Talk:Villain

Villain is yet more necessary

It is true that being an excuse for sadism is a big part of a villain's "mission", and indeed that is what he is meant to be many a time (especially in action flicks), but another use exists for "pure evil": oversimplification. I guess first of all it constitutes a most useful means to move along the plot. Quite often, if the plot had to deal with all the "shades of gray" that would be likely to exist in a more realistic scenario, it would simply prolong the story beyond what would be desirable commercially. In addition, a simple story, based on the classic good v. evil dynamics, makes a story attractive to a broader audience, particularly in the case of a movie. An "overly" intelectual plot does not attract masses, and that is a key element for an entire segment of the movie industry, especially the so-called "blockbusters", or superproductions. Maybe that should be included in the article? Redux 02:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Quotes to Wikiquote

Could not the quotes be shifted to (and made into a much larger collection) an article in Wikiquote?--ZayZayEM 00:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with ZayZayEM. All the quotes should be removed from this article and moved to Wikiquote. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

wow the conclusion is necessary, charged with this strong emotion; and it contradicts witht the previous statement that people identify more often with the villains than with the heros.

Villana?

Is there a source for this Croatian etymology to prove its accuracy? The etymology section could do with a fixup since it's seguing into something about supervillains. --Jonathan Drain 03:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as etymology, villain (alt spelling villein) was actually used in English to mean serf. The article gives the impression that the word meant that in other languages but always meant "bad guy" in English. The Vilana thing sounds like crap to me. I don't want to change it without a source on hand, though.

I moved the supervillain part into the intro. It seems to me to be a variant definition, certainly nothing about the etymology. NickelShoe 05:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

The following comments moved OUT of the entry (they were commented out through html) and placed on the talk page. --CaveatLector 20:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Is this someone's original research? It seems just as likely that villain was an epithet simply meaning low on the social ladder, and later came to have these moral connotations. Source? Poverty was equated with moral turpitude; villains had to work their way up the social ladder. Thus usually the word villain suggests that the villain's schemes stem from their own moral indifference or perversity of character.

This just seems really unlikely to be the word origin, because the other etymology is pretty certain. Needs a source. Another possible origin of this word is the Croatian legend of the three brothers Čeh, Meh, and Leh, who wanted to get rid of the Roman rule and establish unity in ancient Croatia, but their sister "Villana" was in love with a Roman prefect and betrayed her brothers plot. Villana was killed by her brothers.

Many edits

Attempting to revamp this article. I'm removing seriously POV words such as "evil" (not all villains are totally evil, or can be classified as such) from the article, as well as correcting the grammer, wikilinks, and other punctuations. (Also cleaning up the language a little.) I am removing this paragraph:

• There is an opposing archetype of the beautiful villain who looks like a hero, but his/her personality and attitudes betray a diabolical nature. This especially came well known after World War II when the Holocaust was exposed which led to the popular villain who reflects the Nazi blond and blue eyed ideal, but that beauty hides an arrogant sense of his/her superiority and foul ambitions to make his/her "inferiors" suffer. The blond, blue-eyed villain has in recent time been extrapolated into a strange stereotype, the Evil Albino - a villain who displays several physical traits usually associated with albinism (eg. pale skin, platinum blonde hair, blue or red eyes) despite not necessarily being supposed to suffer from that particular condition.

Because, although it is somewhat well written, and has an excellent point, it reeks of original research. Perhaps this could go in the Nazism article or an [[Effects of World War II] article?

I also deleted the section "the necessary villain" for the same reasons. Since the article was mostly interpretation, it doesn't have a place in this article. Perhaps a necessary villain article?

