What makes a worthy villain?

[Disclaimer: After consulting with Captain REX via MSN, I have concluded that this forum is da spot for this thread entitled "What makes a villain?". So, basically, for those of you who might say "Oi, dis belongs in teh movies section!!1!", REX will bring down the wrath of hell upon your immortal souls.]

As someone who enjoys a good movie, I find myself agreeing with Roger Ebert's sentiment that "a movie is only good as its villain" since they are ultimately the characters who drive the plot and likely serve as catalysts for the protagonists; I also happened to finish rereading Deathly Hallows today, and upon my third read, I consider Voldemort to be a lackluster villain. Despite his reputed intellect and charisma, he's portrayed as remarkably incompetent.

Basically, I'm curious as to what you all think makes a worthy villain.

Edit: This applies to all genres: movies, video games, and literature.

Probably shouldn't base your reading around the subject on Harry Potter books.

I wouldn't say much makes a worthy villain, apart from very good acting (in a movie). In a book, it's different; generally a good villain is slowly introduced and becomes further involved in the story and thus haunts the hero's thoughts and life. No Country For Old Men (book), turned this on its head, giving both hero and villain a narrative based around them and also having villainous, or grimy aspects centered around the hero.

EDIT: That sounded disrespectful to cinema, in no way is it. To further explain, in cinema, I think a good villain is one with charisma, like Lil Ze in Cidade de Deus, for example.

I would say someone who is willing to achieve their goal with no regards for the welfare of others.

There are too many different factors to settle on what makes a good villain. The only one that I think applies to every good villain is to have an interesting motive (or lack thereof in some cases).

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Probably shouldn't base your reading around the subject on Harry Potter books.

It was the catalyst that drove me to thinking about this subject. The character of Voldemort is becoming as popular as the likes of Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector, but how incompetent he is portrayed really grinds my gears. To have a reputation of brilliance isn't enough when every time he makes an appearance he looks like a fool.

I wouldn't say much makes a worthy villain, apart from very good acting (in a movie). In a book, it's different; generally a good villain is slowly introduced and becomes further involved in the story and thus haunts the hero's thoughts and life. No Country For Old Men (book), turned this on its head, giving both hero and villain a narrative based around them and also having villainous, or grimy aspects centered around the hero.

I've neither read the book or watched the movie, but their acclaim is considerable. Recommend it?

Originally post by Rogue Jedi
I would say someone who is willing to achieve their goal with no regards for the welfare of others.

I'm torn on that issue as well. Two of my most favorite villains are Palpatine and Magneto, even though they're very different. Palpatine is perhaps the most evil of all villains in popular culture, possessed of a peerless intellect, yet a lot of people have troubles with his "one dimension" in that all he craves is power. He has no sympathetic moments. We can't relate to him. Magneto, on the other hand, is nowhere near as manipulative or as vicious, but we see his motivation and can understand why he feels the way that he does.

Originally posted by Gideon
It was the catalyst that drove me to thinking about this subject. The character of Voldemort is becoming as popular as the likes of Darth Vader and Hannibal Lector, but how incompetent he is portrayed really grinds my gears. To have a reputation of brilliance isn't enough when every time he makes an appearance he looks like a fool.

Soulja Boy's popular too, don't buy into it.

Originally posted by Gideon
I've neither read the book or watched the movie, but their acclaim is considerable. Recommend it?

Yeah, I recommend both.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Soulja Boy's popular too, don't buy into it.

And much like Soulja Boi and the whole hip-hop/rap genre, how can people buy into this shit?

Yeah, I recommend both.

I'll make me a few purchases then.

There are a few things that make a worthy villain.

1. A worthy villain is complicated.
Someone like Hannibal Lecter is an interesting villain. Someone like the Joker is an interesting villain. Someone like Venom is an interesting villain. Shai'Tan (from the Wheel of Time series) or Sauron is not an interesting villain.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily apply if...

