It might seem logical, but it’s wrong. The torturer can’t make you give the right answer, and can only verify a wrong answer by expending resources. If the cost of checking a wrong answer is low, torture might work, but if the cost is high, the torturer is likely to rely on gut instinct, which is to say he’ll keep torturing you until you tell him the answer he’d figured out before he began, regardless of whether that answer is right or wrong.
I know this is a considerably lower threshold than some of the master villains listed so far here, however when I first watched “Reservoir Dogs” After Mr. Blond cuts of the cops ear and douses him in gasoline I immediately hit ‘pause’ and turned to my friends in the room and said: “OK This guy has to die.” I wasn’t talking about the plot really, it was my judgment of his actions. Then I hit play and found out other characters agreed with me.
It’s implied what really made him so messed up was making all those horcruxes. Making a horcrux is supposed to be a traumatic event for one’s soul, and Voldy’s split his into seven pieces, so his main body’s only got 1/7th of a soul. This not only makes him mentally unstable and possibly slightly retarded, but also mostly lacking in more complex human emotions beyond primal anger and fear.
I remember thinking that same thing while watching it and being relieved when he was shot.
Yes, quite true, which makes him even less interesting to me as a villain. At least when he was Tom Riddle with all of his soul intact he was pretty much your garden-variety sadistic sociopath with an overinflated sense of his own importance. Afterward, he was just boring and one-dimensional evil. He would have been more interesting if he’d had some redeeming value. When the best thing you can say about a guy is that he likes his pet snake…I dunno. He doesn’t do it for me. Malfoy (actually both Malfoys–Lucius and Draco) were much more interesting antagonists.
There’s also a bit of inconsistency in Riddle/Voldemort’s character. I mean, if you’re going to try and seize power over the entire wizarding world by force, you’ve got to be a damned fierce egotist. You’ve got the very highest opinion of the caliber of your own mind. And if you think that way, the very last thing you’re going to want to do is pursue a strategy that leaves your mind fundamentally reduced and damaged. What you really want to do is find some other chump to do that bit of the work for you - someone weak enough that you can manipulate. But Voldemort isn’t really portrayed as Malfoy’s chump, either.
Ogg help me, I can’t believe I’m defending Rowling’s writing, but a couple points:
Voldy is pretty consistently described as being terrified of death. That’s his big motivation, aside from general love of power. Now he’s pretty much psychotically terrified, so that means he doesn’t always act in an effective way, but there’s at least internal logic to it, most of the time.
And of course, his punishment-based management style does in fact contribute to his downfall in the end:
The Malfoys become very unenthusiastic supporters (I guess they’re not stupid after all), and in the end Narcissus betrays Voldy because she’s more worried about her son surviving.
Speaking of this and veering slightly off-topic, I always thought this was one of the neatest little parallels of the whole HP series. Initially, Voldy is defeated because Harry’s mother loved him enough to sacrifice her life to give him protection. In the end, Voldy is defeated (this time permanently) because another mother loves her son enough that she’s willing to risk everything by lying in order to save his life.
Catwoman is even easier to understand. The number of men willing to work for a hot babe in a skin-tight leather catsuit is nearly infinite.
Well, not if you’re so damned fierce an egotist as to figure the caliber of your mind (a) is ridiculously far above everyone else to begin with and (b) will still be in first place when it’s reduced from your power-up, right?
Give him some credit, of the fictional villains listed, that scene is easily the most horrifying. Lot’s of people can’t or won’t finish that movie.
Well, but his henchmen are crazy, yes? I’d think not having a real solid sense of self-preservation would be part and parcel to that. Plus, the ones who do have a sense of self-preservation can be manipulated. “Do what I say or I’ll slam a pencil through your head” seems to be pretty effective when doing business.
not against goons and thugs.
i’ve always found the Bond villains to be too evil to believe. Austin Powers makes a good point in asking why these men would waste BILLIONS of dollars only to gain back… millions?
Notably comical was Tomorrow Never Dies where the Rupert Murdoch-y media mogul hijacking chinese (?) missiles so he can make his own headlines and sell… NEWSPAPERS? This was in 1997. He could have gone in for the Apple resurgence, ebooks, AOL… Instead he devotes time and resources to… hijacking missiles.
This post was a long time ago, but I feel obliged to clear Blofeld’s name. The situation (in the book, Thunderball, is that two members of SPECTRE had pulled off a successful kidnap operation, but one of them raped the kidnappee. Blofeld kills this agent for basically screwing up their operation, and returns half the money. It’s not “wanton” killing, it’s for a clear business reason (future victims won’t pay if they think that the “returned unharm” part of the kidnapping is a lie) and to teach a lesson to the others.
I think you’re forgetting that he also owned his own television network (and was angling for “exclusive broadcasting rights in China for the next hundred years”). “Ladies and Gentlemen, hold the presses! We have the perfect story in which to launch our satellite news network tonight. It seems a small crisis is brewing in the South China Sea! I want books, I want magazines, I want newspapers, I want us on the air 24 hours a day, this is our moment!”
Elliot Carver: Mr. Jones, are we ready to release our new software?
Jones: Yes, sir. As requested, it’s full of bugs, which means people will be forced to upgrade for years.
Elliot Carver: Outstanding.
That’s not the one case I was referring to. Blofeld has Kronsky killed way before tyhat, in From Russia, with Love, for not anticipating all of Bond’s moves. He kills off Mr. Osama’s secretary in You Only Live Twice for not successfully killing Bond. The guy in Thunderball was clearly cheating on SPECTRE (although you gotta wonder how sure Blofeld really was about it, or if it would have bothered him to kill the wrong guy), but he has shown little reluctance to exercise iron discipline.
Presumably they only did this kind of stuff after they became absolute rulers. Kinda hard to get people to join you if you do that kind of crap before you’re in charge.
Of course, sometimes the evil villain goes so far that their henchmen turn against them, too. The first example I can think of is in Buffy:
When Spike works with Buffy against Angel because Angel wants to get rid of the entire world, and Spike rather likes the world, including humans as fresh meat. Angel was threatening to kill off all the fun and every vampire’s food source.
Admittedly…
Spike was already poised to betray Angelus because of the latter’s flirtation with, if not outright boinking of, Drusilla. Though I don’t doubt that Spike was telling the literal truth when gave the above reason.
Oh, totally. But if there had been other vampires around, Spike might well not have been the only one saying - though not aloud in front of Angel - ‘what? You’re taking away all our prey?’
(Don’t think that needs spoilers).
I feel compelled to say that you mean Angelus, not Angel. They’re not identical. Admittedly I don’t recall if they were careful about making that distinction at the time. But while vamp-Harmony, say, is almost identical to Harmony, and Spike is basically William the Bloody with more confidence and super-powers, Angel and Angelus are quite distinct.