this was fueled by my dislike of the way boys/male teenagers are portrayed in modern Pop culture. They are either
A) Brilliant, but a complete dork/wimp/unpopular.
B) Dumb as a brick, but decent at athletics/popular.
C) Comic relief.

Avilan the Grey
2008-06-18, 02:39 AM
This. Goddamn, do I hate Kevin Costner movies.

There is a huge difference between "Kevin Costner Movies" (which I hate) and movies that others have made that happens to cast him in a role. He is a competent actor, even if he is not great.

Avilan the Grey
2008-06-18, 02:49 AM
On Legolas (and Gimli): yeah, I was annoyed that they felt the need to add in a lot of crazy acrobatics for the Elf in the latter two films. I understand the need to add "awesome" to fight scenes these days, but I thought that the part near the end of Fellowship where he shot so many orcs in quick succession was bad-ass enough. I'm more upset with the degradation of Gimli to comic-relief in the second film. That might just be my preference for that character in the novel coming through, however.

For the people who thought Legolas "skillz" was over the top: Remember that there are a lot of things we don't see him do in the movies, and I guess they needed something in place of those to see how different he is from humans:

In the book(s), he walks on the snow without footprints. He walks ropes without a second thought. Etc. Compared to that, shooting orcs while gliding down a staircase on a shield is nothing.
The Mumakil kill is a little over the top for the movie, but compared to the actual capabilities of Tolkien's elves it is really not that unique or over the top.

Gimli should have been portrayed as more bad-ass though.

EvilElitest
2008-06-18, 09:30 PM
For the people who thought Legolas "skillz" was over the top: Remember that there are a lot of things we don't see him do in the movies, and I guess they needed something in place of those to see how different he is from humans:

Why? They don't include something to show how different hobbits, or dwarves are? Why elves. well, other than the fact PJ wishes he could be one, but still


In the book(s), he walks on the snow without footprints. He walks ropes without a second thought. Etc. Compared to that, shooting orcs while gliding down a staircase on a shield is nothing.
The Mumakil kill is a little over the top for the movie, but compared to the actual capabilities of Tolkien's elves it is really not that unique or over the top.
1) Um, in the book he is described as being able to walk on snow. his walking on the troll chain, fine. But the skate board scene was simply shallow and silly
2) Tolkien's elves couldn't pull off the Elephaunt thing, most likely because it is moronic. They would simply shoot it in the eye
from
EE


Gimli should have been portrayed as more bad-ass though.[/QUOTE]

Avilan the Grey
2008-06-19, 12:34 AM
Why? They don't include something to show how different hobbits, or dwarves are? Why elves. well, other than the fact PJ wishes he could be one, but still

1) Um, in the book he is described as being able to walk on snow. his walking on the troll chain, fine. But the skate board scene was simply shallow and silly
2) Tolkien's elves couldn't pull off the Elephaunt thing, most likely because it is moronic. They would simply shoot it in the eye


1) I don't see why the skateboard scene is so silly. I just don't.

2) Oh yes. I agree.
What I mean, however is that many of Tolkien's elves could have performed the stunt with the Oliphaunt. It is unnecessary and "show-offy", but not unrealistic After all, Tolkien's elves are not like most modern day fantasy elves. They are taller than men, stronger than men AND more dexterous, nimble and quicker. Plus they have an eyesight that makes eagles blush.
(Another point is that in the movie at least, Legolas is basically a teenager among elves). The standard elf is basically what Cap America is to the normal human.

Solo
2008-06-19, 03:41 AM
Gimli should have been portrayed as more bad-ass though.

"That still counts as one!" was a pretty awesome line.

SurlySeraph
2008-06-19, 04:40 PM
Gimli should have been portrayed as more bad-ass though.

If you watch carefully, you'll notice that Gimli dual-wields axes when he's fighting the cave troll. And you can't say that defending the bridge at Helm's Deep wasn't badass. It's true that he didn't get enough badass scenes, though.

Gygaxphobia
2008-06-26, 06:31 AM
Unfortunately he gets too many patronising "help the stunty" scenes to compensate for any badassery. (e.g. pick him up, protect his back, lift him out of the water, toss the dwarf etc etc)

DomaDoma
2008-06-26, 07:46 AM
Why? They don't include something to show how different hobbits, or dwarves are? Why elves. well, other than the fact PJ wishes he could be one, but still


Because the elves-are-better-than-you bit started with Tolkien. :p

Revanmal
2008-06-26, 01:33 PM
Unfortunately he gets too many patronising "help the stunty" scenes to compensate for any badassery. (e.g. pick him up, protect his back, lift him out of the water, toss the dwarf etc etc)

Dwarf-tossing - the greatest sport EVAR!

I of course hate pretty much every character in the Inheritance Cycle. And pretty much any female character in Wheel of Time, not because they're female, but because they're all pretentious, self-righteous, stuck-up bitches who can't see good sense if they didn't think of it. Except Birgitte, she is the best female character in the book. Of course its not their fault, it's Jordan's for making them that way. I think he has issues.

