Characters of the Decade: Part 1

I already have lists for my favorite things of the decade in each category archived on the site, but I decided to do something a bit different for a feature. The most important thing to a good story is interesting characters, and sometimes they're better realized than usual. Characters are often what we remember most about something, and I thought I'd recognize that with a list of the best. These aren't exactly my favorites in each case - I tried to stick with ones that stick out in some really important way even if they didn't totally resonate with me. Any number of things could have gotten a character here; being a great villain, a powerhouse lead performance, launching someone's career, or just making something worth watching. I narrowed it down to 60, which was made easier by trying to limit myself to one character per work where possible. The list is a bit TV heavy since they have more time to develop a personality, and it leans towards white males more than I would have liked, but I still think it's a good list of people (and some robots) that were fascinating to watch. It's ordered chronologically by first appearance, with characters that originated before the decade began placed at the first point they became relevant again.

Eric Cartman
Trey Parker - South Park


"Nananananana! I made you eat your parents!"

The moment above will forever live in infamy, but it's just one of many great ones in the life of Cartman, the world's worst child. He's one of those rare characters that's a completely irredeemable asshole that you still love because his schemes and insults are just so entertaining and unforgettable. And he gets his comeuppance often enough that he's allowed to keep being such a bigoted little jerk.

Tony Soprano
James Gandolfini - The Sopranos


"Anybody else would've had their fuckin' intervention right through the back of their head."

The star of one of television's most important shows, Gandolfini is notable for standing out despite the amazingly strong and deep supporting cast around him. He's part imperfect family man, part ruthless mob boss, and part just another troubled guy who isn't totally sure of himself. One of the most evil men to ever be rooted for, and that's mostly because his insecurities are presented just as effectively as his strengths and ill deeds.

Bender
John DiMaggio - Futurama


"Goodbye losers, whom I've always hated!"

I could have easily put Fry or Professor Farnsworth here, but Bender is the character that defines the whole show. He's the robot who drinks because alcohol fuels his system and smokes because it makes him look cool. Once in a while he gets a bit too lowest-common-denominator, but his narcissism is inspiring and he's the robot friend we all wish we had.

Tyrion Lannister
A Song of Ice and Fire series


"Those are brave men. Let's go kill them."

It's almost insane how many characters George R. R. Martin has managed to develop into genuinely fascinating people, but if one sticks out it's the smallest of the bunch, the Lion of Lannister. The whole series thrives off making its central conflict more interesting by not allowing you to want any one side to totally win, and Tyrion was the first time we saw that. Watching the wheels turn in his head as he tries to do his best with the cards he's dealt is endlessly enjoyable, and hopefully Martin finishes up the fifth book first so we can see what he's up to.

Captain Hank Murphy
Harry Goz - Sealab 2021


"But the secret ingredient is love. Damn it."

Voice actor Harry Goz unfortunately passed away while Sealab was still airing, and while I was still able to enjoy it afterward, it was never quite the same, which speaks to how good he was. As the driving force behind most of the plots, his unique brand of insane leadership paved the way for many bizarre Adult Swim shows to come. Every character on the show had their time to shine, but none provided laughs more than Murphy.

Master Shake
Dana Snyder - Aqua Teen Hunger Force


"I mean, is he gonna be able to chase us? Cause if I woke up looking like that, I would just run towards the nearest living thing and kill it."

You know a character lives off the actor's performance when it's as hard as it was to find a good quote that stands without context even though he provides laughs constantly. Snyder is probably the best voice actor to work repeatedly with Adult Swim, and this is the role that gave him a chance to shine. There's just so much humor laced in every syllable that comes out of Shake's mouth, and even if that week's gimmick plot is lame it'll probably be worth watching just for his next zinger.

GIR
Rikki Simmons - Invader Zim


"It's me! I was the turkey all along!"

Possibly the only character that can get away with just saying random crap all day, thanks to Simmons' fine voice work and his unending supply of adorableness. GIR is one of those animated characters who's fun just to watch do anything, and he's at that right level of idiocy that you have to wonder if he's actually just messing with Zim and the audience some of the time.

Nate Fisher Jr.
Peter Krause - Six Feet Under


"Everything's bad for something."

Nate's as flawed a person as there will be on this list, and that's part of why he works. He's just a human being worried about his mortality and trying to figure out what he really wants to do with his life. His story is a tragic one, but watching it play out made for some of the decade's best personal drama. Plus, watching him yell at stupid people is funny.

Gareth Keenan
Mackenzie Crook - The Office (UK)


"I told him once that I don't like jelly. I don't trust the way it moves."

It's hard to pin down with is Gareth's most hilarious feature. I love his supposed hardened military background despite his ridiculous, gaunt physique. I love his very unfortunate combination of overconfidence and ineptitude with women. I love the overly serious way he deals with the politics of working at a small branch of a paper company. One of the few characters I prefer to the US version's equivalent, and that's despite that equivalent also being on this list.

Dr. Perry Cox
John C. McGinley - Scrubs


“Jordan…the boy already lip-syncs into your tampons, must we put a final nail in his tiny gay coffin?”

