Commentary Track
Why We’re All Wrong About Multiple Villains in Films
Posted by Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on July 18, 2008
In 2000, we found a new hope for a modern era of superhero and comic book movies with the release of X-Men. The reaction was so strong that the explosion of comic movies was both immediate and long-lasting. Nearly a decade later, we are inundated with high-quality films - Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, and The Dark Knight all breaking barriers as to what a superhero movie can look and feel like.
Then came the sequels. It was shaky ground for a while, and we were all unsure as to whether the bubble would burst, but it didn’t. Some said the sequels were even better than their predecessors. So the bubble kept growing.
Maybe it was hubris. Maybe we just didn’t see it coming, but we should have been more careful about our zealotry once third installments started coming around. Now, we see it all too clearly - the mistakes of the past we’ve been destined to repeat again. And the worst offense, perhaps the sure-fire way to destroy an otherwise brilliant superhero franchise, is having multiple villains for your hero to face.
It’s almost universally agreed upon that Multiple Villain Syndrome is a killer. It’s as widely accepted as being a colossally bad idea as Flames on Batman or Nipples on Optimus Prime. Maybe even worse. It weighed down Batman Forever and Batman and Robin back in the day, and even though it wasn’t directly responsible for X-Men 3 biting the big one, it was clear they were scraping the barrel with Kid Omega, Callisto and the barely-there storyline for Angel. The hardest hit, of course, was Spider-Man 3, which was completely hobbled by the presence of not one, not two, but three major villains.
So we all agreed - multiple villains are a death sentence for any film.
Now I understand why that’s wrong, and it has everything to do with The Dark Knight. In fact, my main argument for why Multiple Villain Syndrome can be a great thing is comic books themselves. It’s a different medium, sure, but comic books and graphic novels are constantly creating issues that feature multiple villains fighting a main superhero. “The Long Halloween”, “Batman: Year One” and “Arkham Asylum” are all fantastic graphic novels that feature the caped crusader battling a plethora of super-villains. Granted, they don’t need much in the way of introductions, but perhaps that’s the actual, root flaw of Multiple Villain Syndrome in films. Directors assume we need to know where the villains come from in order to care about them in a deep, meaningful way.
Of course we need to learn who the villain is, but it’s not necessary (and, in fact, weighs down the story completely) when director’s take fifteen minutes of screen time to take mild-mannered/slightly disgruntled guy and turn him into Super Villain/slightly insane/more disgruntled guy. The Riddler’s origin story took far too long in Batman Forever, Sandman’s story seemed tacked-on and completely ruined the flow of Spider-Man 3, and the horde of villains in X-Men 3 were doomed to having neutered abilities and playing questionable roles in fights (and in the plot).
Now we stand on the verge of yet another third installment possibly being made. The conversation has started again, fans lamenting even the thought that the next Bat-film would strive for a trio of villains, but if any film can do it, it’s this series. If any director can pull it off, it’s Christopher Nolan.
Batman villains lend themselves to living only in the present. Far from simplistic, they are still mostly flat characters that represent evil or chaos or good old-fashioned lunacy. We wouldn’t need to know where Bane comes from to understand he’s a threat or how Mad Hatter went crazy. Penguin is creepy enough without having to know he was an orphan, and Cat Woman - although compelling - doesn’t necessarily need much backstory. In fact, it’s been Nolan’s MO since Batman Begins. Scarecrow is already doing what he does by the time we pick up the story. R’as Al Ghul doesn’t need to tell us his entire childhood to make us understand what he stands for. We didn’t need thirty minutes to see them transform from human to Super Villain to know they were seriously scary threats. The audience didn’t even need to know how Fear Toxin works. We got it. Spray a mist and people hallucinate scary things. Check. We’re on board.
When you leave out all the clunky backstories and explanations for how their powers work, the streets of Gotham could be flooded with Freaks in the best way possible. They could even be relegated to the background and sidelines - the fans would have added excitement, and the uninitiated crowd would just chalk it up to more crazies roaming the streets committing violent crime. Present a world flooded with lunatics, and the audience will go along with the chaos. Along the way, Batman could engage in skirmishes with several Super Villains all vying for the glory of removing Batty’s head.
The problem with so many other films is that they try to create meaning for villains even if they are background characters. Audiences end up not caring about the character anyway, and valuable screen time is lost. Screen time that could have been used to blow something up.