My favorite scene is where Mat verbally trounces, using their own dialect and slang, what essentially amounts to the Queen of the Seafolk and her entourage with impunity because he isn't scared of their ability to channel. It finally pounded some sense into their dense skulls.

Other than that I can't really think of any other characters I actually hate at the moment.

Jayngfet
2008-06-27, 10:26 PM
After re-reading the war of the spider queen I'm adding haliistra, for the simple reason that she had no reason to go back to demon worship.

EvilElitest
2008-06-27, 10:30 PM
Because the elves-are-better-than-you bit started with Tolkien. :p

Well in the Simerelion they aren't perfect
from
EE

ArmorArmadillo
2008-06-28, 10:32 AM
Lelouch vi Britannia (Code Geass): An arrogant marty stu pretending to the throne of Magnificent Bastard.

Sir_Norbert
2008-06-29, 11:28 AM
I of course hate pretty much every character in the Inheritance Cycle.
Well, I admit I only read the first book, but I don't remember it having any characters.

Shadowcaller
2008-06-29, 11:39 AM
Dwarf-tossing - the greatest sport EVAR!

I of course hate pretty much every character in the Inheritance Cycle. And pretty much any female character in Wheel of Time, not because they're female, but because they're all pretentious, self-righteous, stuck-up bitches who can't see good sense if they didn't think of it. Except Birgitte, she is the best female character in the book. Of course its not their fault, it's Jordan's for making them that way. I think he has issues.

My favorite scene is where Mat verbally trounces, using their own dialect and slang, what essentially amounts to the Queen of the Seafolk and her entourage with impunity because he isn't scared of their ability to channel. It finally pounded some sense into their dense skulls.

Other than that I can't really think of any other characters I actually hate at the moment.

I share your hate brother:smallamused:.

...bit then again i don't really like the male characters in the wheel of time either but this hate (if you really could call it that, they are fictional characters after all) made me read every book in the series somehow.

PhallicWarrior
2008-06-29, 06:34 PM
Philip.

Effing.

Clyde.

Army of Two.

The one thing that game's story did perfectly was getting you to hate your ally-turned-psycho-clown-type-person. The dude not only swears up a storm, getting even the extremely profane main characters to comment, but is relentlessly evil and destructive for no real reason. (Though, again, the lack of reason might have been a side-effect of the poorly-thought-out plot.)

sun_tzu
2008-06-30, 11:39 AM
I tend to dislike characters who seem to constantly win even when it makes no sense for them to (most toonforcers. Mell of Narbonics. Dee Dee).
Characters I really hate, though? Hm...Cersei, Joffrey, and that Frey leader guy responsible for the Red Wedding from "A Song of Ice and Fire". The witch from MTech who destroyed the minds of every human on an entire world just for kicks.
Also, it's not quite the same kind of hate, but Robin from "Shortpacked" really gets on my nerves. I'll freely admit that she's good for the comic, though.

sun_tzu
2008-06-30, 06:05 PM
Someone I can't believe I forgot: Stan, from "Penny & Aggie". Now, he doesn't kill people, like ASOIAF villains (Well, duh. P&A is a high school comedy.), but...God, that smug, manipulative, petty little piece of fetid [CENSORED]...I just want to force-feed him his own teeth. Even Karen doesn't grate me the way he does, and Karen's despicable.

Prophaniti
2008-06-30, 06:35 PM
Does hating the god-awful hash Samuel L. Jackson made out of Jedi Master Mace Windu count?:smalltongue:

Seriously, though. Read through the Harry Turtledove alt history novels starting with How Few Remain. If you don't hate Custer by the end of the third or fourth book, your probably just as much of a son-of-a-blankety-blank as he is. I remeber repeatedly saying to myself, "Why won't that old bastard die?!"

Killersquid
2008-06-30, 06:56 PM
My number 1 was going to be Holden Caulfield, but it seems that everyone up front took it, so I gotta go with Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The ending forever stays with me as one of the most Downer Endings ever.

Executor
2008-06-30, 07:21 PM
Dwarf-tossing - the greatest sport EVAR!

I of course hate pretty much every character in the Inheritance Cycle. And pretty much any female character in Wheel of Time, not because they're female, but because they're all pretentious, self-righteous, stuck-up bitches who can't see good sense if they didn't think of it. Except Birgitte, she is the best female character in the book. Of course its not their fault, it's Jordan's for making them that way. I think he has issues.

My favorite scene is where Mat verbally trounces, using their own dialect and slang, what essentially amounts to the Queen of the Seafolk and her entourage with impunity because he isn't scared of their ability to channel. It finally pounded some sense into their dense skulls.

Other than that I can't really think of any other characters I actually hate at the moment.

On the topic of WoT female characters, freaking Tuon. What the hell is her problem? If I remember correctly, she made Mat have sex with her at knifepoint. Now, in case Mr. Jordan does not know, Rape =/= Love. And Rape is most certainly not Romantic. I'm a man, and even I know that rape is not romance. What this says about Mr. Jordan is rather disturbing.