Despite this being the ninth year of Dr. Cox being on the air ranting and raving, I'm still not tired of it. McGinley never broke out beyond a few small film roles, but every week he's good for a few solid put downs and probably at least one epically vicious dissection of why whoever he's yelling at is a bad doctor. But there's enough variety, creativity, and humor there that you never feel he's being too mean. At his heart, he's a good doctor who's trying to make others around him better at their job, and that's why he gets away with it.

Jack Bauer
Kiefer Sutherland - 24


"I don't care how it's interpreted from the outside. I just gave you an order and I'd like you to follow it."

The only character I know of who deserves - nay, requires a website to keep track of all of his kills in the line of duty. However you feel about torture, it's hard to be upset with Jack for doing what he thinks he needs to do to save America because he puts up with so much crap and never asks for anything in return. Also, it's just a TV show. His actions definitely speak louder than his words, but he's had his share of resonant emotional moments too. He's why I keep coming back despite the series' declining quality.

Gandalf
Ian McKellen - The Lord of the Rings series


"A wizard is never late, Frodo Baggins, nor is he early. He arrives precisely when he means to."

Maybe the greatest action hero who's also an old man in film history. Gandalf was always the most interesting character in the books, and that held true in the movies as well. It's actually sort of two roles, as the wise and resourceful but fallible Gandalf the Grey at first and later as the powerful but justifiably aloof Gandalf the White. Kind and caring, but terrifying when he needs to be. He's basically what you wish your grandfather was like.

Continued tomorrow.

The Prisoner

AMC's remake of classic espionage/mind-screwing series The Prisoner doesn't live up to the original, though it does do some interesting things differently and at least has some sense of a cohesive story and an actual ending. It's a bit slow at times, and it's probably a good thing that Ian McKellen's name comes before Jim Caviezel's in the credits despite the latter being the protagonist because well... he's a lot better. Caviezel's 6 just isn't a very likable guy, and McKellen's 2 provides the vast majority of the miniseries' good lines and moments. Instead of a series of barely connected episodes where a sequence of people attempt to wrestle some secret from a captive 6, 2 tries to convince him that the Village he's been whisked away to is the only society that actually exists, and there's questions about the true nature of reality on everyone's minds.

When you think about the supposed premise, it doesn't really make sense. The original series was strange, but at least the citizens of the Village didn't seem completely deluded the whole time. But once the story actually unfolds, things come together and actually seem to work if you squint a bit and can actually follow out what's going on. The last episode can be easy to get lost in if you don't pay rapt attention, but even without entirely grasping it I got the gist and had a sort of "oh" moment. It makes me glad they decided to air it over three nights instead of six weeks, because more time to absorb, forget details, and form biases might have made it harder to figure out. The Prisoner isn't the sort of thing I'd want to watch very often, because it drags more often that it should and it's sort of tiring to follow. But I thought it mostly succeeded at retaining the spirit of the original without retreading the same ground, and had enough bits to keep fans of things that mess with your had happy for the most part. Sorry if this seems a bit scatter-shot, but my mind's kind of preoccupied.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

This is the one that got all the awards and the highest praise and is my personal favorite, but I'm not sure if it's really deserving of all that. It certainly wasn't head and shoulders above the other two enough to win eleven Oscars when they averaged three. All those awards were probably appreciation for the feat of the trilogy as a whole, which I'm fine with, since the Academy so often seems to pick the better story over the truly deserving winner. I still really love the movie, and it's the biggest and grandest of the trilogy. It also happens to be the only film I saw for the first time after reading the book version first. There's fewer changes than the last time, though still some notable ones. Some bits are cut, like the Riders of Rohan being escorted around a blockade by strange men of the forest and most of the real dramatic thrust of Eowen and the development of her relationship with Faramir. There's one key detail that I feel they lost a lot from by having to cut, and it's removal was sort of necessary after cutting the Barrow-Downs from the first movie. Since the Hobbits just get their swords unceremoniously handed to them by Aragon instead of finding them in a tomb, they would be less justified in explaining why Eowyn was really able to kill the Witch King. It's not because "Hur hur no man can kill you but I can because I'm a woman", it's because Merry's sword had some magical essence and was able to break the spell that made the king invulnerable when he stabbed him with it.