2. A worthy villain makes you hate him.
Or her. And not just in a "I bake puppies into pies and throw babies out windows!" kind of way. Really, I think the best example in recent years would be Dolores Umbridge. God, she's a c*nt.

3. A worthy villain isn't genre-blind.
That is to say, he doesn't make the same mistakes over and over again or needlessly-complex, easily-foiled plots. Unless he's the Joker, because that's kind of the Joker's thing.

4. A worthy villain makes you think.
While this isn't specifically necessary to make a worthy villain, I find it compelling. Some villains, like Dr. Doom, make you think to yourself, "Is he really that much of a bad guy?" If you can sympathize with a villain or question whether or not he's a bad guy, he might be a worthy villain.

A thought provoking post.

Dolores Umbridge was an excellent example; Stephen King himself raved how Umbridge was the best fictional villain since Hannibal Lector, and she is absolutely revolting. She is, actually, one of the few villains that I can't stand, not because she's incompetent or a failure but because she's that vile. As far as the Joker is concerned, I'm at a disadvantage. Even though Magneto is one of my very favorite villains, I only know anything about him because of the X-Men movies; I don't read comic books. So that is to say that every cartoon depiction of the Joker [or even Nicholson's portrayal of him] is very much a disappointment to me. Where is the threat? His foe is an unimaginably resourceful and clever superhero and the Joker, to me, doesn't represent a credible threat.

Should the best sort of villains be one that you hate? Like Umbridge or Ralph Fiennes' Amon Goeth? Or should they be sympathetic ones such as Magneto or Darth Vader? Or should they be what we consider to be the badasses and the ones who impress us?

They all have their own qualities. They really shouldn't be compared because they are like different groups altogether. Personally in terms of vileness I think Archibald Cunningham from "Rob Roy" is much worse then Umbridge.

There's more to literature than comics and children's books. There's plenty of fantastic villains about, Frankenstein for example, (no, not the monster). Plus plenty more, nurse Ratched, Mr Hyde...the list goes on.

I think that they should be both. "Badassery," to me, has nothing to do with making a worthy villain. The reason that Joker is a threat is because he's insane, clever, and willing to hurt other people to get to Batman (at least this is what I've gathered; I'm not a big Batman fan).

I think that being repulsive or being sympathetic all depends on the particular villain. Magneto, like you mentioned, really isn't such a bad guy, after all. And Darth Vader is pitiable, especially given his mess of a plot, and he has a spark of good in him after all. The repulsive villain is just another angle.

What I've found is that injustice makes people mad. Let someone in authority abuse his power, and they'll hate him all the more. Not even something like assassinating political opponents, mind you, but stuff that Umbridge does: she manipulates and twists the truth and abuses her position. It's the same reason that people hate crooked cops.

Oh yeah, I forgot about nurse Ratched. She's up there but I don't think she was THAT bad.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh yeah, I forgot about nurse Ratched. She's up there but I don't think she was THAT bad.

Indirect malevolence is probably the most effective in story telling, I thought that's what we were talking about - not who creates the biggest explosions and pulls the best faces, as a villain.

Well however "subtle" her villainy was, she did not at all seem to stand out in terms of vile personality or deeds.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well however "subtle" her villainy was, she did not at all seem to stand out in terms of vile personality or deeds.

Are you having some sort of joke?

She was bad, no doubt, but there were other villains who made me hate them far more.

I think some of the scariest villains are the ones that are extremely normal part of the time. Villains like Hannibal Lector, Light Yagami or Dexter have a level of disturbing that only happens in a person who could be a good friend or even yourself.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh yeah, I forgot about nurse Ratched. She's up there but I don't think she was THAT bad.

She had a perfectly sane person lobotomized because he stood up to her . . .

Originally posted by King Kandy
She was bad, no doubt, but there were other villains who made me hate them far more.

Not always the point of a villain, though.

It seems the point of her as a villain. But she didn't stand out in terms of vileness, and she didn't stand out in terms of deeds. She actually didn't even stand out with her competency since McMurphy made short work of her dominance over the institution and the majority of her plans to stop him didn't work at all.