Actors who never played villains

Tools    





how much it will be interesting to see a hero as a villain?
__________________
ashujjsan



Don't torture yourself, Gomez. That's my job.
What about Sandra Bullock?

I was going to joke and say Molly Ringwald, thinking "of course she has NEVER played a villian". Then I instantly remembered that she has in Cut (2000) (Sorry for the large poster, it was the only one I could find).

__________________
>twitter :::: >tumblr

"And our credo: "Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." We gladly feast on those who would subdue us. Not just pretty words."



Don't torture yourself, Gomez. That's my job.
I like Cut. I have that on video. Yep. Video.
Of course you do



Before Rocky he was the marginal bad guy in Death Race 2000 (more rutheless than Carradine in trying to win).

He went bad in F.I.S.T.
Stallone was 'bad' (as in a villian?) in F.I.S.T.?

Just curious, have you even watched it?

If you have, I take it this is a joke comment right.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I saw it. He becane corrupted, a lightly fictionaized version of Jimmy Hoffa, hardly a good guy.

From the IMDb:

Johnny Kovak joins the Teamsters trade-union in a local chapter in the 1930s and works his way up in the organization. As he climbs higher and higher his methods become more ruthless and finally senator Madison starts a campaign to find the truth about the alleged connections with the Mob.

My question is did you see the movie?

But then you think The Two Headed Transplant was a good movie (3.2/10 in the IMDb with over 900 votes).



I would love to see Clint Eastwood play a villain.
__________________
"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man, and those who have hunted armed men long enough and like it, never really care for anything else thereafter." - Ernest Hemingway



I saw it. He becane corrupted, a lightly fictionaized version of Jimmy Hoffa, hardly a good guy.

From the IMDb:

Johnny Kovak joins the Teamsters trade-union in a local chapter in the 1930s and works his way up in the organization. As he climbs higher and higher his methods become more ruthless and finally senator Madison starts a campaign to find the truth about the alleged connections with the Mob.

My question is did you see the movie?
You're basing your opinion on an IMDB description and I highly doubt (no offence) that you have watched it.

I have.

Twice.

It's been about 15+ years since I watched it, but I can tell you this: Stallone played Kovak as a sympathetic character who is not a villain. When we think of villain we assume wholly negative traits such as:

- A pleasure in doing evil/bad
- An antagonist set-up, whereby the villain is pitted against the protagonist, with the latter's perspective being the one the viewer goes along with (similar to a first person narrative in literature)
- Someone the audience cannot (or finds it very difficult to) identify with

Stallone's character was complex and largely sympathetic, and in no way was he a villain. If you had watched his performance and the direction they took this film on, you'd have seen that.



No, he's seen it, he was just using the IMDB description to back up his opinion.
Instead of siding with one of your buddies, try to take an objective stance, eh?

Unless you've actually seen it and can argue one way or the other, I really don't see the point in your comment on this.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I saw it al least twice and again earlier this year. I said he went bad and he did. You think getting in bed with the mob was a good thing?

Your definition of villain is very narrow and I don't agree with it.



Hey, I'm merely trying to help you get a clue.
I've given a proper post outlining why will.15 was wrong.

All you did was chime in with an off-the-cuff comment that only serves to 'big up' your online buddy and that is poor show.

It'd be like him saying 1+1=3, me saying it's 2, and you saying he's right.

And I don't believe for one second you've watched it btw, so unless you plan on doing so, why not butt out, eh.



I saw it al least twice and again earlier this year. I said he went bad and he did. You think getting in bed with the mob was a good thing?
So you think all characters who make mistakes are villains right?

How do you define villain?

I'd define it as someone who has none (or little) redeeming features, has a lack of empathy and/or behaves in a destructive manner purely for self gain.

Stallone's Kovak displayed none of these traits and was portrayed as a sympathetic protagonist. He also tried to help his friend when things got out of control, even though he didn't have to. A villain? Really?



I never said I'd watched it. I wouldn't watch it.

BTW, don't get all bent out of shape at me. Just because someone dared to disagree with you and then, if you can believe it, posted something which, in their opinion, backs up what they said.

Idiot.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I've seen it and if you think he was sympathetic by the time it got to the third act you didn't see the version I saw.

A villain can be sympathetic up to a point and still be a villain. Ever heard of Merchant of Venice? You think Michael Corleone was a good guy?



I've seen it and if you think he was sympathetic by the time it got to the third act you didn't see the version I saw.
He retained positive traits. He also was motivated by his passion for what he believed in, rather than self-gain. He also didn't want innocents hurt. He didn't even want to use violence but was basically goaded/forced into it. Even then, there was no pleasure in it at all.

The ending (which I won't spoil) is pretty sad actually. There was no joy in the ending, as opposed to joy when something bad happens to a legit villain.



I never said I'd watched it. I wouldn't watch it.
Then why comment? Why give weight to an argument which is only motivated by bias as opposed to knowledge?

BTW, don't get all bent out of shape at me. Just because someone dared to disagree with you and then, if you can believe it, posted something which, in their opinion, backs up what they said.
No, using an IMDB description only provides a rough outline of what the story is about. It does not describe any real character study, the direction they are taken on and/or whether they are sympathetic to the viewer or not.

Idiot.
Ad hominem and doesn't do anything apart from flaming, which I assume was your original goal.



Keep on Rockin in the Free World
He retained positive traits. He also was motivated by his passion for what he believed in, rather than self-gain. .
all Villains have positive traits. Man you like to argue just for the sake of arguing.

is that fun?
__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.