Hollywood's fascination with one-film bad guys needs to end.
 |
| A classic montage of Hollywood super villains. Does Hollywood really know when to properly use them? |
Times used to be that a bad guy on the silver screen was expected to show up over more than one film. Classic villains like Darth Vader and SPECTRE followed our characters like white on rice, never more than a couple of steps behind. Then, things began to turn in the early 80's. I seem to remember Superman II as the culprit, with General Zod offering Supes a fair fight, but ultimately losing. While the killing of Zod and his crew created a hole that III simply could not replace, it set in motion the plan that each movie must have his own bad guy. Thus, the seeds were sown.
Having said this, allow me to be clear: not every action or Sci-Fi film needs a recurring evil force, as sometimes it's good to have a main baddy escape but his minions to either be captured or killed.
 |
| George, why did I have to be so...white...underneath?? |
The presence of a multi-film bad guy has many advantages:
- Generates press for a franchise between shoots: For those of you who were lucky enough to live before the Internet, you'll know that publications like Starlog were the only method to discuss movies in production with a wide audience. Lucas got so much free press between between Empire and Jedi, as fans toiled with whether Vader really was Luke's father.
- Saves Hollywood time and money in generating new bad guys: There are only so many times that Hollywood can make exceptional baddies. Like a herd that sometimes releases cattle to be slaughtered, the standard practice of releasing one-time bad guys limits real character development, forcing the studios into a 'Bad Guy of the Week' of mentality. If you're building a franchise, why limit yourself to this outdated concept?
- Limits the possibility that the baddy will flop, and ensure your baddy will live far beyond that the series: Who was the dude in The Expendables? What about Wanted? Any Bond film between Roger Moore and Daniel Craig's run? Does anyone remember these guys? Hollywood should limit their releases to only well-conceived bad guys with a deep story, and be prepared to expand their story over several movies, unless that movie is destined to be a one-episode story.
 |
| The Matrix's Agent Smith is a classic example of a great Hollywood bad guy gone lame by Revolutions. |
Some could make the case that recent "franchise baddies" were mismanaged: think Agent Smith (The Matrix), and even Voldemort (Harry Potter) and Sauron (Lord of the Rings). After very strong starts, none were used effectively in later episodes. Even the aforementioned Vader has been the subject of ridicule by fans who blame Lucas for marginalizing, destroying, and worse emasculating, the image of the once-great Dark Lord. Perhaps that's the reason why we fail to see long-term bad guys: they're simply too hard to maintain over a stretch run. It's a fair statement, given the examples I have provided. But Hollywood can do better; all of these characters suffered from execution rather than failure as characters themselves. Consider the one genre in which all bad guys return over multiple runs: the comic book. Hollywood should pay closer attention to the work done within the comic book industry, drawing inspiration if need be.
Create memorable bad guys that fans will flock to see: why should good guys have all the fun?
Comments