|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 25, 2010 1:27:45 GMT -5
Ok, so, villains. We love to hate them, and some people even love to miss the point entirely and start cheering for them ( :cough:WRESTLINGSHOWS:cough ).
That said, after a few threads with discussions on a few different villains and after watching some TV, I really started mulling over what makes for a really good villain, but even more importantly, what qualities can a villain, even a good one, have that just ends up making them more obnoxious after awhile?
More than that, I feel like you can have a good, effective villain who sometimes ends up exhibiting the negative qualities, which sucks when it's happening to an interesting character.
For example, I've mentioned recently that I'm kind of late to the party in finally seeing the Nickelodeon cartoon Avatar. One of the chief villains, Princess Azula, is a well written character, wonderfully evil, and an immense threat. She's given great villain characteristics such as being manipulative, conniving, and brilliant while also being able to more than hold her own in combat...in fact, she's more powerful than almost anyone else on the show.
But that's just the thing; part of what makes her effective and well written also ends up bringing a negative aspect to her villainous nature, in my opinion. Azula is so strong, has so much foresight, etc., that until the very end of the series, you basically never, ever see her in a situation where she doesn't have the upper hand.
I get this; to use a wrestling parallel, you build up a great heel as unbeatable, so that when he/she is taken down, the victory is that much sweeter.
That said, it starts to get tiresome after awhile when the villain always has the advantage, always has a contingency for any problem they get into, always knows what the hero's next move is and how to manipulate them, and never seems to have an opponent capable of matching him/her in any of these things.
Again, that's just my opinion. In the first Star Wars, Vader makes an indelible mark as a villain, but Obi-Wan is still shown as his equal in battle and he ends up being taken out a surprise Falcon attack. Joker has Batman, who, even if it takes awhile, will end up figuring out his schemes and working through them.
I guess it's sort of the "Anti-Cena" way of things. Cena gets ragged on by many WWE fans because he's always coming out on top and is almost never bested in any way possible. I just think the same principle can apply to a villain; it's entirely possible to have a villain that's too overpowered over too long a period of time, and it can get irksome.
What say you, fair posters?
|
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jun 25, 2010 1:31:42 GMT -5
The single best quality I think is that they don't think of themselves as villainous; AND that you can sorta see their point of view, as skewed and as evil as it might be that lead them to their actions.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 25, 2010 1:34:22 GMT -5
The single best quality I think is that they don't think of themselves as villainous; AND that you can sorta see their point of view, as skewed and as evil as it might be that lead them to their actions. Agreed to an extent, though I don't mind it sometimes if we get a villain who, despite having some underlying motivation that can be viewed as not-so-evil (even the notion that said villain running the world would be a benefit to the human race) or at least not evilly intentioned, still has a complete heartless, cruel streak in them, regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by Gerard Gerard on Jun 25, 2010 1:43:53 GMT -5
Obnoxiousness, belligerence, devoid of redeeming qualities or remotely relatable ones and with a backstory that doesn't in some way justify their later evilness. Sometimes helps if they're a maniac too. There's a million ways to compose a decent villan though, I guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jun 25, 2010 1:51:39 GMT -5
Ok, so, villains. We love to hate them, and some people even love to miss the point entirely and start cheering for them ( :cough:WRESTLINGSHOWS:cough ). That said, after a few threads with discussions on a few different villains and after watching some TV, I really started mulling over what makes for a really good villain, but even more importantly, what qualities can a villain, even a good one, have that just ends up making them more obnoxious after awhile? More than that, I feel like you can have a good, effective villain who sometimes ends up exhibiting the negative qualities, which sucks when it's happening to an interesting character. For example, I've mentioned recently that I'm kind of late to the party in finally seeing the Nickelodeon cartoon Avatar. One of the chief villains, Princess Azula, is a well written character, wonderfully evil, and an immense threat. She's given great villain characteristics such as being manipulative, conniving, and brilliant while also being able to more than hold her own in combat...in fact, she's more powerful than almost anyone else on the show. But that's just the thing; part of what makes her effective and well written also ends up bringing a negative aspect to her villainous nature, in my opinion. Azula is so strong, has so much foresight, etc., that until the very end of the series, you basically never, ever see her in a situation where she doesn't have the upper hand. I get this; to use a wrestling parallel, you build up a great heel as unbeatable, so that when he/she is taken down, the victory is that much sweeter. That said, it starts to get tiresome after awhile when the villain always has the advantage, always has a contingency for any problem they get into, always knows what the hero's next move is and how to manipulate them, and never seems to have an opponent capable of matching him/her in any of these things. Again, that's just my opinion. In the first Star Wars, Vader makes an indelible mark as a villain, but Obi-Wan is still shown as his equal in battle and he ends up being taken out a surprise Falcon attack. Joker has Batman, who, even if it takes awhile, will end up figuring out his schemes and working through them. I guess it's sort of the "Anti-Cena" way of things. Cena gets ragged on by many WWE fans because he's always coming out on top and is almost never bested in any way possible. I just think the same principle can apply to a villain; it's entirely possible to have a villain that's too overpowered over too long a period of time, and it can get irksome. What say you, fair posters? But at least Azula's always having a solution to everything is parodied in the series itself, when Zuko and her are fighting on the airships and knocks Azula into the abyss, Zuko's all like, "There's no way she'll make it!" Then Azula removes her crown piece thing and uses firebending to reach the closest cliff side and uses her crown piece to secure some footing on said cliff side. Zuko's response? "Of course she did...." |
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Jun 25, 2010 9:19:55 GMT -5
worst qualities?