I'm also not a huge fan of how Denethor and Gimli are handled. Throughout the movies Gimli is more of a comic relief than he ever was in the book, and it's brought to a head here when his presence in the Paths of the Dead turns them into a joke rather than a spooky setting. Look, he's trying to blow away the ghostly hands and wincing when he steps on any of the absolutely insane number of skulls that litter the place! Seriously, where are the rest of the skeletons? And Denethor is transformed from a depressed, grieving father who has seen doom coming for a long time into a crazy old man who is able to run about half a mile while completely immolated so he can jump off something and look all cool. Wow, I'm really complaining a lot here. I really do like a movie, and moments like Pippin's song as men of Gondor ride to their deaths and the riders charging into the Battle of Pelennor Fields are some of my favorites in any film. They really went all out with the effects for the battle to make up for the main characters not really being there, and it's still an exciting spectacle to watch. The only real change in Frodo and Sam's part of the story is Sam getting sent away for a while, which is another case of adding dramatic tension so there's more of it, but it doesn't have a major effect on the story. When the two stories finally converge at the end is suitably dramatic and epic, and you really feel the love the members of the fellowship have for each other. After the final conflict ends, the movie takes its time ending, and more or less culminated with the departure at the Grey Havens. I was surprised at how much that scene moved me this time, when it hadn't as much before. I can't think of why it would affect me differently now, all I know is that it did. Peter Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's greatest work is far from perfect, and I can't say that most of its departures were that well considered. Still, it was an admirable effort, a labor of love, and definitely worth watching.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Just looking at Amazon, they're taking preorders for the Blu-ray version of the trilogy, which is cool I guess, but it also seems like they've discontinued manufacture of the DVD sets, which is... weird. Oh well. The Two Towers is a frequent pick for the worst of the three films, and mine as well, though I've seen some claim that the extended edition elevates it to the best, which I find a bit odd. It's certainly better, though that's true for all three films. In any case, it probably made the most severe alterations to the plot of any of the three, some aspects of which were justifiable, others less so. The whole structure is rejiggered to make the battle at Helm's Deep the focus, with a lot of time spent building to it when they just sort of went there and fought in the book, and the film ends shortly after, whereas the break was originally after a few other plot points that migrated to the third movie. Things like that are acceptable so the story has a normal dramatic arc to it. What's stranger is pretending to kill off Aragorn during an innocuous warm-up battle and having a legion of Elves show up in time to help instead of Éomer and the Riders of Rohan. It's not that having Elves and changing who Gandalf shows up with really hurts the story, you just wonder why they bothered when previously the only changes were trimming fat that affected the pacing. The battle itself was pretty well executed, and besides a couple dumb moments like Legolas skateboarding down a stairway on a shield, one of the best large scale clashes in recent cinema. I liked how they were able to add small things like the contest between Legolas and Gimli, even if the resolution of it was cut out of the theatrical version.

It was smart to edit that stuff together with Frodo and Sam's journey instead of keeping them separate, not only because it would have been strange that way, but it allowed them to make Helm's Deep the climax instead of the fight with Shelob, which in turn allowed them to shift that into the third movie as well, and keep the timeline straighter. Looking back, I'm not sure I support the decision to make Gollum a computer generated character. Serkis' performance is impressive and shows through the effects, and there are moments where the work they did is still extremely convincing, but for the most part whenever he's on screen I'm noticing that he's not really in the scene, and paying attention to the work that was done and not his presence as a character. It's still going to be a while before that stuff is totally convincing. I just got a feeling of déjà vu like I've written this before. Making Faramir more like his brother initially and unwilling to just let Frodo and Sam walk away with the ring is another choice that I mostly support, because after taking out Shelob there's really not a whole hell of a lot for them to do. I'm not sure they really captured his character as well as they could have, because there's more to him than just being the less favored son. Still, they did what they had to to make the story work, and sacrifices will sometimes have to be made to do that. Movies in the middle are usually a tough situation, and I thought they did well enough here when they were mostly putting things in place for part three.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

I rewatched the movies in unison with rereading the book. I read The Hobbit years earlier, but seeing The Fellowship of the Ring in theaters was my first experience with The Lord of the Rings, and it totally grabbed me. One of the main complaints I heard about it was the overly long and slow beginning, with the extended version lasting over an hour before they even leave The Shire. I enjoyed that, though. Part of what makes the books interesting is how much detail Tolkien put into the world, to a nearly ridiculous degree. They might not have needed to spend so much time establishing the setting in the movie, but since it was filmed as a trilogy from the beginning they were able to take their time and show whatever they wanted. I think the extended introduction before the adventure really begins helps make the film work as an introduction to the series for new fans while at the same time appeasing long-time devotees who fear any changes at all. Besides chopping out a couple sections and ignoring details that would affect casting (Frodo sets out at about age fifty to destroy the ring, some seventeen years after receiving it initially), it's probably the most faithful of the three films.

I think the book had a slightly different feel than the latter two, and the same is true of the movies. The last two thirds of the story are more intertwined and fuzzy about the break point, plus share a more epic war-movie feel to the battles. The Fellowship of the Ring is more of a smaller-scale cross country trip, almost like a chase movie. Nine dudes travel together and fight small skirmishes against manageable hordes. I actually kind of like the smallness of the fights, you really remember every cool thing that happens, giving them more of a memorable personality than thousands clashing against thousands. The fellowship itself is only whole for about a sixth of the series' running time, but I still mostly identify the story with the image of them all together. Boromir is one of the story's best characters, but he's not around for long, and his death more or less marks the point where the tone changes and things get dark and serious. I still think the third movie is my favorite with this second, but it still gets extra credit for getting me into it. Plus it's a good thing it performed so well at the box office, because if it set the tone by not doing so well, that could have been a ton of money wasted on three huge films, and we certainly wouldn't be getting an extremely exciting pair of Hobbit movies from Jackson and Guillermo del Toro. Also, can you believe this came out seven and a half years ago? Time is a bitch.