Villains, What Makes a Good One?

[midwesternwatcher]

If we ever get a new Buffy movie or even Buffy novel, we'll need a new villain. Won't we? I'm disappointed in S8, the way they keep recycling villains.

Can we brainstorm a bit about a new villain would be like?

Kind of a side thought ... it always seems to me that a villain works better if his/her objective is limited, if his/her success would not end the world, but only Buffy and her friends. The Mayor was like that, so was Glory. It seems to me that the show lost its way a bit in S7, battling too big a villain. Christopher Golden and Nancy Holder, in their books, also go for extravaganza this way.

[Astray]

If there was a Buffy movie I'd hope they'd use the budget to fund a villain that was a demon in true form; giant wings, claws, flying around with its minions. Or something like that.

[midwesternwatcher]

What would this demon's motivation be?

[tkts]

A villain that was completely demon would be hard to relate to, I think. What made the series' most interesting demons work was that they had motivations and feelings that we could, in some way, understand. Glory, for instance, was motivated not by "I'm so eeeeeevil, mwa ha ha ha," but by wanting to return to the home from which she had been exiled. The mayor's paternal feelings for Faith, similarly, gave an interesting twist to his motivations.

[midwesternwatcher]

In my starting post, I said I thought a villain with a limited motivation would work better. Apparently that doesn't resonate with anybody. Maybe I should try restating it.

BtVS is about the lives of young adults. If the problems they face, and the powers they wield, are too far from the scale on which normal human lives are played out, then we'll lose that. Buffy and her friends won't be human like us any more, and we won't be able to care about them as people anymore. I know there's a temptation to ramp up the volume and escalate the extravaganza to an epic level. It's critical to resist that. In places, S8 is already overdone. I don't know S9 will be like.

In the TV series, the writers sometimes managed to retain the human scale while still getting a bit of epic resonance. They did this by having Buffy fight great evils in their embryonic form. Buffy stopped Glory before she attained her true form.

I'm not sure they did this out of wisdom. They might've done it mostly because of budgetary constraints. In the Angel comics, with no such constraints, we see the "true form of Illyria," for example, which is as big as a hurricane or an earthquake. No human decisions or actions are relevant to such a thing.

Keep the villains small!

Am I all by myself on this?

I think tkts and I may have about the same idea, though we're saying it differently.

[astranger]

I do think the issue is more complicated than just scale.

Generally I don't think there are any real rules on this. Its more about how the pieces are put together that makes the villain good or bad (In Quality).

So I would say its the sum of several qualities, including their personal connection to Buffy, how threatening they are (not not necessarily their power), how in control they appear and of course how compelling their personalities are.

Angelus and the Mayor are perhaps the best villains in Buffy because they both have compelling personalities. Angelus does have a very personal connection to Buffy which is both traumatic and fascinating to watch. The Mayor's calm and pleasant demeanor combined with his desire to become a snake god is very interesting and raises some interesting questions about good an evil and both have a tremendous presence on screen. These are the best Villains in Buffy and Perhaps in the 'verse.

Adam on the other hand is a poor villain. He's got the power, but he has only the most tangible connection to Buffy. He hasn't got much personality and in a way, just seems sort of generic. He doesn't appear to have much depth too him and the result is that he's boring.

The First is also a problem. It starts of terrifying but it then fails in a few regards. It spends too much time as Warren or Johnathan who are inherently pathetic as characters thus diminishing its presence on screen. In addition to this being insubstantial made the viewer increasingly aware that it couldn't really do that much, this diminishing its ability to be threatening.

So any Villain has to be carefully crafted depending on what sort of villain it actually is, and what the author intends it to be.

[midwesternwatcher]

I agree with most of what you said. Adam, not so good. The Mayor and Glory were the best villains.

Of course scale is not the only factor. But it is a factor. Buffy and her friends must be able to confront the villain on something like equal terms, right? That means the villain can only be so powerful. I'm not sure just where the limit is. It looked to me, for a while, as if Glory might be too big a villain. Indeed, I'm not to this day quite satisfied with the way Buffy beat her. Glory's fatal weaknesses should've been developed either.

Oh, what you say about the First is right on. It was a cool idea, but not well thought out.

[tkts]

midwesternwatcher: I think we're on the same page. It's not necessarily that the good villains aren't going to destroy the world if they succeed ... but that's neither their sole motivation nor their biggest one. And they hit Buffy close to home so the threat is less abstract (with the threat to Dawn in S5 being perhaps the most personal).

[deathisyourgift]

*steps out from lurking to contribute*
Great discussion here!

I agree with the main themes so far, that a villain must be developed and invested in the story, rather than just hiding in a cave talking about how badass he is *coughadamcough*. However, didn't the Master do that too? And he was more successful than Adam? What was different about the Master and Adam? How did we grow to fear the Master and just kinda roll our eyes at Adam?

