What Makes A Good Villain?

[Sionnach Glic]

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?

[Nickswitz]

One thing I disagree with sometimes, not always is your last one, they don't always have to be threatening. They always have to have an ability to do damage, but I don't think thatthey always have to be really threatening. I'm trying to think of one, the guy from Iron Man, the arms dealer, he wasn't really threatening, he had no ability to do anything really, but he was a good villain because he was menecing and he used the situation he was given well, but he wasn't really a threat once Tony Stark was in the cave, even though he was the villain until he was killed. I may be misinterpreting the character I didn't really find him threatening.

But usually if they aren't really a threat they don't have much to work with.

I also think that in order to be a really good villain you have to look at their side and be able to actually understand their motivations, in the movie the Incredibles for one, Syndrome was an asshole who had nothing really behind him to be a reason for him to be that way, but Khan, he was stranded on a planet, that ended up killing his wife, so I think that he had a fair reason for hating Kirk, because Kirk esentially killed his wife.

That's just in my opinion though.

[Mikey]

they don't always have to be threatening. They always have to have an ability to do damage, but I don't think thatthey always have to be really threatening.

What, exactly, is the difference? I don't think Sionnach meant "actively menacing," I think he meant that a decent villain most pose a threat.

I think a main component of a good villain is related to Sionnach's point #1 - I would say that the best villains are sympathetic characters. That is, the best bad guys are the ones at whom you look and say, "Yeah, under the circumstances, I can understand his point of view." Of course, many are twisted by neuroses, psychoses, etc.; but the best Big Bads aren't the ones who are trying to take over the universe - they're the ones who are trying to (in their twisted villain way) exact some revenge or redemption. Khan was great because he wasn't trying to steal Genesis to take over the galaxy... Genesis was incidental to his very personal motivations.

[Sionnach Glic]

One thing I disagree with sometimes, not always is your last one, they don't always have to be threatening. They always have to have an ability to do damage, but I don't think thatthey always have to be really threatening. I'm trying to think of one, the guy from Iron Man, the arms dealer, he wasn't really threatening, he had no ability to do anything really, but he was a good villain because he was menecing and he used the situation he was given well, but he wasn't really a threat once Tony Stark was in the cave, even though he was the villain until he was killed. I may be misinterpreting the character I didn't really find him threatening.

I think you misunderstood where I was coming from. A villain, as you correctly pointed out, doesn't have to be able to personally kill or take on the heroes. But he must pose some form of danger. Whether it be through being a Rambo-style super-soldier, or a physically pathetic politician who wields enough power to be a threat to our heroes.

[Nickswitz]

Got it, yes then, I was incorrectly interpretting your comment, I agree completely then... 8)

[Tsukiyumi]

I think you misunderstood where I was coming from. A villain, as you correctly pointed out, doesn't have to be able to personally kill or take on the heroes. But he must pose some form of danger. Whether it be through being a Rambo-style super-soldier, or a physically pathetic politician who wields enough power to be a threat to our heroes.

I'm sure Mikey will disagree ( ), 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.

BTW, all good points, Ro- er, Sionnach. I always try to make my antagonists as complex as my heroes in my stories. Henchmen can be one-note sometimes, but I even like to give them some degree of character development.

[Mikey]

I'm sure Mikey will disagree ( )

I think I'm missing your joke. In any event, I agree wholeheartedly, especially with Le Chiffre. Everybody knew that he didn't pose a physical threat straight-up to bond, as soon as he took a hit from his asthma inhaler (especially not big buff Craig-Bond.) However, the fact that he could pose a threat in a more insidious fashion made him even more sinister. To further use the example of Bond villains - Jaws could take anyone in a fight, but he wasn't a "villain" in the same sense as Blofeld, Drax, etc.

[Tyyr]

I think one of the big things I like to see in a villain is a general lack of what we usually consider villainy. I personally prefer villains who aren't out for revenge or some goal like "RULE THE WORLD!" but instead have much more relateable goals. In turn their methods to achieve these goals, or even the nature of the goal itself, bring them into conflict with the "hero" or society as a whole.

[Lighthawk]

Really, all I want in my villians is for them to be actual characters, and not just plot devices. Saurian from Lotrs for example, is a plot device. We learn almost nothing about him through out the story, he's as much a character as the asteriod in Armageddon.

[Mikey]

Really, all I want in my villians is for them to be actual characters, and not just plot devices. Saurian from Lotrs for example, is a plot device. We learn almost nothing about him through out the story, he's as much a character as the asteriod in Armageddon.

To be fair, Sauron is better developed in the backstory pieces - the Silmarillion, et. al. - and even in those, he is meant to be more of a mythological figure than an actual tangible character.

[Lighthawk]

Really, all I want in my villians is for them to be actual characters, and not just plot devices. Saurian from Lotrs for example, is a plot device. We learn almost nothing about him through out the story, he's as much a character as the asteriod in Armageddon.

To be fair, Sauron is better developed in the backstory pieces - the Silmarillion, et. al. - and even in those, he is meant to be more of a mythological figure than an actual tangible character.

Granted, but he was the best example I could come up with off the top of my head. The point is, I want my villians to be more than just the force that drives the heroes along.

[Mikey]

Agreed with that.

[Captain Seafort]

He barely turns up in the Silmarillion, but the Akallabêth , on the other hand, makes him a somewhat better villain, with plenty of the characteristics Foxy ascribes to great villains.

[Mikey]

He barely turns up in the Silmarillion, but the Akallabêth , on the other hand, makes him a somewhat better villain, with plenty of the characteristics Foxy ascribes to great villains.

Beg your pardon. I have an edition of both published together under the overarching title The Silmarillion. I was referring to the title of the publication, not the name of the opus.

[Monroe]

I saw this thread awhile back thought the idea was interesting but just now got around to reading it. Is it sad I had to google search Shinzon to know who he is?

I think #5 is the bare minimum you can have to make a villain. Plot is Desire + Danger. If you don't have that danger you don't have a plot.

I think as far as LotR goes Sauron I would agree is almost a force of nature. What's said in the Simarlian does not matter in the least since that's not part of the basic story most readers know. So little of the story is told from anything besides the fellowship's point of view that Sauron is a mystery. In fact while Sauron is the head dude I would put Sauramon as a far more tangible foe. And that's okay I think. You can have a plot, that's good, where the foe is almost a force of nature. Before Voyager the Borg fit this very well. Dragon Age's Darkspawn fit this too to name a few examples.

I would add a #6 or maybe a #5b-

A villain should be more powerful than the protagonist. Easiest way I can think of is think of comic heroes. Apocalypse, Dark Side, the Beyonder, etc they're all much more powerful than the heroes they fight. A good suspense movie like State of Play has the protagonist considerably weaker than the antagonist. The hero in that movie is at a very distinct disadvantage. David is a threat to Goliath if the story was told from Goliath's perspective but Goliath is much more powerful than David and would make a far better antagonist to David being the Protagonist.

This goes back to Danger + Desire = Drama (or plotline). If the villain is a threat but only a minor one then its not much of a story. What if the Empire was the protagonist, are we suppose to worry about a few rebel snubfighters attacking the super station? They can do damage, and they can be a threat but who cares? If the Orcish armies that attacked Minas Tirith didn't happen to fill up the entire valley below but instead just a small section would it be as interesting?

The threat has to seem like something you can't over come. The night is darkest before the dawn and all that stuff.