How Many Villains?

Product of the old system
Not a half bad villain.

This used to be a slightly easier question, back in the days when it was one major antagonist per film. Sometimes it was a no brainer, like Superman fighting Zod or Lex Luthor. But, like most things these days, things got bigger so a single villain per movie is something of a rarity. I’m not really saying it’s good, I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m just saying it’s how things are now. Sometimes, like in the Chris Nolan Dark Knight series, it works well. Other times, like in Spider-man 3, it’s just overkill. So the question today is, how many is too many?

 Bad example in every sense of the phrase

Let me clarify, I’m not saying that there should only ever be one baddie. In fact, if it’s a villain that is traditionally part of a group, I want to see as many as they can manage. For example, Magneto and his Brotherhood of Mutants. Magneto is an amazing lead with a long and complex history, often flitting the line between good and evil. At the same time, he has a diverse group of loyal lackeys that I love to see. Part of Magneto’s charm comes from seeing how he inspires his own followers. A Magneto without any superpowered minions is not really Magneto at all. For henchman type characters like Toad or Blob, their backstory and personality aren’t as big of a deal. They are there to be kind gross and intimidating, not be figures in a great Shakespearean tragedy.

On the flipside, if you take a character that traditionally acts alone and pair him/her with an unnecessary minion it just comes off as unneeded filler. Like Parallax and Hammond in the Green Lantern. Parallax is the sort of creature that would never need help, other than perhaps a host body, to cause acts of destruction. Parallax is a force of nature, and such forces are terrifying enough on their own. It’s like giving a volcano a henchman. It would cause like .1% more damage.

Way to fumble it on the 2 yard line
Is that right? I don't do sports metaphors well...

If you’re thinking “What about Galactus the planet eater and his Heralds?” Again, the Heralds are a precedent created over years of comic books, and said books make it clear Galactus doesn’t need a Herald, they're a luxury. The Heralds were created just to make his planet eating faster. It’s a convenience thing.

The number of major antagonists is tricky. One can usually get the job done, but depending on the character, can leave things feel a little…underwhelming. On the other hand, three and a half feels cluttered and messy. Spider-man 3 had the Sandman, Harry Goblin, Venom, and to an extent Black Suit Spider-man, three antagonists and a hero basically fighting a drug habit. That’s a lot of content to fit in, and that’s not even including all of the personal drama bs that Peter seems to be required to go through in his movies.

Love you Venom, but you are the worst part of this movie.
Just above Sandman, but still.

I’d say the magic number is 2. It allows for the biggest bang for your buck and allows for both baddies to maximize their screen time. But even this needs to be handled delicately. If, like in the Amazing Spider-man 2, the majority of the focus is on one villain over the other things end up being off balance. Ideally, one of the bad guys should be set up in another film. Like how it took three movies to turn Harry Osborn from buddy to baddie. Movie one established character as the rich man’s son with some talent but coasts on Daddy’s money. Movie two gave us a glimpse of his obsession that was slowly consuming him, also how much he loved his verbally abusive father. And three showed us the full transformation to villain and ultimately his redemption. The payoff was weak, but the buildup was phenomenal.

Excellent subterfuge Dr. Crane
Almost forgot about Ra'z al Ghul for a bit.

The Dark Knight set up of having one major and one minor antagonist works very well. In movie one, having Scarecrow being the apparent main villain, while Ra’z al Ghul working in the shadows was a masterstroke. It didn’t work as well in movie two with the Joker being the baddie for 90% of the movie and cramming Two-Face in at the last 10%. And I think Dark Knight Rises just kind of botched the formula all together. Don’t try to shock us Hollywood, just entertain us.

This villain debate thing is why I’m apprehensive of titles like The Avenger’s 2 and the potential Spider-man vs. the Sinister Six movie. They will be cramming a lot of interesting and unique villains that deserve at least one movie just to build their hype. Granted, at least two members of the Sinister Six have been introduced already but that’s four members that NEED to be introduced. Rhino doesn’t count, he got twenty minutes tops and that’s nowhere near enough time to establish a villain in a movie. But like many things all we can do is wait and see. Next time I’ll discuss what I think of the decision to make a Female Thor and how it’ll affect things overall.

Magneto and a decent iteration of his entourage.
I think Avalanche would have made it perfect, but hindsight 20/20.

 http://villains.wikia.com/wiki/Green_Goblin_%28Spider-Man_Films%29

 https://www.movieposter.com/poster/MPW-28297/Batman_and_Robin.html

 http://in.ign.com/entertainment/58669/feature/ranking-the-spider-man-movie-villains

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow_%28DC_Comics%29

 http://xmenmovies.wikia.com/wiki/File:Brotherhood_x1.jpg