Well, I think part of it is the characterization of the Master: he was tied to Angelus and Darla, he not only wanted to rise and kill innocent people, but he also had a personal vendetta for Buffy and wanted to kill Buffy--and did!--which makes him invested in the overall Scooby plot, also he was funny, gave us information about Buffy's role as the Slayer, and we were able to see him again in The Wish as a more developed character.

Adam's goal was to bioengineer a race of robodemonoids, he didn't even really contribute to any of the evil-doing besides killing that little boy, a demon, & Maggie Walsh (not-so-tragic since she just tried to kill Buffy, thanks Adam!) and trying to hurt Riley's pretty face and delicious pectorals...er, I mean, trying to make Riley an ubersoldier like him...... Ahem, anyways, Adam also teamed up with Spike, who at this point was unthreatening and kinda pathetic. Add on to that the main focus of Primevil being the Scoobies resurrecting high-school era unity and the awesomeness of that spell (probably my favorite spell/sequence of the entire series), which just embarasses Adam.

With all that said, I do like Adam as an allegory for the evils of technology without morals (i.e. the Initiative's stance on treating demons badly despite signs of goodness), and the makeup was awesome and the actor played him well, so he wasn't a total fail in my book.

I still have thoughts on this, but my brain is tired because this was supposed to be a break from writing my thesis....oh well! Again, great topic and excellent brain-tingly discussion!

Jen

[Tea - Total]

History. To me the villain has to have a great history, to make the villain more interesting. Glory had amazing history. I was so thrilled to hear Gregor in "Spiral", talking in depth about Glory's history and why she after the key and how the key actually work.

[tkts]

Another thing that might make The Master seem better than Adam is that he was the first Big Bad on Buffy. If we had seen someone like The Master around the time we saw Adam -- after the much more well-characterized villains like Angelus, Spike, Drusilla, Faith and the Mayor -- he might not have seemed all that noteworthy.

[henzINNIT]

Adam's role was expanded when Lindsay Crouse had to be written out due to other commitments. Maggie Walsh would have probably been the main villain, and she had potential.

As for what makes a great villain, there's been a lot of great points made.
The connection the character shares with the protagonist is important. The impact they have on the hero's life with be the legacy they leave behind. A relatable villain is important too. Even if they're irrideemably evil, understanding why they are that way makes them far more powerful. They need to be able to undermine the hero in some way obviously, be that physical strength or intelligence or emotional manipulation etc etc.


Another thing is how the villains are actually used. The First isn't exactly a bad villain on paper, but being benched for several episodes in a row takes all of the immediacy and threat out of it.

[tkts]

Dec 7, 2010 13:08:38 GMT -5 henzINNIT said:

Another thing is how the villains are actually used. The First isn't exactly a bad villain on paper, but being benched for several episodes in a row takes all of the immediacy and threat out of it.

However, when you have a very powerful villain such as the First or Glory, you almost have to find a way for Buffy to deal them a midseason setback and have them benched for a while.

The more successful season arcs tend to introduce the Big Bad pretty early, within the first few episodes. When they don't -- like in Season 4 -- the season tends to wander and become somewhat directionless.

But if the Big Bad is powerful, anytime they're too close, they become a huge, looming threat that must be dealt with. Standalone plots and character-driven episodes can't happen when the Big Bad is beating down the door at 1630 Revello Drive. So on the one hand, the Big Bad needs to be introduced early to keep the season arc on track, and also needs to become menacing fairly quickly so we know they're a threat. But on the other hand, if the Big Bad isn't dealt a setback at some point, the protagonists will spend the entire second half of the season running for their lives.

Some of the best character-driven episodes have happened during these temporary respites from the onslaught of a powerful Big Bad. In Season 5, for example, by "Blood Ties," Glory is a very imminent threat. But Willow's teleportation spell takes her out of the loop for a while, and it's during that brief rest that some of the season's best character-driven episodes -- "Crush," "I Was Made to Love You," "The Body" -- take place. She had to become a major threat quickly in order for us to take her seriously, but she also had to be beaten back so the writers could spend some time on character development that needed to happen, without having the main characters running and fighting all the time.

[astranger]

Well part of dealing with that would be to perhaps have the villain more distracted. Glory for example at first didn't know what the key was, and I think that they should have played this angle a bit more to explain Glory's apparent inaction. Then she would simply be moving in a different direction explaining her initial lack of interest in Buffy.

Or we could have Ben develop magic to try to fight her, again explaining her apparent inaction again. Having said that, being a ditz was in Glory's character.

Looking at Adam, he also spent far too much time doing nothing (to the viewer). But if we look at another hulking bruiser, the Beast from Angel we can make a comparison. I know Angel Season 4 gets some criticism, but the Beast is awesome, why? Because he gets shit done, and we see it. He takes out the Ra0Tet, demolishes Wolfram and Hart Single handed and blocks out the sun with the implied death toll probably in the thousands. He is probably the most effective villain in the series by sheer kill count. While Adam, sits in front of a computer and philosophies about his own nature.

