Make the villain completely unappealing and he is completely uninteresting. Worse, he makes the hero look bad for being up against a rookie-league challenge. Oh, so you have an ugly, stupid, weak, impatient, raging opponent? What a challenge.
Make the villain too appealing, however, and the hero is overshadowed. Hey, this baddie is strong, intelligent, good-looking, patient, and having a great time.
The villain is the counter-point to the hero. Make that point too well, however, and you sell the opposite message. "You know, Thanos kinda has a point. Maybe we should kill a few billion people to save the Earth..."
Two interesting cases are that of Jellico on Star Trek: TNG and Tritter on House M.D. These villains are not appealing in the sense of being likeable, but rather offer a rational critique of the heroes. In the case of Jellico, the comparatively laid-back style of Picard (e.g., talk, listen, discuss) is replaced by a new captain who has to get the Enterprise ready for combat with the Cardassians in short order, disrupting the command officers. Riker, in particular, balks at having a captain who acts like he's the boss or even giving orders in a military structure. The episode is meant to be one of those "higher ranking visiting officers are idiots" episodes of Star Trek, but in this case the command crew is revealed to be complacent, entitled, and even bratty when it's their turn to follow orders. In the case of Tritter, Dr. House meets a fellow jerk in the form of a detective who arrests House for possession of Vicodin. We're presumably supposed to see Tritter as excessive and unfair, but Tritter turns out to be right. House does take big risks and becomes increasingly unhinged as the series goes on, having a psychotic break during which he attempts to kill an employee, breaks countless laws and the code of medical ethics, and eventual goes to prison when he drives a car into a house in a rage. Tritter's predictions about House turn out to be right. House is a dangerous addict surrounded by enablers. And Jellico is also right. He understands the Cardassians and generates a strategy which pushes them back without starting a war. And yet fans of both shows tend to violently dislike these villains, in my opinion, because their critiques upset the comfortable assumptions and indulgences of both shows. And this is the Paradox of the Paradox of Appeal. Have an emotionally unlikable villain offer an objectively rational case against our heroes and fans will be triggered. What results is not an entertaining villain we kind of like (or love to hate), but something more like a turd in the punchbowl. And yet, I see Tritter and Jellico as two of the best antagonists I've seen, precisely because they offer a valid counterpoint, if not repudiation, of their respective worlds. At a certain point, writers probably get tired of being trapped the rules of a story, and villains like these offer wonderful acts of rebellion. They poke us in our lazy enjoyment of the ego satisfaction of imagining ourselves being the smart snarky doctor, or first officer lording over the lower decks.
A more promising way to do it is to put the critique into the mouth of a character we like, even if s/he is morally deficient. See below for the great bit where Quark criticizes the Federation as being like root beer.
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](/community/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
The villain is the counter-point to the hero. Make that point too well, however, and you sell the opposite message. "You know, Thanos kinda has a point. Maybe we should kill a few billion people to save the Earth..."
Two interesting cases are that of Jellico on Star Trek: TNG and Tritter on House M.D. These villains are not appealing in the sense of being likeable, but rather offer a rational critique of the heroes. In the case of Jellico, the comparatively laid-back style of Picard (e.g., talk, listen, discuss) is replaced by a new captain who has to get the Enterprise ready for combat with the Cardassians in short order, disrupting the command officers. Riker, in particular, balks at having a captain who acts like he's the boss or even giving orders in a military structure. The episode is meant to be one of those "higher ranking visiting officers are idiots" episodes of Star Trek, but in this case the command crew is revealed to be complacent, entitled, and even bratty when it's their turn to follow orders. In the case of Tritter, Dr. House meets a fellow jerk in the form of a detective who arrests House for possession of Vicodin. We're presumably supposed to see Tritter as excessive and unfair, but Tritter turns out to be right. House does take big risks and becomes increasingly unhinged as the series goes on, having a psychotic break during which he attempts to kill an employee, breaks countless laws and the code of medical ethics, and eventual goes to prison when he drives a car into a house in a rage. Tritter's predictions about House turn out to be right. House is a dangerous addict surrounded by enablers. And Jellico is also right. He understands the Cardassians and generates a strategy which pushes them back without starting a war. And yet fans of both shows tend to violently dislike these villains, in my opinion, because their critiques upset the comfortable assumptions and indulgences of both shows. And this is the Paradox of the Paradox of Appeal. Have an emotionally unlikable villain offer an objectively rational case against our heroes and fans will be triggered. What results is not an entertaining villain we kind of like (or love to hate), but something more like a turd in the punchbowl. And yet, I see Tritter and Jellico as two of the best antagonists I've seen, precisely because they offer a valid counterpoint, if not repudiation, of their respective worlds. At a certain point, writers probably get tired of being trapped the rules of a story, and villains like these offer wonderful acts of rebellion. They poke us in our lazy enjoyment of the ego satisfaction of imagining ourselves being the smart snarky doctor, or first officer lording over the lower decks.
A more promising way to do it is to put the critique into the mouth of a character we like, even if s/he is morally deficient. See below for the great bit where Quark criticizes the Federation as being like root beer.
Last edited by Corax; 08-24-23 at 02:30 AM.