Woot Spitum
2008-06-30, 07:48 PM
On the topic of WoT female characters, freaking Tuon. What the hell is her problem? If I remember correctly, she made Mat have sex with her at knifepoint. Now, in case Mr. Jordan does not know, Rape =/= Love. And Rape is most certainly not Romantic. I'm a man, and even I know that rape is not romance. What this says about Mr. Jordan is rather disturbing.That wasn't Tuon, that was Queen Tylin. Tuon just beats him up, and considering that he was trying to kidnap her, it was entirely justified.

Revanmal
2008-06-30, 08:13 PM
That wasn't Tuon, that was Queen Tylin. Tuon just beats him up, and considering that he was trying to kidnap her, it was entirely justified.

I personally thought Tylin was funny at times, but yeah rape=/= love. Also Galad. He's a pretty goody-two shoes.

Most of all, Nynaeve as earned my ire. That woman refuses to SHUT UP, and holds grudges FOREVER, and is just as haughty and stupid as the rest. :smallfurious:

http://meikon.homeip.net/extras/Wheel_of_Time-Summaries/

The above link is full of win though. XD

Hectonkhyres
2008-06-30, 08:25 PM
Lelouch vi Britannia (Code Geass): An arrogant marty stu pretending to the throne of Magnificent Bastard.
And the sad thing is that he could have looked into a mirror at any time and made himself dark lord of all magnificent bastards, barren of flaws or personal weakness. Literally, he could have geassed the stupid out of himself.

Dervag
2008-06-30, 08:59 PM
Well in the Simerelion they aren't perfectIt's not that they're perfect.

It's that they are better than you. Tolkein's elves are the physical and spiritual superiors of humans; it's just what they are.

Let me give you an example.

Remember how, in the novel, the orc garrison of Cirith Ungol found that Shelob had been horribly wounded? And how some of the few surviving orcs were terrified because they thought some mighty elven warrior was after them?

And that after the tower of Cirith Ungol fell because the garrison fought among themselves, all the other orcs thought it had been a mighty elven warrior who did it?

Think about what that means.

It means that within Tolkein's setting, the elven reputation for badassery is so great that people who know about it can imagine that:

An elven warrior could kill or cripple a supernatural beast, a creature that no one since the dawn of time had ever been able to defeat. Then that same elf could go on to singlehandledly take on a fortress full of troops, a fortress guarded by powerful magic.

In that context, is it that surprising that an elf could take down a Mumakil? How do you think the elves got that reputation in the first place? They did not get it by being minor minions who could only engage orcs at even odds or better.


Seriously, though. Read through the Harry Turtledove alt history novels starting with How Few Remain. If you don't hate Custer by the end of the third or fourth book, your probably just as much of a son-of-a-blankety-blank as he is. I remeber repeatedly saying to myself, "Why won't that old bastard die?!"Of course, you're mostly exposed to him through the eyes of people for whom his vices (which are myriad) are intensely annoying and challenging, but for whom his virtues are useless.

It's a very plausible development of the historical Custer in the setting Turtledove creates, too. He really was that much of a vainglorious jerk. And there really were World War One generals who were, well, quite a bit like Custer. Not necessarily so old, but every bit as much cemented in a 19th century mindset. And not even a smart, progressive one.


My number 1 was going to be Holden Caulfield, but it seems that everyone up front took it, so I gotta go with Nurse Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The ending forever stays with me as one of the most Downer Endings ever.Oh, yeah. Hate her.

EvilElitest
2008-06-30, 10:35 PM
It's not that they're perfect.

It's that they are better than you. Tolkein's elves are the physical and spiritual superiors of humans; it's just what they are.

Not in the Eragon sense. Elves envy humans, for their creativity, their ability to die. Elven Arrogance led to the war of the jewels and the losses of their great kingdoms. They are physically more powerful yes, as they live forever unless killed,


Let me give you an example.

Remember how, in the novel, the orc garrison of Cirith Ungol found that Shelob had been horribly wounded? And how some of the few surviving orcs were terrified because they thought some mighty elven warrior was after them?

And that after the tower of Cirith Ungol fell because the garrison fought among themselves, all the other orcs thought it had been a mighty elven warrior who did it?

Actually'
1) They mention several times it could be a Tark (orcish slang for Gondorian man) warrior as well. Sam prefers the title of elf warrior
2) Orcs have an ancient hatred towards elves, and over their long history fighting them, particually fear them




Think about what that means.

It means that within Tolkein's setting, the elven reputation for badassery is so great that people who know about it can imagine that:

An elven warrior could kill or cripple a supernatural beast, a creature that no one since the dawn of time had ever been able to defeat. Then that same elf could go on to singlehandledly take on a fortress full of troops, a fortress guarded by powerful magic.

1) Elves are immortal and use powerful magic, it makes sense taht the orcs would fear and jump to conclusions.
2) How else would said beast die? It had to be magic (from the orcs perspective) and the orcs fear and hate elven magic. In reality, elves faired no better against the Spider than Men, it was hobbits who one the day
3) And again, they fear elves. It is a logically conclusion that elven magic could have done it. It doesn't mean that a single elf actually could (the elf lords could, but they are another story entirely)


In that context, is it that surprising that an elf could take down a Mumakil? How do you think the elves got that reputation in the first place? They did not get it by being minor minions who could only engage orcs at even odds or better.