-when a villain is supposed to be clever and cunning, but is written as SO cunning and SO powerful that they have a contingency plan for everything. if it happens once or twice it's fine. when it happens every week you start getting the sense that the writer is in love with the character and does everything they can to make the character look awesome, and the character ceases to be interesting as a result.
this tends to happen to Doctor Doom a lot. Sosuke Aizen on Bleach is like that, too. Death Note made it work by making it so over-the-top that it felt like a parody.
-the other is when a writer tries humanizing a villain too hard. a good villain will have good motivations for being evil, and even if we dislike their actions, we can understand what made them do it. sometimes, though, a writer writes a villain to be way too sympathetic and tries way too hard to make the audience like them as a person.especially egregious when the character has already done stuff that is so rotten that the audience no longer WANTS to sympathize with them. "he's evil but his daddy beat him so we should love him", and that sort of manipulative crap.
once again Doctor Doom ends up this way often. writers (and fans) downplay his nasty actions and petty nature way too often. this also happened in Naruto with Sasuke. I'm sorry I don't even give a shit what Itachi did to him anymore, slaughtering an entire village of innocent people took away any sympathy he had left. Linkara called Superboy-Prime "whiny half-wit murderer" once and I think that that describes Sasuke to a tee.
|
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 25, 2010 12:27:12 GMT -5
Ok, so, villains. We love to hate them, and some people even love to miss the point entirely and start cheering for them ( :cough:WRESTLINGSHOWS:cough ). That said, after a few threads with discussions on a few different villains and after watching some TV, I really started mulling over what makes for a really good villain, but even more importantly, what qualities can a villain, even a good one, have that just ends up making them more obnoxious after awhile? More than that, I feel like you can have a good, effective villain who sometimes ends up exhibiting the negative qualities, which sucks when it's happening to an interesting character. For example, I've mentioned recently that I'm kind of late to the party in finally seeing the Nickelodeon cartoon Avatar. One of the chief villains, Princess Azula, is a well written character, wonderfully evil, and an immense threat. She's given great villain characteristics such as being manipulative, conniving, and brilliant while also being able to more than hold her own in combat...in fact, she's more powerful than almost anyone else on the show. But that's just the thing; part of what makes her effective and well written also ends up bringing a negative aspect to her villainous nature, in my opinion. Azula is so strong, has so much foresight, etc., that until the very end of the series, you basically never, ever see her in a situation where she doesn't have the upper hand. I get this; to use a wrestling parallel, you build up a great heel as unbeatable, so that when he/she is taken down, the victory is that much sweeter. That said, it starts to get tiresome after awhile when the villain always has the advantage, always has a contingency for any problem they get into, always knows what the hero's next move is and how to manipulate them, and never seems to have an opponent capable of matching him/her in any of these things. Again, that's just my opinion. In the first Star Wars, Vader makes an indelible mark as a villain, but Obi-Wan is still shown as his equal in battle and he ends up being taken out a surprise Falcon attack. Joker has Batman, who, even if it takes awhile, will end up figuring out his schemes and working through them. I guess it's sort of the "Anti-Cena" way of things. Cena gets ragged on by many WWE fans because he's always coming out on top and is almost never bested in any way possible. I just think the same principle can apply to a villain; it's entirely possible to have a villain that's too overpowered over too long a period of time, and it can get irksome. What say you, fair posters? But at least Azula's always having a solution to everything is parodied in the series itself, when Zuko and her are fighting on the airships and knocks Azula into the abyss, Zuko's all like, "There's no way she'll make it!" Then Azula removes her crown piece thing and uses firebending to reach the closest cliff side and uses her crown piece to secure some footing on said cliff side. Zuko's response? "Of course she did...." Oh, agreed, and then the series finale really puts the whole thing into perspective and makes much of her "perfection" a form of personal overcompensation, but, geez, two whole seasons of it before we finally get to that point? Gets to feel like overkill after awhile. Still, yes, the writers always seemed smart enough to acknowledge things like that themselves. The whole topic of the "sympathetic villain" is always interesting. So many people love an anti-hero or sympathetic villain, yet deep down, we know in most escapist fare that want to see SOMEONE get what's coming to them at some point over their bad behavior. It's like, if you create a villain like that, you need to create a more vile one to compensate (which Spider-Man 3 went overboard with having TWO sympathetic villains, and one vile one who's only around for 10 minutes). That, and you likely have to change your sympathetic figure into a hero, or at least neutral figure, at some point. How far is too far in making a villain more human or sympathetic? |