So my vote, respectfully submitted, is to see a dozen villains in the next Batman flick (if there is one). Give some of them depth and emotions, display their psychopathology through their actions instead of hefty origin stories, and keep a handful for the background. Picture it: a scene where fire and bullets rain down on the streets of Gotham. Civilians run in terror. Batman punches Bane hard in the chest, and in the background, a lunatic in a bowler hat and cane lobs a bomb into the nearest building. The police attempt to subdue the rabble. It’s unorganized and violent - the villains haven’t teamed up, made no alliances, they just all happen to be living in the same city and taking to the streets. The building explodes and collapses as a feline presence glides off into the distance.
Strip down the backstories and let the crazies crawl out of the woodwork.
Unpredictable Freaks can ravage the city, and Batman can’t be in a dozen places at once. Even if I wasn’t a Bat-fan, even if I’d never heard of these villains, I think I’d catch on pretty quick when a gruesome, avian man-beast in a monocle stabs a bank teller with an umbrella that he’s an insane person bent on doing wrong. Consider them character cameos. Brief glimpses of iconic figures. We wouldn’t even have to know their names. Those who get it, get it. Those that don’t are still terrified.
If The Dark Knight is any indication, and it should be every indication, Christopher Nolan and crew would handle the chaos with incredible skill. I think if they chose to fall prey to Multiple Villain Syndrome in order to up the ante in the next film, they could be the crew that pulls it off, and makes us think differently about the weight of all those bad guys. Showing it as a strength instead of a weakness, it could be the best example of how having way too many evil-doers can be a great thing. As long as they don’t put all the villains in a room together and give them a dehydration gun, I think it could turn out destructively, chaotically well.
Read more articles by Cole Abaius
13 Comments
July 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
thank you Cole … I was thinking about the same thing in the wee hours last night
July 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Although I appreciate it, please refrain from telling me what you’re thinking in the wee hours of the night from now on.
Thanks.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:56 am
Dick Tracy pulled it off back in 1990, Flat-Top needs no back story.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:52 am
I’m all for well-developed villains, and if there’s several in the story that work well together, that’s cool. But too often, the studios seem to cast the villains before they have a completed script, then just have them team up like the 1960s Batman movie. Ugh.
But I’ll give you the need to ditch all the supervillain origins. That’s what made TDK’s Joker soooooo cool. We have no idea where this guy came from.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Kevin, I agree with your opinion. What was even more fascinating is how the mystery of the Joker’s origin allowed him to play with his victims. His first attack/story with Gamble’s character had me cringing (in a good way). But then we find out he makes these stories up just to terrify those he kills. Perfect.
Also, the lack of an origin story makes us less sympathetic to the character, which in the Dark Knight’s version of the Joker is just what we need. The Joker and the other villains don’t want sympathy. They want chaos.
July 19th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
When it comes to villains, Christopher Nolan is the man … :) He should have more DC comic based movies on his hand …….
July 19th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Cole, you are a punk. I was thinking about your mother in the wee hours last night.
July 19th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
wow, i never realised that but you are..totally right man. I suppose adapting comic books to movie is in itself a bit of a curse and a blessing. Blessing because all the source material is like right there waiting to be captured and translated..its like a ready made script with a ready made audience waiting in the wings, quite why hollywood has been very coy and lazy about comic books in the past is beyond me. But its also a curse: all the “fanboys” may have different opinions on how the comic should be translated, i know i do and most times that can be a hindrance. a fanboy needs no introduction characters but the normal moviegoing audience do! also, like this article says, most times directors feel obligated to a) make an origin movie b) probe into villians, and simplify their threat by explaining where they come from.
For me, a comic book translated from comic to screen is just..pure heaven. 300 and watchmen are exactly what i want!
anyway, great article. was this some sort of epiphany for you Cole? sure is for moi
July 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
It’s not even a matter of appeasing fanboys and the general audience. Modern audiences are savvy enough to understand when a character is 1)Bad and 2) Insane. Now, a character like Crazy Quilt may need further explanation…but other than that, most Batman villains are solid.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Multiple villains isn’t even a trend, it’s just become standard. I suppose in this age of ADD, we really don’t need plot to sell tickets, but it would be nice to see a film that actually has a good story and that might be a respected and remembered film 20 years from now.