An elf taking down a Mumakil i'm fine with (you know, in the eye with an arrow). Climbing up a series of arrows in the legs is just bloody stupid, and silly
from
EE

Philistine
2008-06-30, 11:49 PM
Ha! Coincidence is my friend today - I saw the thread title and knew exactly which characters I hated, read through the thread, and right here on the last page are other people already talking about Turtledove. Some days are just made of win that way, I guess.

(Of course, when I said "exactly," what I meant is that I remember more or less what they did, and how that turned out for them in the story, and that the author's handling of it didn't just turn me off those three characters, it actually ruined the whole fargling series for me... but the characters' names? Those I had to look up.)

I speak of course of Turtledove's Worldwar books...
... and the unholy love triangle between the physicist, Jens Larssen; the physicist's wife, Barbara; and the toothless hillbilly sergeant, Sam Yeager. For those not familiar with the series, the premise is an alien invasion of the Earth during the summer of 1942 by creatures whose overall technological level is not all that advanced (think roughly RL 1980s-early 90s), apart from nuclear-fusion-powered space travel.

So. In the middle of the invasion, Larssen, a young physicist from the U of Chicago and associated with the Manhattan Project, gets drafted to make a trip across the invasion zone to brief the country's new leadership (the aliens had nuked DC) on the Project's existence and goals. He literally goes through Hell to get there, make his report, and get back - only to find out that all the Project staff in Chicago (including his wife, who was a typist attached to the Project) were pulled out of the city something like one day before he got back. So he follows them from Chicago to Denver on his bicycle, which involves yet more crossing and recrossing of the front lines in and out of alien-held territory, before he finally manages to catch up.

There Larssen finds that his wife had given him up for dead months before, and has been shacking up with the aforementioned toothless hillbilly Army sergeant. (Yes, he is explicitly a toothless hillbilly in the books.) And that's understandable - after all, it had been something like a year and a half since Larssen had left, and he'd had no way to communicate with her that he was, in fact, alive and doing his best to get back to her again. So far, so good - nice and dramatic, plenty of story "meat" there. But then... oh, then.

So Larssen finally catches up with his wife, only to be told by her and Yeager that he needs to butt out and leave them alone to enjoy their newfound happiness. Okay... maybe that's not completely crazy, although in that time period I'm pretty sure the etiquette in such a situation would have been for the "interloper" to make himself scarce instead. But then all of Larssen's former friends and colleagues from the U of Chicago take up the exact same tune, and that notion is squarely in the realm of the certifiably bat**** insane.

And suddenly, this guy Larssen... this guy who's been a major viewpoint character in the first couple of books, to the point of being an entire subplot by himself... this guy who's been actively doing things, and not just a supernumerary hanger-on, along for the ride (and the OPP, of course) like Barbara and Yaeger... without buildup, pause, or hesitation, Larssen pulls the fastest Face Heel Turn in the history of fiction. Suddenly, he's an abusive, bullying, drunken, incompetent a****** (none of which was even hinted at previously), universally reviled. Eventually, he goes completely off his nut and decides that the thing to do is to go after the happy couple with a shotgun, then run off to sell the secret location of America's nuclear project to the aliens, so they can blow it up. He doesn't actually manage to accomplish either of these things, of couse, because he's drunk and incompetent; he barely manages to give his wife a scare before he runs for the hills and is summarily cut down by machine gun fire. And it's all his fault. Of course.

This character assassination was necessary because of the author's determination that only the adulterous couple deserved the audience's sympathy. Unfortunately, neither of them had really done much of anything, storywise; whereas the physicist had been doing all that heroic junk - back and forth across the country, in and out of hostile territory, and all that crap. So Turtledove had to tear all that down before he could make Barbara-Sam look acceptable. Unfortunately, he did it very clumsily; and while I had no sympathy left for Larssen by the time he died, I also pretty much hated everyone else involved in that entire subplot... and that comprised something like 20-25% of the books.

I finished the series; but when I picked up the first novel of the follow-on Colonization series and realized that Yaeger was going to be a primary character, I just put it down. Because, wow, I hated that character, and the author clearly wanted me to like him but had no idea how to go about it.

Recaiden
2008-07-01, 11:03 PM
After re-reading the war of the spider queen I'm adding haliistra, for the simple reason that she had no reason to go back to demon worship.

Yes! That was the worst part of the series. It was probably because they can't have Lloth die and so she has to lose, but that was horribly written. Initially, she was a good character, but her whole charcter fell apaart and became stupid in that book. Maybe it was just the writer.

Harry Potter and Eragon as well.

freerangetroll
2008-07-02, 12:59 AM
I speak of course of Turtledove's Worldwar books...
... and the unholy love triangle between the physicist, Jens Larssen; the physicist's wife, Barbara; and the toothless hillbilly sergeant, Sam Yeager. For those not familiar with the series, the premise is an alien invasion of the Earth during the summer of 1942 by creatures whose overall technological level is not all that advanced (think roughly RL 1980s-early 90s), apart from nuclear-fusion-powered space travel.

