What makes a good villain?

[Bronson881]

Do you prefer a villain who is over the top evil, has dimensions to him/her, or somewhere in the the middle? Over the top evil villians usually don't' last beyond that season as the Big Bad. This villian can't last more than a season because they either become a cartoon villian and not taken seriously.

As for having dimensions to them, Giving us the villains motivations is good but is can also water them down somewhat. I like the Machiavellian villian who uses mind games and minipulates people to his ends. My biggest complaint on Littlefinger on Game of thrones when he handed Sansa over to the Boltons and then deserted her which destroyed any trust she had in him.

Also the Originals on Vampire Diares had to leave because she had become paper tigers on Vampire Diaries. It did work on Charmed reboot where in Season One instead of killing Medusa, Macy understood and sympathized with Medusa and why she was doing what she did. I liked that.

So again, what do you like in a villain? Over the top or having some dimensions to him or her?

[Abductorenmadrid]

Ah, the villain! Often they can be more memorable than the hero, if done right. In their respective times Nicholson and Ledger's "Joker" easily rivaled and perhaps even outshone their Batman rivals. Was it the script, direction, or delivery that did that? Or a little of each? I don't know, but they were great. Both of them had their over the top moments, but, it's not just that which makes a great villain. Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men, or even Skyfall made for someone more cold and calculating - less over the top - and made a good villain in both.

So for me, there isn't really a magic formula for being a good villain. I guess they have to match with the world they are put in and the style of their good-guy opponent.

Oh and I do have to commend the character "Alice" in Batwoman. For a show of its type and budget they've really come up with a cool / tragic / deep / sad / backstory for her and made her scarily unpredictable, evil and vulnerable as SE01 has played out. Relative to Supergirl the Batwoman series have certainly done better in cultivating a villain in their show. (Note - I am not up to date with Batwoman season 1 yet so my view may be off the mark by season's end!!)

[sneakly]

I think a good villain has to enjoy their evil, wallowing in it. I did like Alice in Batwoman, but felt if they were going to make a big thing out of her being lesbian and having a female villain, making them sisters was kind of a letdown. Some Unresolved sexual tension between them would have been interesting.

What makes the Caesar Romero Joker so fun was the way he enjoyed torturing Batman, Robin or Batgirl. The complexity of the traps and the obvious enjoyment he was getting from putting them in them made you buy in.

The the villain in the original Superman TV show were dull and were just thugs with guns that would occasionally tie up Lois, shoot at Superman and then throw their guns at him (and he would duck). They never came up with particularly creative Perils and seemed to worry too much about getting away with their crimes and not enjoying the fetishistic aspects putting a snooping reporter in a bondage trap, a complete lack of style...

Cat woman, Tut, Riddler were all great because, they were getting off on it. Fausta on WW at least had a sense of style. Z.Z von Schnerk, was awesome because he wanted to make killing Emma Peel in an epic masterpiece.

[Maskripper]

I did like Alice in Batwoman, but felt if they were going to make a big thing out of her being lesbian and having a female villain, making them sisters was kind of a letdown. Some Unresolved sexual tension between them would have been interesting.

Well, Alice and Kate/Batwoman are sisters in the comics, that is nothing the TV show invented.
Also Alice isn't a lesbian, she kisses a guy in episode 1 and they are together at the beginning of the season.



-
However Alice is a great villain in my eyes. Actually one of the very best in the last years.
But back to topic:

What makes a good villain?
Evil, but not over the top evil
A good background story why the villain does what he/she does
A long history/rivalry with the hero is always a bonus
....(to be continued)....

[tallyho]

I am in a minority in that I don't particularly like Alice in Batwoman. She went to the Anthony Hopkins school of hammy madness. If you have ever met anyone truly insane the terrifying thing about them is their normality. The actor who plays the man who imprisoned Alice and Maus is chilling because he plays the madness as normality. His is a much better performance than starey eyes and crazy grins. Because that kind of out and out bonkers madness that Alice displays doesn't even allow you to get dressed in the morning.

For me, the best villains are the ones who do it as a profession and so portray the evil as an every day occurrence. Like Grand Moff Tarkin.