Also added a little content, and an expansion tag, as I'd like to see this article expanded. --CaveatLector 20:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should wait other people's reactions before you mercilessly mangle a text which once was a Wikipedia "featured article". The section on "necessary evil" in particular seems fairly "encyclopedic" even if not supported by any source. Do you disagree with its contents, or do you think that enough people disagree? All the best,
Jorge Stolfi 21:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It's less that I disagree with its contents and moreso that I feel as though it's highly POV, as I stated, and is also very much original research. It doesn't read as encyclopedic to me, rather it reads like something I might find in a scholarly article, expressing an opinion rathat than relating facts. The point of wikipedia is to edit mercilessly and then move into discussion. The article was removed as a featured article for many of the reasons that I have listed, and the faults that I attempted to correct within the article. Please be a little less hesitant to kill the newbie. I'll discuss my agreements and disagreements with your edits when I get more time. --CaveatLector 23:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm with CaveatLector. Even if it's cool, even if it's true, it needs to be verifiable. I would guess that sources are available, but we ought to actually have them. NickelShoe 23:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, almost every single Wikipedia article has statements that are not supported by any reference, but no one removes them because they are "obviously true" or at least "not suspicious". Take for example the claim that "in the silent movie era, villains had to be 'visually' evil to be easily recognized". How can anyone verify that?
I can't recall any specific source for the "necessary evil" part, but I would think that those "opinions" are shared by most relevant authorities, such as psychologists, literary scholars, etc.. Since no one has objected to the statements per se, perhaps that text can stay until we find a suitable reference?
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi 07:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

More clichés, flashback

I deleted the folowing recent addition to the "Necessary villain" section:

Some villains use overly-formal talk and appear old and wise. A scene called a flashback is used to dictate an important event in his life that is connected in some way to the villain's present. Often, the flashback will show an event that inspired the villain to become a villain, or, if they have super powers of some sort, it will show how they obtained those powers. Some villains change character suddenly upon losing. When faced with the reality that the hero has won, the villain may suddenly internally give up. They will do nothing to stop the hero, and will accept their fate with dignity, be it death or imprisonment. A this point, villains will seem much older then they really are, or, if they are already truly old, they will look and feel their age. This is meant to create a sense of sympathy in the audience that the villain has seen their inevitable doom and bitterly accepts defeat.

Reasons:

• "old and wise" is not part of the villain cliché; on the contrary, it is one of many "non-villain" clichés that the villain may use as a disguise, like the "honest detective", the "innocent woman", the "loyal minister", etc.
• the flashback device is not particularly specific to villains; in fact villains are often portrayed as inherently and unexcusably evil -- they just are that way.
• The final resignation and audience sympathy seem to be relatively rare, and would befit more the role of antagonist

It seems that many contributions to this article in the past were specific to hollywood movie villains, and often apparently written with one specific movie in mind. Now, if this article is ever going to become "encyclopedic", we must look more at the global picture. After all, the "incurably evil" villain who gets killed by the hero at the end is a figure that is as old as literature (see the Gilgamesh Epic, or the Goliath episode in the Bible) and has sprung up independently in many cultures (such as in the Popol Vuh).
External villain stereotypes, in particular, are totally dependent on epoch and culture. The clothing, hair, and moustache shown in the article's picture, for instance, were obviously patterned after common ethnic prejudices of the early 20th century; and that specific cliché has fallen out of fashion mostly because those specific prejudices are no longer current.
-Jorge Stolfi 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What ethnic prejudice are you refering to? White guys with moustaches? Midgets? Albinos? I didn't know Snidely Whiplash had an ethnicity. It turns out he's been a symbol of oppression for albino midgets with moustaches for over 30 years. 68.166.68.84 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadistic pleasure

Wow, this is quite a bold statement. I realize that Wikipedia encourages boldness, but this is very much a point of view in my opinion. To say that what "really" makes a villain necessary (i.e., what makes him necessary more than all other factors) is a source of sadistic pleasure in their demise involves a very defined point of view on not only plot conflict, but human nature in general; besides, it totally ignores instances of non-violent confrontations, such as attempts to "convert" the villain or disputes solved by contests (think of kiddy stuff especially; how often does the villain admit defeat after being bested in some competition, like a sporting event?) The section is also written in very informal language.

Anyway, I'll wait a week to see if anyone objects to my plan, which is to just completely BALEET! this section. If I see no objection, I'm getting rid of it. However, in case after that someone feels that section is necessary and informative, I'll copy and paste it into this discussion.

Update: Receiving no response, I'm going to delete the following paragraph.

Yet what makes the villain really indispensable in many works of fiction, from the giant Humbaba of the Gilgamesh Epic to the "bad guys" of virtually all modern action movies, is that he provides an impeccable excuse for sadistic pleasure. The standard action story invariably begins by demonizing the villain — i.e., showing that he is so evil that he ceases to be a human being and becomes a monster; so that making him suffer is a most commendable goal, nothing less than sheer justice. From then on, the reader or viewer can enjoy the sadistic pleasure of watching someone being beaten, burned, chopped, impaled, blown to bits, etc. etc.; and can identify himself with the hero who is doing it — all with a clean conscience.