So. In the middle of the invasion, Larssen, a young physicist from the U of Chicago and associated with the Manhattan Project, gets drafted to make a trip across the invasion zone to brief the country's new leadership (the aliens had nuked DC) on the Project's existence and goals. He literally goes through Hell to get there, make his report, and get back - only to find out that all the Project staff in Chicago (including his wife, who was a typist attached to the Project) were pulled out of the city something like one day before he got back. So he follows them from Chicago to Denver on his bicycle, which involves yet more crossing and recrossing of the front lines in and out of alien-held territory, before he finally manages to catch up.

There Larssen finds that his wife had given him up for dead months before, and has been shacking up with the aforementioned toothless hillbilly Army sergeant. (Yes, he is explicitly a toothless hillbilly in the books.) And that's understandable - after all, it had been something like a year and a half since Larssen had left, and he'd had no way to communicate with her that he was, in fact, alive and doing his best to get back to her again. So far, so good - nice and dramatic, plenty of story "meat" there. But then... oh, then.

So Larssen finally catches up with his wife, only to be told by her and Yeager that he needs to butt out and leave them alone to enjoy their newfound happiness. Okay... maybe that's not completely crazy, although in that time period I'm pretty sure the etiquette in such a situation would have been for the "interloper" to make himself scarce instead. But then all of Larssen's former friends and colleagues from the U of Chicago take up the exact same tune, and that notion is squarely in the realm of the certifiably bat**** insane.

And suddenly, this guy Larssen... this guy who's been a major viewpoint character in the first couple of books, to the point of being an entire subplot by himself... this guy who's been actively doing things, and not just a supernumerary hanger-on, along for the ride (and the OPP, of course) like Barbara and Yaeger... without buildup, pause, or hesitation, Larssen pulls the fastest Face Heel Turn in the history of fiction. Suddenly, he's an abusive, bullying, drunken, incompetent a****** (none of which was even hinted at previously), universally reviled. Eventually, he goes completely off his nut and decides that the thing to do is to go after the happy couple with a shotgun, then run off to sell the secret location of America's nuclear project to the aliens, so they can blow it up. He doesn't actually manage to accomplish either of these things, of couse, because he's drunk and incompetent; he barely manages to give his wife a scare before he runs for the hills and is summarily cut down by machine gun fire. And it's all his fault. Of course.

This character assassination was necessary because of the author's determination that only the adulterous couple deserved the audience's sympathy. Unfortunately, neither of them had really done much of anything, storywise; whereas the physicist had been doing all that heroic junk - back and forth across the country, in and out of hostile territory, and all that crap. So Turtledove had to tear all that down before he could make Barbara-Sam look acceptable. Unfortunately, he did it very clumsily; and while I had no sympathy left for Larssen by the time he died, I also pretty much hated everyone else involved in that entire subplot... and that comprised something like 20-25% of the books.

I finished the series; but when I picked up the first novel of the follow-on Colonization series and realized that Yaeger was going to be a primary character, I just put it down. Because, wow, I hated that character, and the author clearly wanted me to like him but had no idea how to go about it.

I don't think you and I read the same book.:smallconfused:

While I will agree with you that the reaction of Larrsen's peers was odd, stating that Sam was a "tag along" is tremendously wrong. He is probably the central American character in all of the world war novels. He is the one who acclimates the captured aliens and brings them into the fold. His role as an ambassador to the aliens is expanded upon much more in the sequel series.

Jayngfet
2008-07-03, 01:24 AM
*Snip*

I find it amusing that a story centred around a goddes and her priestesses had no decent female characters while they managed the male drow to monster and back work twice.

Pharun:Amusingly snarky with some fantastic political commentary.

Ryld: Lots of fantastic political commentary with slight snark.

Valas: If nothing else a good alternative to the other drow ranger.

Meanwhile Lolth and her holy wind up on top via unnecessary backstabbing and Deus ex machina.

Chronicled
2008-07-03, 01:42 AM
Novinha from the series continuing after Ender's Game. I was much more annoyed by her than by Holden Caulfield. I love Card's writing, but I sure hate that character. About the only character that can annoy me so much...

...is every single one of them that's in a story of Paolini's.

Khanderas
2008-07-03, 01:45 AM
David Letterman.

All of him, but especially that "grin" he makes when he pretends to be funny. So smug, so lazy in his writing, such boring special segments (guess the meat... will it float... the oh-so-iconic throwing of the notecards though a fake breaking window sound) but above all SO OVERRATED ! So very overrated :smallfurious::smallfurious:

How he lasts year after year eludes me, frankly that he isn't fired after two shows astonishes me.

... yet somehow the audience is laughing. I bet drugs are involved to keep that smug bastard "in office". Or it is all "canned laughter".


