Why Multiple Villians Don't Work In Movies

Why Multiple Villains Don't Work In Movies

A plethora of villains is often used as a marketing tool to suck in established fans and newcomers alike. Spider-man 3, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, and Transformers 2 are three such series that have suffered from this problem. While those simply interested in watching a torrent of action sequences, this trick works just fine; but for those who watch films hoping to see an expertly crafted combination of an engaging story and reasonably placed action as a supplement - as most film critics are - these types of movies tend to be major disasters.

Unless multiple villains have motives established over a healthy period of time and add to the story of a film, there is absolutely no need to include them. The more characters within a movie that exist to be contrary to the protagonist, the more time that must be spent developing those characters, something that is fairly difficult to accomplish in a single film. Unless sequels are planned to further elaborate on a character or prequels have already set a basic for them, multiple villains ultimately detracts from the plot and characterization of other, more deserving characters.My full article is hosted on Suite101

it worked for The Dark Knight

Eh, that's debatable. They did a piss poor job with Two-Face/Harvey Dent, as he wasn't even Two-Face for even half of the movie! What the hell?

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

It at least "worked" in the sense that it was a very good movie.

Anyway, I think this theory explains why it's difficult to have multiple villains in a decent film, but like most such theories it overstates its conclusion by saying they "don't" work. They do/can, it's just tougher, is all.

Worked in From Russia with Love, but they went after Bond one at a time.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Oh, "Eat you burrito and shut up."

The theory is more or less accurate. In war movies, a community can be represented by one idea, in comic book films multiple villains is almost always a cash grab, in a general crime film multiple antagonists can work but they're still rarely attacking just one person as it's more of a free for all. In something like The Warriors even, you had multiple antagonists but it didn't hurt the film as that was basically one-on-one in the big picture. So I guess it depends how it's paced?

Good point. When and if it does work, it does so precisely by representing the multiple villains as actually one thing.

For example, in The Dark Knight, both Joker and Two-Face represented nihilism. On this level, the film is nothing more than a sophomoric (and misguided) positing of the basic existential dilemma. If there is no God, then everything is permitted and so on. For Joker you have this typical, religious stereotype that all atheists are bound to be anarchic, amoral libertines who "live without rules", et cetera. For Two-Face you have the same stereotype with the added "choice" aspect; the answer of course being that merely the act of choosing can alone make your life meaningful in spite of the intrinsic meaninglessness of a Godless universe. All in all, it really is the same excessive, hedonist stereotype.

To take another recent example, if we look at Scott Pilgrim, it's clear that---despite the fact that there are a multitude of villains, each with rather distinct personalities and world-views (in contrast with The Dark Knight)---each of these differences are mediated when we view them through their libidinal apex as mere projections of the various eccentricities of Ramona Flowers' sexuality which Scott must ultimately "defeat".

This sort of multiplicitous villainy not only adds richness to the story but also unifies it by treating each villain as an additional propositional line within a single argument, so to speak, thereby making the overall theme stronger as a whole.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

Too many villains gets the movie involved in too many plots and details. A greater story comes from 1 hero and 1 bad guy. Of course this is just my opinion, but I've been watching movies for well over 30 years.

The Lord Of The Rings has multiple villians (Sauron, Saruman, Gollum, so on and so forth).

__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."

Indeed, multiple villains can work, but it's not as simple as throwing in two villains and having them contest the protagonist. In The Dark Knight, Joker was the main villain and worked very well. While Dent, arguably, wasn't a villain in the sense that the Joker was, there was a great deal of development circling his character that allowed him to work. Also, I consider that Two-Face was simply a creation of the Joker - in other words, an "appendage" to his master plan.

I think the Scott Pilgrim counter-argument was explained well enough, with the super ex-boyfriends acting as mementos to Ramona's past sex lives.

What about Mad Max ?

Unfortunately, as I haven't seen that movie, I don't have an input on its execution of multiple antagonists.

Mad Max was a cluster

Does work.

__________________

The Lord of the Rings also has 11+ hours to explore those characters as opposed to trying to cram them all into 2 hours. It can definitely work (CQ's example of Raiders of the Lost Ark), but it can also fail miserably (Spider-Man 3). Bottom line is it comes down to how well they are written and developed within the story. The big issue with super hero movies is that they try to cram in as many popular characters as they can just so the fans of those characters will go see it.

__________________
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra

I am proven wrong.

In response to another's complaint of the brief entry of Two-Face in the Dark Knight, Yoda said: Seems to me that's the equivalent to saying despite some weak parts, it was a very good movie. But that's likely because to me Two-Face was the weakest element of the film. The movie would have worked as well--perhaps better--without Two-Face's 11th hour appearance. I say better in that the time wasted on Two-Face could have been put to better use following up what happens to Joker the second time police get him in custody. Did they learn anything from the first experience, like don't put his guard in the same room with him and use more than one guard?

But if Two-Face does work as the second villain, I submit it is only because as DukeAlastor said "prequels have already set a basic for" that character (Two-Face's appearance in comic books and as portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones). We know who he is the moment we see him. Otherwise, he's on screen too short a time to flesh out as a character.

I think they short-change Two-Face as it is by having him give up all that he had lived by up to that moment and turn on his friends with whom he had worked after only 10-15 minutes of listening to Joker's warped "logic." Sorry, Joker wasn't exactly persuasive up to that point, so how would he persuade Dent after murdering his girlfriend and disfiguring him? Besides, as I remember Two-Face from the comics (and like I said this was decades ago) wasn't he more conflicted about his crimes with his good side struggling with his bad side? I didn't see any of that in Dark Knight.

I certainly don't see Two-Face as an extension of or a victory by Joker because Joker's original plan was to kill one or perhaps both Dent and his girlfriend and maybe take some of the would-be rescuers with them. He had no way of knowing which of them or even either of them would survive. He certainly couldn't have anticipated Two-Face would get half of his face burned off. I think Joker was counting on Bruce's/Batman's feelings for the girl to lead him to rescue her rather than Dent although as DA Dent was more important in fighting crime. I see Joker's attempt to turn Dent/Two-Face as an attempt to salvage what he could from a failed plan--couldn't get rid of Dent one way, so he'd try another by turning him and his friends against each other.

But hey, that's just my 2-cent analysis. Better they had shown a little of Dent's doubt and anger as a prelude to a separate film about Two-Face.

The conflict was definitely there with Dent, it was just characterized in a better way than it had in the past, which usually just had Dent talking to himself. I don;t think that would play well on-screen these days.

Also, no person that has a severe psychotic break really ever lives the same way they did before the break.

As for the Foreknowledge by the Joker about who would end up dying and all that - that was precisely his point - he never had a plan. He makes it quite clear that he makes things up as he goes along, reacting more so than acting. Attempting to ascribe some sort of logical social or mental framework to a psychotic is futile. The Joker can't be quantified into any sort of framework, and Alfred calls Bats on this when he attempts to dial the joker down as a two-bit criminal in one scene. Alfred relates the story of the gem thief, a man that "wanted to watch the world burn." The Joker is this type of man. He can't be reasoned with, he wants nothing, needs nothing, and has nothing to lose.

__________________

Both Batman movies messed Two Face up by making him a secondary villain. He worked best in the original concept as a man at war with himself and in the earliest stories if he was ever going to lose the struggle and completely go over and become a murderer. All that was lost in both movies.