|
|
|
Post by Perigryn on Jun 25, 2010 15:26:26 GMT -5
worst qualities? -when a villain is supposed to be clever and cunning, but is written as SO cunning and SO powerful that they have a contingency plan for everything. if it happens once or twice it's fine. when it happens every week you start getting the sense that the writer is in love with the character and does everything they can to make the character look awesome, and the character ceases to be interesting as a result I tried to give Inuyasha a chance till I realised that every arc will end with Naraku running off at the last minute. Add to that most of the villians oin that series are yokai he cast out of his body for being too weak... Also....Red Hulk. Overpowered much? |
|
|
|
Post by Bauertainments on Jun 25, 2010 15:33:24 GMT -5
worst qualities? -when a villain is supposed to be clever and cunning, but is written as SO cunning and SO powerful that they have a contingency plan for everything. if it happens once or twice it's fine. when it happens every week you start getting the sense that the writer is in love with the character and does everything they can to make the character look awesome, and the character ceases to be interesting as a result. this tends to happen to Doctor Doom a lot. Sosuke Aizen on Bleach is like that, too. Death Note made it work by making it so over-the-top that it felt like a parody. As a 24 fan, I can tell you this... {Spoiler} there wasn't a single season where the lead villain(s) didn't have a contingency plan and wasn't a few steps ahead of Jack Bauer and CTU and almost every step of the way.
I can see why some fans got sick of it. |
|
|
|
Post by Ultimo Chocula on Jun 25, 2010 16:35:44 GMT -5
A good villain should be someone you want to see lose. That's it. You might be able to identify with them or they might have a couple of redeeming qualities, but in the end you, as the audience want to see them get theirs. If you end up rooting for the villain or feeling sorry for them, it didn't work.
Examples: Ted Dibiase, Gordon Gekko, Kobe Bryant.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Jun 25, 2010 16:46:52 GMT -5
From the Pokemon anime, Team Rocket would be a good example of how NOT to write truly detestable villains.
I like them, but they lose so often that it becomes harder and harder to boo them, and Ash and co. wind up losing support from a good chunk of the audience because of it- at least in their encounters with TR.
|
|
|
|
Post by Koda, Master Crunchyroller on Jun 25, 2010 17:57:14 GMT -5
From the Pokemon anime, Team Rocket would be a good example of how NOT to write truly detestable villains. I like them, but they lose so often that it becomes harder and harder to boo them, and Ash and co. wind up losing support from a good chunk of the audience because of it- at least in their encounters with TR. Can we even classify them as villains anymore? They were only REAL villains for their debut episode. They were the closest things to villains in the Kanto saga until we saw Giovanni, but even then..... They are joke characters. Hell, how many times have they actually HELPED Ash and friends? At this point they might as well be secondary protagonists..... |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 25, 2010 23:11:04 GMT -5
No way at all was Team Rockey a "villain" team after maybe the first few times they showed up.
Really, I remember watching that cartoon back in sixth grade, I think, and after awhile getting confused as to why there never really seemed to be any villains, or at least any that showed up for more than five seconds at a time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2010 7:10:58 GMT -5
Either they've got to feel entirely justified in their actions and as though they're doing the right, or they have to be so over-the-top in their efforts to cause suffering that they'd take terms like 'evil' and 'villain' as a compliment. Basically, avoid crap like the sympathetic, self-proclaimed good men like Magneto declaring his group the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants.
Also I like it when a villain's actions are beyond any sort of justification but there's still something sympathetic about them - Azula from Avatar, Hush, Ganondorf as of Wind Waker and Twilight Princess, etc.
|
|