70.171.59.231 02:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

List of famous villains

I took this list out, noting that it is likely to get long fast and that such a list already exists as a separate article. An anonymous user has now put the list back in without justification beyond a personal attack [1]. It seems to me that there is no reason to have such a list in this article. I don't see that it adds much to the article (if they're so famous, why do we need to tell people about them), and the see also link seems sufficient to me.

On a more utilitarian note, I am especially concerned with how difficult this article will be to maintain once people start adding random video game villains and whatnot to this list. I'm in favor of removing this list again, but have no desire to edit-war about it. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I apologize PROFUSELY that you were so offended by the term "forker". I'll try to be more sensitive.

• • I was told that I could add things to Wikipedia and that even if others didn't find it important, that I could still put it up and maybe others find it important and you don't doesn't mean you all have to take the list down, I mean the overall opinion isn't represented because the people who think the list serves a purpose wouldn't come to the discussion page to say so but the people who don't like it do, so don't think that this is the only opinion out there, and now I'm being called a troll and a vandal and I received a harsh and condescending message on my own talk page from another editor telling me that my contributions were worthless and that I was harassing other editors... 70.171.59.231 04:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi again. Did you notice that several different users reverted your changes, but no one but you added the list? Maybe other people have a point, even if you don't agree. Wikipedia has a rule that you shouldn't keep reverting the same thing over and over, see WP:3RR (and a rule about not attacking other users WP:NPA). Now I'm sure you mean well and are just sometimes getting frustrated with what you see as an unfair situation. But please, try and explain why you find the list more useful here in this article than clicking on the link to the more comprehensive list. You're free to make changes to articles. The first time you did it, I recognized that you meant well. I simply disagreed and did as you did--edited the article to be what I considered best. But I did not want to force my opinion, so I didn't revert back afterward, I tried to talk it out. Let's talk it out. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the list should be removed simply because it appears to be a seemingly random and unnecessary list of villians having nothing to do with anything. Better to simply include examples of villians in the article without resorting to a list. 71.226.17.185 05:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Kinda off topic, but..

Doesn't the guy on there left in this webcomic (I Drew This) kinda familiar? :) --Conti|✉

Both the man in the left panel and the character in the Wikipedia article are based off of Snidely Whiplash, an archetypal villain character in the ranks of such dastardly rogues as Simon Bar Sinister and Dick Bastardly. Smith Jones 22:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Necessary villain?

What about stories that don't have villains, like Kiki's Delivery Service? The Legend of Miyamoto 19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Silent Movie Villain

I think there should be some distinction as to the archetypical "silent movie villain." In truth, the Snidely Whiplash model of villain was the type that was actually being lampooned during the silent era (circa 1910s) and actually has its roots in the gaslight stage era of the 1870s and 1880s. Clearly this is a common misconception, as the Dudley Do Right cartoons lampoon what was already being satyrized in the silent film era! - The Photoplayer 18:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Special types of villain

• Archenemy

Is an archenemy or a nemesis a villain? Penelope Pitstop is the archenemy of the Hooded Claw, but she is not a villain. Should this entry be updated to reflect this?--FruitMonkey 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of those illustrations

I think they're kind of goofy and add nothing, in fact take away, from the article. Thoughts? Pablosecca 22:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any rationale to the categories included here?

Some of them seem arbitrary or made up. For example, I see no reason for the "snoop" to be included in a list of villains; if the only two examples anyone could come up with are Nickelodeon-style cartoons whose focus is on antics rather than plot, it seems like there's no reason to keep it as a category. It seems like we should probably have citations for this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.87.180 (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti-hero

I'm pretty sure that an anti-hero is someone who is on the hero's team for heroic reasons, yet will sometimes resort to unheroic techniques (killing, torture) in order to achive his goalsEmma Hordika (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)Emma Hordika

French villains?

"It is very common in American films for the cunning villain to be British or French. See Ethnic stereotypes in American media — British and — French."

What? I might just be clueless, but I've never noticed a trend of French villains, and the British are portrayed as heroes as often as they are villains. If anything the stereotypical American villain is German or Russian, which might be worth mentioning.

And the article it links to says absolutely nothing about American media or British/French stereotypes.