[Skytteflickan88]

To answer the thread title, this is what I like to see in villains (there are probably lots of exceptions to these rules, some may even be faulty even though it my own list):

A goal. Being evil in general, or simply killing to eat will get old fast. The goal could be as simple as trying to hurt or kill Buffy, but it has to be something. As awesome as Angelus was, he would have gotten boring quickly if he hadn't had hurting Buffy/ending the world as his goal. The exception to this rule would be if the villain is three dimensional and/or has a lot of character development, like Faith & Spike got.

Motive. They have to have a reason for their goal/behaviour. For example, creatures of non-human species could get away with acting non-human simply because they aren't human, while humans should have some sort of reason for being evil. Faith believed it was either use or be used, and she obviously had had issues in her past, making her a murderer. Warren seems to be a phsycopath (not sure if that's the right term). It's not explained why he gets the way he gets, but he still feels believeable. Maybe he was simply a bullied geek who had enough (the guy he punched in the bar after he gets superpowers, wasn't he a guy who had beaten Warren up?).
Exception would be if they had a great air of mystery around themselves.

Mystery. It's interesting to study a villain, to get what makes them tick, but if a villain's simply out for food, or wants to hurt others because he/she himself has been hurt, that could get old. There needs to be some sort of mystery. That's why I'm still find vampires interesting, even after seeing so many and getting that they kill for food and fun, things the more animalistic side of me can understand. Because I still don't quite get them. I don't get what a lack of a soul does, why some are more sadictic than others, or why some seem to be so similar to how they were as humans, while still being so evil. It's a mystery.
Of course, if they're too big a mystery, and lack of motive seems to me a big fat questionmark, that could be a problem too, unless they're very scary.

Better than the last villain. A random kind-of-interesting villain will do for the stand alones episodes or the smaller arcs, but a Big Bad needs to somehow be more interesting than the last one. One of the reasons The Trio is a big yawn to me. If we hadn't had Willow's magic addiction and the Spuffy "relationship" in season 6 as part-Big Bads, it wouldn't have worked.

No-no on the clichés. Fun for the random stand alone episode/issue, but not for a Big Bad. Which is why I yawn at The First wanting to end the world (only interesting in the first season 7 re-watch) and Angel's "I wanna make the world a better place for me to live in and, and oh, you're going to be my queen."-thing. It's not as unique as the other Big Bad's we've seen, and I think that-s partly why I don't like the seasons (okay, Season 8 has a lot of reasons for being not so brilliant to me, and that might even change when I continue to read).

New Big Bads, not old ones. Don't repeat, unless the character has a lot more to give. Like Amy, who we didn't see a lot of on the show, but not Warren, that had a good run in season 5-6 and is only used for comedial relief now. I'm been spoilered for season 8, and know the Master will be back. Not sure if that's a failure or not until I read. I like how they used him on the show, and hope he was brought back for a damn good reason.


So I guess I want something like what I described above. After The First and this whole Twilight deal, I feel that we need something more that hits home. Season 8 isn't finished, I hacen't even read issue 36-39 yet, so I can't really speak of what kind of evil we're dealing with here, but it seems to be about the world ending and Angel & Buffy getting mindscrewed and the universe being a big ol' bitca, with a bit of Buffy doubting herself thrown in. So I would kind that kind of evil "large", and either Joss comes up with a concept bigger than "ending all life as we know it" or we need a season 6-ish kind of bad for season 9. The next villain shouldn't be about grand schemes; it should be about how the heroes are struggling to win and grow as people in the process, which I'm not sure another The First could do.

[midwesternwatcher]

Great post, Caroline. I'm going to save it. In fact ... I think you can complete the sentence.

[Skytteflickan88]

I can't complete it. Is it a pop culture reference?

[Scarygothgirl]

I think Adam is no better or worse than the Master, it's just that after the first season of Buffy the show got bigger and better and more realistic (in a way, you know with the whole metaphor stuff). And then to have a bad guy who is on the same level as the season one big bad is not so good, we were expecting something so much better after season two and three.


I really enjoyed season six villainy arc, I love the idea of the scoobie friends gone bad (also applicable to Faith and sort-of Angel). I think if I were making a Buffy movie I would have the scoobies thinking they're fighting all sorts of demons, only to find out that really it's one of the sccobies themselves who's grown bitter and started trying to destroy the circle. It couldn't be Xander or Willow, 'cos it already happened with Willow and Xender is too good. It would have to be one of the secondary scoobies. Or even better... It could be Buffy! She's fed up with the whole slayer thing and wants to destroy her own world, maybe going along with the Normal Again other world thing... No I'm not sure that'd work actually. One of the secondary scoobies then. And there'd be little clues all the way along so you can work it out as the scoobies work it out. I'm not really having a very organised train of thought here I'll stop.