When Peter Cushing says "You may fire when ready" it's a brilliantly delivered line. He's not excited, he's not glorifying in the destruction of his enemies, he's not rejoicing at billions dead. It's all part of the day job for him. He destroys planets FOR A LIVING. This is one more and means nothing to him. And it's THAT concept, that life means nothing and him selling you on his belief in that concept, is what makes him such a great villain. Its hardly even an order, more a polite request.
(if the Death star gunners lived and were tried for war crimes would that be their defence?
' I was only obeying polite requests'? )

I think as well a degree of presence helps. Cushing had it from his acting and the way he carried himself, Arnie has it as he is a big guy. But a friend made the point that he doesn't work as Mr Freeze, as we are so used to him doing the dirty work. Him saying 'Get him guys", to his henchmen doesn't cut it when he is bigger than his henchmen and we expect him to sort things out.

I think intelligence and planning the evil adds to things as well.

[Bronson881]

Tallyho... I love your analysis. I agree a person who is amoral is more dangerous. Yes Peter Cushing was great in that role. Moff Tarkin was a great villain.

[tallyho]

If you have ever seen the film Manhunter Brian Cox makes a much better Hannibal Lecter than Hopkins because he's normal, yet you know he eats people. The only thing terrifying about Hopkins is the level of overacting

[Dazzle1]

One that has aims, goals and personality

The Master from Classic Who he was evil but you would like to have dinner with him for the conversation
Darksied has motivation he wants to remake the universe to bring order
The Joker he loves chaos
Alec Trevalyan from James Bond because he is a worthy adversary

[DrDominator9]

There are several aspects of what makes a good villain for me:

1) A good villain for me is one who's point of view and objectives are clearly shown, maybe not a first because the mystery of "Why is he/she doing this?!!" is great for stage setting. But eventually the reasoning behind the villain's actions are crucial.

2) A villain needs to be intelligent. A bumbling big guy/gal who hopes to get lucky, even if he or she does manage to overwhelm the hero/heroine might be good for a quick story but he or she can't really carry the load in a long series or a full season on tv. An intelligent villain is essential for great dialogue and great dialogue makes great moments.

3) A sense of style is nice to have. A steady look or a costume indicates a sense of purpose to a villain.

4) A deeply set evil within makes for a good villain. And while Peter Cushing and his amorality is cold, his desire to win at all costs is what makes him more chilling. But that could be the opposite side to the same coin.

5) Maniacal laugh or signature sound. That's just a bonus!

[tallyho]

"ALWAYS with the maniacal laughs, Moriarty"

[Dogfish]

What makes a good villain:

1. A plan.

2. Style.

3. Hired goons.

[Damselbinder]

If you have ever seen the film Manhunter Brian Cox makes a much better Hannibal Lecter than Hopkins because he's normal, yet you know he eats people. The only thing terrifying about Hopkins is the level of overacting

OH MY GOD YES.

After years of searching, I have finally, finally found another person that has seen the light. Cox's Hannibal was so much more convincing. He's obviously very intelligent and very dangerous, but he's also a convincing madman. There's that scene where he thinks that William Petersen's character is insulting his intelligence, and Cox doesn't overdo the response (he's not frothing at the mouth or even all that angry), but there's this little hint of petulance which has such exquisite verisimilitude.

As for what I think makes a good villain, I think in a way the question is more structural than it is when discussing what makes a well-written character in general. Most of the time, if there's a villain, it's the villain that's making the plot happen. Even if the hero takes the more active role in the plot, it's the villain that's set the stage for us. So a villain is very important for establishing tone. How we feel about the villain is important for how we feel about the way that the story is going to go. Putting it simply, a villain is good if a villain fits.

Let's take a movie like Halloween. Michael Myers is a character, sure, and he has a lot of menace, but effectively the plot is no different to what it would be (though certainly the soul of the film would suffer massively) if Laurie Strode were being menaced by a predatory animal. He's a thing, and all we learn about his background is basically just to make him seem scarier. He's just a threat we want our heroes to escape. The plot is supposed to be completely morally unambiguous: insane man chasing innocent young people. So in that case, we just want him to be scary. In that context that's what makes him a good villain.

