Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2017 0:50:51 GMT
Dec 2, 2017 0:21:59 GMT @weirdraptor said:
He's no different from Kaecilius. They have the exact same amount of depth. Neither one is a deep character.He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. That's all. He's only unique because of the actor who played him as well. In every other regard, he's no different than any Bond villain.
He's interesting because Alan Rickman played him? So is every character that Alan Rickman played interesting? Is Kaecilius then not interesting because he was played by Mads Mikkelson? Is Mads Mikkelson not interesting?
Hans Gruber was a revolutionary villain, clearly considering that other action movies tried to ripoff that characters style.
Nobody will be trying to rip off Mads Mikkelson's performance as Kaecilius.
Who was the villain in For Your Eyes only? You don't remember? Who was the villain in The Spy Who Loved Me? Would you need to check Google?
Yeah you know who the villain of Die Hard is, you know who Hans Gruber is. That's the difference between him and a Bond villian.
Yes, he's interesting because Alan Rickman played him. Yes, every character Alan Rickman's played is interesting. He has that effect on his roles. Hey, I thought Kaecilius was plenty interesting and would have loved to see more of him.
The only thing you've proven is how unappreciated Mads Mikkelson's Kawcilius is.
No, but I remember Dr. No, Blofeld, Francisco Scaramanga, Max Zorin, Franz Sanchez, Alec Trevelyan, and Renard. So I know who the villains of a few Bond films are. Some Bond villains are memerable and others aren't. Gruber is just another 2D villain who was played by an actor who made him seem like more.