Second guy on the list, far less annoying but also annoying enough to ruin my good mood is that ex-cop or whatever that "stars" on that cops show.
You know the guy. "Never run from the police" "You will always get caught" "Crime never pays" and perhaps 4-5 other "lessons" that he hammers in 20-30 times per half hour segment of the show. Yes this does mean he reuses them. Alot. His name ? Heck, I dislike him so much he is just "that cops guy", I won't be bothered to look up his name in the credits.

Chronicled
2008-07-03, 02:20 AM
David Letterman.

All of him, but especially that "grin" he makes when he pretends to be funny. So smug, so lazy in his writing, such boring special segments (guess the meat... will it float... the oh-so-iconic throwing of the notecards though a fake breaking window sound) but above all SO OVERRATED ! So very overrated :smallfurious::smallfurious:

How he lasts year after year eludes me, frankly that he isn't fired after two shows astonishes me.

... yet somehow the audience is laughing. I bet drugs are involved to keep that smug bastard "in office". Or it is all "canned laughter".

I definitely agree with this.

Lady Tialait
2008-07-03, 02:56 AM
Cloud Strife....the Celebrated Crybaby...No...I hate him...

Renrik
2008-07-03, 11:58 AM
Have you not read the play? He mopes around for 30 years when he's supposed to be getting revenge. Also that whole "to be or not to be" speech, where he's contemplating suicide.


Yeah. but unlike Emo kids living in the suburbs with decent families and tons of consumer electronics, Hamlet had a good reason to be paranoid and depressed. I mean, his dad was just killed, his uncle married his mom right after the funeral, a ghost of his father that might actually be the devil in disguise is appearing and telling him to kill his uncle, some dude named Fortinbras is going around invading things, the castle is full of spies and plotting by the king his uncle, two of his friends are trying to kill him,and then there's some weird boop with Ophelia going down.

He has good reasons to be angsty and depressed. We shouldn't label everyone angsty and depressed as Emo. If you've got Hamlet's reasons, it's justified. Also, other than one moment contemplating suicide and a few talkinf about howdepressed he is, he's mostly focused on revenge (granted, he is fatalistically focused on revenge, but at least he's actually taking action). Plus, his depression never really becomes histrionic, eve if the other characters do notice it.






Did anyone else notice the lack of actual character that Legolas and Gimli had in Tolkien's books? I mean, they're still okay characters, and I guess they have SOME character development, but they really don't have much other than becoming friends. Same in the movies. Oh well, they are kind of backup characters anyway.

WalkingTarget
2008-07-03, 12:16 PM
Did anyone else notice the lack of actual character that Legolas and Gimli had in Tolkien's books? I mean, they're still okay characters, and I guess they have SOME character development, but they really don't have much other than becoming friends. Same in the movies. Oh well, they are kind of backup characters anyway.

Yeah, they don't have a lot of character development, but I like them anyway. :smallbiggrin:

In Fangorn forest: "I dare say you could," snorted Gimli. "You are a Wood-elf, anyway, though Elves of any kind are strange folk. Yet you comfort me. Where you go, I will go. But keep your bow ready to hand, and I will keep my axe loose in my belt. Not for use on trees," he added hastily, looking up at the tree under which they stood.

At the Hornburg: "I do not doubt it," said Legolas. "But you are a dwarf, and dwarves are strange folk. I do not like this place, and I shall like it no more by the light of day. But you comfort me, Gimli, and I am glad to have you standing nigh with your stout legs and your hard axe. I wish there were more of your kin among us. But even more would I give for a hundred good archers of Mirkwood. We shall need them. The Rohirrim have good bowmen after their fashion, but there are too few here, too few."

It's little stuff like this small amount of banter that gets me. The friendship between them (indeed, Gimli's friendship with Galadriel as well) is also very significant in that dwarves and elves have been mistrustful of each other for what amounts to an entire Age of the world. Relieving this animosity is indicative of the healing of a rift among the free peoples; repairing some of the discord sown by Morgoth and Sauron and is another victory of the West.

Cristo Meyers
2008-07-03, 12:53 PM
I've got a new one. Some might know it, some might not.

Vashti (Edenborn, Nick Sagan). She's the kind of absolutist, manipulative, and downright obnoxious character that leaves you at best rolling your eyes whenever she speaks and at worst wanting to somehow reach through the pages to throttle her.

Renrik
2008-07-03, 04:41 PM
I think it's already been said but:

All of the characters in the Star Wars Episodes 1-3. All of them. Especially Anakin. Which really cheeses me off, because the actual character concept of Anakin is a really good take on a classic, and it could have been done so well, but it just sucked. I mean, really. "You underestimate.. MY.. POWER!". At the risk of sounding like Comic Book Guy from the Simsons: Worst line EVER. His acting was worse than a Junior High play. Don't even get me started on Jar-Jar or the way they portrayed the Wookies. And what was with Yoda: "Not if anything to say about it, I have!" Horrible. I liked him better as the peaceful and wise old teacher in the swamp. That is what he is meant to be. It wouldn't have been heard to allow him to keep that persona. He didn't ever need to lightsaber-battle anyone. Even the villains sucked. Which annoys me, because they were good character concepts that could have been correctly.

