What Makes A Good Villain?
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 2:39 pm
Antagonists and villains in movies are, like everything else in a movie, often said to be good and bad. Shinzon, for example, is said to be an awful villain, while Khan is said to be a great villain. But how do we judge whether or not a villain is terrible or great? Well, in this thread let's discuss what makes or breaks a villain.
For me, there are a few requirements for being classed as a good villain.
1) They must have good, plausable motivations.
Let's compare Shinzon and Khan. Both characters were motivated by the same basic thing: an almost fanatical hatred of the main character coupled with a desire for vengence. But what differed between the two was where these motivations stemmed from. Khan's background led him neatly to a hatred of Kirk. Shinzon's background should have made him hate Romulans, not Picard. Thus Shinzon's overall motivation was illogical.
2) They must have realistic goals.
I suppose this one isn't always necessary. There have been great villains who, once carefully examined, simply lacked the capability to really pull off their schemes. However, the good examples of those characters are when they're not played as being completely sane and down to Earth. But in general it helps a lot if a villain knows what he can and cannot achieve.
Of course, what constitutes a realistic goal will depend on each different villain. Emperor Palpatine's scheme to rule the galaxy was quite possible (indeed, he pulled it off). But if Gaius Baltar were to have that same motivation there'd be problems.
3) There must be some depth to the character.
No character should be two-dimensional. This holds the same for villains as it does for heroes. This sort of ties in with the first point, about having good motivations, as the background of the character will naturally influence what he wants. You should be able to get a good feel of a villain as a person in their own right, rather than just some entity that wants world domination for the hell of it and must be opposed.
Taking a look at the two BSG shows provides a perfect example. In the original, Baltar betrays humanity to their doom for....well, jack shit by the looks of it. But in the new show Baltar didn't intentionally betray the 12 Colonies, and I think it's safe to say that he would not have freely chosen such an option. This is a perfect example of what I meant by making a character into a proper person - you could understand and even, to a degree, relate to nBaltar.
4) The villain must be competant.
I don't think I need to explain this one, but let's look at an example - Shinzon V Khan again. In ST2, Khan knew what he was doing and had the situation under control for quite a while. Undoubtedly someone will point out that he was defeated by overlooking a very simple thing. While that's true, it also fits into his character. He was a soldier, not a captain. His lack of knowledge in terms of space combat - even of the most basic tactics - are no surprise. Indeed, it would be downright ridiculous to have him be of even average ability in the situation. So while that was an example of incompetance, it's not character breaking as it ties in with point 3.
Shinzon, however, didn't seem to have any idea what the hell he was doing. I'm not talking about his terrible space combat techniques, but his overall strategy. He needed Picard's blood to live, yet allowed Picard to waltz on and off his ship repeatedly. He then failed to keep an eye on a member of his crew of whom the enemy had a perfect duplicate. And even when he had finally captured Picard he still did nothing. Sorry, but when a villain is that stupid he really doesn't come off as a threat. And that leads us onto point 5.
5) The villain must be a threat.
Again, this seems an obvious one. The Borg are threatening, the Pakled are not. Both were villains in various episodes. Take a wild guess at which episodes worked well.
Although it seems very basic, there are a number of instances when the villains really don't seem like they are (or should be) any real threat. Having the captain captured by a mysterious, powerful and totally alien enemy works brilliantly, because the enemy is a genuine threat that must be overcome. Having the chief engineer captured by the space short bus just makes the heroes look like a bunch of morons.
There's probably more that I'm missing, but I feel like I've rambled on for enough right now. So, what do you think it is that makes villains as classic as Darth Vader and Khan?
For me, there are a few requirements for being classed as a good villain.
1) They must have good, plausable motivations.
Let's compare Shinzon and Khan. Both characters were motivated by the same basic thing: an almost fanatical hatred of the main character coupled with a desire for vengence. But what differed between the two was where these motivations stemmed from. Khan's background led him neatly to a hatred of Kirk. Shinzon's background should have made him hate Romulans, not Picard. Thus Shinzon's overall motivation was illogical.
2) They must have realistic goals.
I suppose this one isn't always necessary. There have been great villains who, once carefully examined, simply lacked the capability to really pull off their schemes. However, the good examples of those characters are when they're not played as being completely sane and down to Earth. But in general it helps a lot if a villain knows what he can and cannot achieve.
Of course, what constitutes a realistic goal will depend on each different villain. Emperor Palpatine's scheme to rule the galaxy was quite possible (indeed, he pulled it off). But if Gaius Baltar were to have that same motivation there'd be problems.
3) There must be some depth to the character.
No character should be two-dimensional. This holds the same for villains as it does for heroes. This sort of ties in with the first point, about having good motivations, as the background of the character will naturally influence what he wants. You should be able to get a good feel of a villain as a person in their own right, rather than just some entity that wants world domination for the hell of it and must be opposed.
Taking a look at the two BSG shows provides a perfect example. In the original, Baltar betrays humanity to their doom for....well, jack shit by the looks of it. But in the new show Baltar didn't intentionally betray the 12 Colonies, and I think it's safe to say that he would not have freely chosen such an option. This is a perfect example of what I meant by making a character into a proper person - you could understand and even, to a degree, relate to nBaltar.
4) The villain must be competant.
I don't think I need to explain this one, but let's look at an example - Shinzon V Khan again. In ST2, Khan knew what he was doing and had the situation under control for quite a while. Undoubtedly someone will point out that he was defeated by overlooking a very simple thing. While that's true, it also fits into his character. He was a soldier, not a captain. His lack of knowledge in terms of space combat - even of the most basic tactics - are no surprise. Indeed, it would be downright ridiculous to have him be of even average ability in the situation. So while that was an example of incompetance, it's not character breaking as it ties in with point 3.
Shinzon, however, didn't seem to have any idea what the hell he was doing. I'm not talking about his terrible space combat techniques, but his overall strategy. He needed Picard's blood to live, yet allowed Picard to waltz on and off his ship repeatedly. He then failed to keep an eye on a member of his crew of whom the enemy had a perfect duplicate. And even when he had finally captured Picard he still did nothing. Sorry, but when a villain is that stupid he really doesn't come off as a threat. And that leads us onto point 5.
5) The villain must be a threat.
Again, this seems an obvious one. The Borg are threatening, the Pakled are not. Both were villains in various episodes. Take a wild guess at which episodes worked well.
Although it seems very basic, there are a number of instances when the villains really don't seem like they are (or should be) any real threat. Having the captain captured by a mysterious, powerful and totally alien enemy works brilliantly, because the enemy is a genuine threat that must be overcome. Having the chief engineer captured by the space short bus just makes the heroes look like a bunch of morons.
There's probably more that I'm missing, but I feel like I've rambled on for enough right now. So, what do you think it is that makes villains as classic as Darth Vader and Khan?
), but I think both Le Chiffre and Dominic Greene in the last two Bond films were effective villains not because of their physical strength (the scene near the end of QoS is a great example), but because of their intellect and connections.