July 20th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Anton Chigurgh from No Country For Old Men…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
If the villains are well-developed and given ample screen-time, then I don’t feel it detracts from the experience. Plus, sometimes it’s necessary for villains to work together. One has to be the brains and one the muscle, right?
http://oddsight.blogspot.com
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Hmm, interesting theory. But I would say that the Multiple Villain Syndrome is not a very good idea (hear me out first) when you are talking about random killings and mass chaos. In fact, no two Nolan film is alike. So I’d say that in terms of pace and storytelling, the Nolan-Brothers would focus on something different next time; Batman Begins was all about a traditional, if i daresay epic format with 3 acts gradually increasing into the climax, while Memento (another Nolan masterpiece) followed something completely unconventional in Hollywood: a format that ran backwards. So in my observation, I’d say that the third Batman film will indeed have more villains, that’s not a doubt, but it won’t necessarily focus on extreme chaos. In fact, my vote goes to the opposite pole of the extremity: meticulous efforts. I’m guessing the Riddler’s going to be a very nice inclusion into Nolan’s Gotham, and yes, there will and should be multiple villains, perhaps some whose backstory, as this article says, would be sidestepped, but not too much. X-Men and The Dark Knight are perfect balances, Batman Begins too. We had multiple threats, but the reason those films worked are not the same. Batman Begins worked because each villain had an act for themselves. Chinese Ra’s Al Ghul and flashback-Falcone had act I, while Scarecrow and Falcone had act II, and finally the real Ra’s had act III. AND, Batman Begins was about the protagonist and his rise in Gotham, so the backstory of his foes were tactfully obscured. Like this article says, it’s the use of existentialism that made the bad guys believable and compelling: they exist, they simple do and it does not matter how they came to be. But for someone like, say, Two-Face, that would not have been the best use of his character. For Catwoman, I would definitely agree that her backstory is not as important as her current state, but for someone like Bane who has meant to break the Bat, we need these precious screen time to ESTABLISH character. It may not be the origin story, but it should give them a reason for their lunacy. Now both Ra’s and the Joker has come to explain the reasons behind their actions though dialogue and speech; that’s the sort of thing we should focus in on.
The idea for brief cameos are perfect; like when Zsasz appeared in Batman Begins, and even Scarecrow on Dark Knight, but the scene described here is too much in sync with the chaotic theme in The Dark Knight; lets not forget that the streets of Gotham erupting into mass chaos with the criminally deranged is something we should expect in an adaptation of Knightfall: and although I’m a big fan of Bane, I just don’t want to see him facing Christian Bale just yet… lets tackle some more of these more notorious bad guys; those comical mishaps that big brother Eric teased us with when we got their action figures; yes i’m talking about the lunatics such as the Riddler and Mr. Freeze; or even Talia, and since i’m a big comic-buff as well, why shouldn’t we keep things in perspective seeing as how that indeed is the meat and potatoes of the Nolan-franchise: why shouldn’t we follow Year One and Long Halloween into Dark Victory?
There’s a rumor going around the Super Hero Hype boards that Sony is thinking about making a Venom-spinoff film for the Spiderman franchise. Personally, I’m not a big fan of the webhead and only enjoyed the first movie, but the last thing the studio needs now is to promote a film based on an awesome character which was handled wrongly in the live-action adaptation; the last thing we need is a villain film from a flopped villain (movie-wise). On the other hand, the Spidey franchise can be amped up with a Sinister-Six esque tale. And that is the sort of thing this article suggests; then it would be fitting: streets in chaos and the such. But not with the next Bat-flick. We could stick to two major villains and stop there, there would be CRIMINALS, sure, and cameos yes, but not ANTAGONISTS. The Multiple Villain Syndrome is risky business, and the Brothers Nolan have successfully tackled the case with two of their adaptations. I suppose I’m really not making much of a point here, just repeating the known things, but one thing still stings my gut: the next Bat-film isn’t going to be about chaos, not a world without rules, that was the Joker’s schizophrenic mass-murdering ways, the next rogue would pose somethign even more terrifying… and I have yet to think of a better way to top that which is arguably the best superhero movie to date; What do you do after everything is done? Can the Brothers Nolan top themselves without two of Batman’s greatest foes in the third round? Given there is one… now there’s a riddle for ya.