Now let's take Hans Gruber, the villain of Die Hard. In this case, while there's certainly no real moral ambiguity (we absolutely want John McClane to defeat him), nevertheless the structure of the film demands something more than "scary bad guy", which was essential for Halloween. Die Hard is an action movie, but it's primarily a battle of wits. What makes Hans Gruber a great villain is that he's a match for John McClane, and there's tension in both directions, as it were, because the audience is completely willing to believe that, in any given exchange, either one of the two might come out on top. Also, the film has a playful tone, and an entertaining, charismatic, even funny villain ("I'm afraid Mr Takagi won't be joining us for the rest of... his life") helps to maintain that tone, but it never goes over the top and takes away from his threat. In fact as I say, it even adds to it, because he and John McClane trade barbs as well as bullets, reinforcing the idea that they're a match for and threat to each other.

Or a villain can be good because they exemplify or embody a theme. In the Jacobean tragedy The Changeling the villain ("De Flores" - them Jacobeans were many things, but subtle was not one of them) exemplifies corruption. In a way, he himself doesn't matter. He doesn't go on any kind of character journey or development: he starts and ends the play totally corrupted, debauched, and evil. The point of him is his effect on the heroine, Beatrice-Joanna. She starts out finding him completely revolting, yelling at him just for offering to help her with her luggage. Then, she uses his affection for her to extricate herself from an unwanted marriage - which she pays for by sleeping with him. When he tries to use that to persuade her to be his lover on a more, shall we say, permanent basis, one of the defences Beatrice-Joanna uses is that she is in a higher social caste than him. But he says her evil act has reduced them to the same level, which Beatrice-Joanna is forced to accept. Deflores is an effective villain because of his growing power: at the start he has none. He has absolutely no way to compel Beatrice-Joanna to do anything he wants. But the more she uses him, the more power over her he gains. At the start, we all have the choice to reject evil: it has no power over us unless we decide to partake of it. In essence, we "deflower" ourselves.




Also, hired goons.

[Dazzle1]

Question

Is there a reason that it is so hard or they don't write strong female villain masterminds in comics or adventure yarns?

I did not see the Third Thor, so I can't comment on Hela.

But if you look at the most popular ones they are anti heroines: Catwoman, Harley Black Cat
or they are never the main villain or someone is behind it :WonderWoman film coming up or Mysique from the X-Men

There has never been a female equvilent of Darksied Dr Doom or the Ras al Gul

[Damselbinder]

I actually think you're onto something there. A lot of the time in superhero stuff at least the villainess has a sexual allure, that part of their evil is that they're seductive, and there's an erotic thrill to the notion of a morally licentious lady being interested in seducing the hero - in an old-fashioned view of the world, they represent a moral temptation. The other side of that, of course, is that they ARE interested in the hero, and so there's a chance of "redeeming" them through their attraction.

It's pretty bad that the only Darksied-ish female character I can think of in mainstream comics is, like, Granny Goodness.

[tallyho]

Part of it is you want to appeal to the audience. Sell magazines, put bums on seats. Batman Superman and most male heroes tend to be big physical presences and some of the female ones like WW are too. Making a hulking female villainess limits the appeal. Plus as stated above it robs her of a weapon, her womanly wiles.

[Dazzle1]

Part of it is you want to appeal to the audience. Sell magazines, put bums on seats. Batman Superman and most male heroes tend to be big physical presences and some of the female ones like WW are too. Making a hulking female villainess limits the appeal. Plus as stated above it robs her of a weapon, her womanly wiles.

Tue you want to have the sex appeal but you can also have brains and fighting ability
Imagine an evil Lara Croft or lets say Jean Grey with the Phoenix power indulging herself or Lady Shiva having a global domination plan.

[Damselbinder]

I don't think we're saying that we WANT it to be like this. I think it's a bad thing that female villainy is so overwhelmingly cast as at least slightly titillating even in mainstream stuff.

The only one I have been able to think of who's a bit more Thanos-ish is Veranke, the Skrull-Queen who kidnapped and impersonated Spider-Woman in the whole "Secret Invasion" palaver.

[Dazzle1]

Part of it is you want to appeal to the audience. Sell magazines, put bums on seats. Batman Superman and most male heroes tend to be big physical presences and some of the female ones like WW are too. Making a hulking female villainess limits the appeal. Plus as stated above it robs her of a weapon, her womanly wiles.

Tue you want to have the sex appeal but you can also have brains and fighting ability
Imagine an evil Lara Croft or lets say Jean Grey with the Phoenix power indulging herself or Lady Shiva having a global domination plan.

If there had not made this movie incredibly campy: The villaness from 1 Million eyes of Samaru could have fit the category or from the Blackexplotation film Dragon Lady played by Stella Stevens