Oregano
2008-07-03, 04:52 PM
I thought Obi Wan Kenobi's awesome no matter what and Yoda was alright but Palpatine was the best character.

I personally hate Xena after watching the series again, she's a blatant mary-sue, is selfish, a hypocrite and should have totally been killed by Bellophoron(as well as all the amazons).

Mr. Scaly
2008-07-03, 05:24 PM
Yeah...I really liked Obi Wan in the prequels. Leia called him 'General' in A New Hope and I always wondered how effective he could really be...it was good to see him at his peak.

Prince Dagnarus, from the Sovereign Stone trilogy. I like the series and I understand what he was supposed to be but...he utterly failed to be sinister in any way. In my mind he was always the young prince desperate to make his father proud of him, not a grand evil overlord as he should have been later on. I appreciate humanity in my characters but after centuries of living a lonely, painful existence feeling only hate anger jealousy and all those good things, I figured he'd be more monster than man.

potatocubed
2008-07-04, 07:19 AM
Pretty much anyone from Jane Austen. Not so much characters as moral agendas with faces painted on them.

Arameus
2008-07-04, 07:28 AM
I mean, really. "You underestimate.. MY.. POWER!". At the risk of sounding like Comic Book Guy from the Simsons: Worst line EVER.

What? Worse than, "NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" ?!

Impossible!

Yeah, worst casting choice since Ellen deGeneres starred as Jar Jar Binks. What? It was HER, I swear!

Genesis from the FFVII (dis)continuity would get my vote of most loathed character. He's pretty much the single person you could put a sign on that says 'I am the reason your favorite game was raped. It was my fault and I loved it.' Although, Vincent became a character like that, but used to be actually serviceable, so he sits second from the bottom.

ArmorArmadillo
2008-07-04, 12:12 PM
I think it's already been said but:

All of the characters in the Star Wars Episodes 1-3. All of them. Especially Anakin. Which really cheeses me off, because the actual character concept of Anakin is a really good take on a classic, and it could have been done so well, but it just sucked. I mean, really. "You underestimate.. MY.. POWER!". At the risk of sounding like Comic Book Guy from the Simsons: Worst line EVER. His acting was worse than a Junior High play. Don't even get me started on Jar-Jar or the way they portrayed the Wookies. And what was with Yoda: "Not if anything to say about it, I have!" Horrible. I liked him better as the peaceful and wise old teacher in the swamp. That is what he is meant to be. It wouldn't have been heard to allow him to keep that persona. He didn't ever need to lightsaber-battle anyone. Even the villains sucked. Which annoys me, because they were good character concepts that could have been correctly.

Anakin had potential but the problem is that people keep seeming to think that 'obnoxious tool' is the stepping stone between Good and Evil.

SAMAS
2008-07-05, 09:55 AM
I was wondering what characters the various playgrounders didn't like for various reasons, this can range from annoyance to outright hatered.

Mine are Ryoko from Tenchi Muyo and Quenthel and Jegred Banre.

Ryoko I find irritating because of what she's done prior to the series and early on, the whole murdering thousands of people and threatening to kill Sasami in front of everyone and getting away with it, not that I don't like everything else about her.

What, that 700-year prison sentence wasn't enough?

Arameus
2008-07-05, 10:24 AM
Eh... I guess a life sentence is a bit different when you're a timeless demihuman, so it's hard to determine the efficacy or justice that even the lengthiest jailtime has on such people. Which is kind of odd. On the one hand, she's a mass murderer, and on the other hand, that's a really long time. Prompting the odd logic, 'I guess mass murder isn't all THAT bad!'

Which is why we should just opt for the death penalty if you kill more than five people. Especially if you're some vaguely-defined demon/spacepirate/plot-device. Granted, that sends the series off the rails, but really, what's one women out of.... *counts on fingers* Get me an abacus!

Avilan the Grey
2008-07-05, 10:52 AM
Well in the Simerelion they aren't perfect
from
EE

No, but they are physically superior.

Avilan the Grey
2008-07-05, 10:58 AM
An elf taking down a Mumakil i'm fine with (you know, in the eye with an arrow). Climbing up a series of arrows in the legs is just bloody stupid, and silly
from
EE

As I said, I agree. But the point was not that what Legolas did was not an unneccesary show-off stunt. The point is that it is not unrealistic or even unlikely that he could pull it off. He is just that much better than anyone else (except Gandalf) in the fellowship.

Raging Gene Ray
2008-07-05, 11:00 AM
'I guess mass murder isn't all THAT bad!'


Not when all the victims are nameless drones with mundane haircuts and a severe lack of hotness.

Dervag
2008-07-05, 11:42 AM
I think it's already been said but:

All of the characters in the Star Wars Episodes 1-3. All of them. Especially Anakin. [phillippic against Anakin, that I basically agree with]...To be fair, he's kind of supposed to be an idiot.

I think you really ought to come away with the idea that before he became Darth Vader, Anakin Skywalker was one of the worst examples of the dangers of rushing Jedi training. His ideas of how a person ought to behave were developed in a wretched hive of scum and villainy. He spent his entire adolescence in a monastic and male-dominated order, so he never really learned how to talk to girls. Because of his exceptional ability to manipulate the Force, he could afford to develop a fighting style that was all about balls and glory at the expense of self-discipline and concentration.

So he's an idiot. Not surprising.


And what was with Yoda: "Not if anything to say about it, I have!" Horrible. I liked him better as the peaceful and wise old teacher in the swamp. That is what he is meant to be. It wouldn't have been heard to allow him to keep that persona. He didn't ever need to lightsaber-battle anyone. Even the villains sucked. Which annoys me, because they were good character concepts that could have been correctly.I think it would have been nice to see Yoda fight, but in a different way.

A really old martial artist may not be fast, but still be deadly. They've been at this so long that they know what you'll do before you do it. So they'll block before your sword starts moving; they'll make a little subtle shift of stance and cut you from a direction you never imagined. Seeing Yoda fight that way would have been good.

Or just seeing a pure Force duel might have been good, without the lightsabers.

EvilElitest
2008-07-05, 02:46 PM
As I said, I agree. But the point was not that what Legolas did was not an unneccesary show-off stunt. The point is that it is not unrealistic or even unlikely that he could pull it off. He is just that much better than anyone else (except Gandalf) in the fellowship.

Actually it is. The Elves in LOTRS are no kung fu v for vendetta type characters, they are badass but not in that sense


in response to your other quote, the difference between the books and the movie is that in the movie they are perfect, not the case in the books
from
EE

hamishspence
2008-07-05, 03:01 PM
In Unfinished Tales, in Tolkien's words "Legolas probably achieved the least of the Nine Walkers"

so, maybe, the movie writer gave him some spotlight. And, unfortunately, made Gimli comic relief.

Mr. Scaly
2008-07-05, 05:07 PM
As I said, I agree. But the point was not that what Legolas did was not an unneccesary show-off stunt. The point is that it is not unrealistic or even unlikely that he could pull it off. He is just that much better than anyone else (except Gandalf) in the fellowship.

Actually, I'm adding 'Elves in general' on my list of people to hate BECAUSE of their whole sense of 'better than thous.'

EvilElitest
2008-07-05, 05:13 PM
Actually, I'm adding 'Elves in general' on my list of people to hate BECAUSE of their whole sense of 'better than thous.'

elves can be use well actually, the idea itself isn't bad, just total hacks (Eragon) tend to use it badly
from
EE

Mr. Scaly
2008-07-05, 05:23 PM
elves can be use well actually, the idea itself isn't bad, just total hacks (Eragon) tend to use it badly
from
EE

Well I've found maybe...one ethnicity of elves that I don't hate so far for being pretentious holier than thou jerks. Maybe two.

Edit: Actually make that three. I just remembered the Elvenbane series.

Jayngfet
2008-07-05, 07:01 PM
Why so many types of elf anyway?

DnD:high,wild,wood,sea,grey, half, drow.

Warcraft:high, night, blood, dark, trolls(with half a dozen of those), satyr, naga, harpies.

Faerie wars(same concept):Light, night, feral.

EvilElitest
2008-07-05, 08:12 PM
Well I've found maybe...one ethnicity of elves that I don't hate so far for being pretentious holier than thou jerks. Maybe two.

Edit: Actually make that three. I just remembered the Elvenbane series.

i like the elven personality, if used realistically. if it is just an excuse to write mary sues..........well then we have a problem
from
EE

WalkingTarget
2008-07-07, 08:12 AM
Why so many types of elf anyway?

DnD:high,wild,wood,sea,grey, half, drow.

Warcraft:high, night, blood, dark, trolls(with half a dozen of those), satyr, naga, harpies.

Faerie wars(same concept):Light, night, feral.

Heh, Tolkien had his share too. Granted that the distinctions are mostly made based on when populations of elves got split up during their travels (and the resulting drifting of languages) more than actual physiological differences. Spending time with the Valar and (especially) having seen the Trees of Valinor do make them even "better", however.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/67/Sundering_of_the_Elves.png/650px-Sundering_of_the_Elves.png

Kato
2008-08-02, 07:19 PM
Yay, thread necromancy is fun ^^
Anyway, I think it's a good thread and so I'll get it back to the top. So... feel free to rant about whoever you hate.

I hardly ever hate characters... I don't like 'empty characters' without motive or the like... dislike some villains, which have no real motive, but most are from poor series so I don't watch them. (And I dislike (w)angsty guys, but they at least have reasons to be how they are, mostly)
Anyway, there is one guy I just can't stop, not for his actions, but for his motivations. Gundam 00's (yeah, again Gundam) Ali al-Sarchez. He's a mercenary because he likes to kill people. Not even to make money or earn a living or something, just because he likes it. He turns children into murderers, against their own families. He tries to stop people who want to end war on earth, because he wants wars to keep going. I think that's just... lame. That's CE in purity, imo.

valadil
2008-08-02, 11:29 PM
Two words: Joffrey Lannister.