This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Sneebs: What happened to the picture of Foss? I realize the character might not stand out as prominently as the snake from the Disney Robin hood, but the picture really gave the impression of a greasy bastard, which is why the trope is supposed to invoke, no?
Dr. Doom: Would Impmon, from Digimon Tamers, be an example of this trope? He seems to fit, but I thought I should ask here.
Danel: Hmm... I'm not sure if Impmon is a good example or not. Is it really Magnificent Bastard that he's shooting for? I had a few thoughts reading this, though... would it be fair to say that the prime differences between a Magnificent Bastard and a Smug Snake are primarily of scope and scale? A lot of these Smug Snakes are Obstructive Bureaucrats and the like - minor and extremely annoying threats primarily dangerous in that they may slow the hero enough to seriously help the villain. And they don't do this intentionally - they tend to be largely unaware of the real conflict, and focused on minor things like their own personal power while the world itself is at stake. A Magnificent Bastard would probably try to ensure that the world is saved and they end up on top; a Smug Snake often fails to realise the world needs to be saved. Another: The Magnificent Bastard uses their wits and an elaborate Xanatos Gambit to confuse legendary heroes and powerful demigods; The Smug Snake uses the same techniques to bewilder a nice old lady.
Even an unusual example like Cutler Beckett, who does end up as the main villain, is a smug snake rather than a magnificent bastard because he's doing it solely for cash and control.
Earnest: I rather liked those paragraphs on Yagami about the Bastard->Snake slide, so I'm moving part of them to the main article.
Wanders Nowhere: Shifting Theron up from Comic Books to Film, since the storyline between Gorgo and Theron was added in the movie and isn't present in the comics.
Medinoc: Erm... I fail to see how Seth fits the trope...
Marikina: Does Jake Roberts really count as an example? The quote in question was taken from the climax of an angle that featured a particularly devious Batman Gambit, and a Face–Heel Turn that kicked off probably Jake's best work as a Heel (and material aspiring Heels can learn a lot from).
Why is Magnificent Bastard a subjective trope and not this? Especially considering the only difference between them appears to be how much you like the character.
Earnest: Because while a writer can fail to write Magnificent Bastard (thus making the character a Smug Snake) (subjective), a writer can much more easily intentionally pull off writing a character as a Smug Snake (non-subjective). And since a lot of authors invoke this trope intentionally to make a character a Smug Snake (and the snake usually thinks he's a Magnificent Bastard) that is why this trope isn't subjective. Or at least, no more than other tropes.
Austin: While I apperciate detail being added to an entry I previously wrote, I felt I had to remove this from Slade.
"After skillfully manipulating people for his big plan, he always does something at the very end that screws it up"
Because Slade doesn't skillfully manipulate people. His plans only work because the characters are too emotionally stupid to see past his taunts. With Robin, he didn't have to do much. Robin just went totally insane because Slade kept getting away, with minor taunting about Robin being ineffective. And to say that him telling Robin he enjoyed taunting his friends was a screw up is inaccurate, because he did that before Robin decided to forego all logic and attack him anyway. With Terra, Slade basically said "They'll turn on you. You can't trust them." He didn't even try to handwave away the fact that he was a villain. His taunting of Raven was more skillful, but can we praise a character who only becomes cool AFTER getting a crapload of superpowers? I don't think so.
Stranger: But Slade IS a Manipulative Bastard. That's a huge point of his character. You basically just described the times he's emotionally manipulated others. The fact that he's a Smug Snake rather than a Magnificent Bastard is because as the main description says "his ego overtakes his awesome" and he never has a Plan B. Oh, and you say that Slade only became cool when he got superpowers? Multiple viewers and the staff of the show would disagree with you there.
Austin: Except he manipulates people badly. It's bad writing that makes the characters stupid enough to listen to him. Like it's said somewhere else on the wiki in comparing Slade in Brother Blood, "Brother Blood tries this (manipulation) on Cyborg, but it doesn't work because Cyborg is marginally sane." And when I say he was only cool, I mean it was the only time he got decent snarks that weren't convoluted, and when he was able to hold his own against all of the titans, and when he actually took initiative and attacked Trigon, as opposed to running away like a pansy like what he does with the Titans.
Stranger: It's pretty clear that you're not a fan of the show since you don't think very highly of the characters and writing. Anyway, it may not be that the characters are stupid as it is that they're young and insecure teenagers that Slade knows he can manipulate. Since he aint a Magnificent Bastard, he probably wouldn't get too far trying to manipulate people his own size and age.
Austin: That's fair. But also, I'm not a fan of the show because I think the writing's bad. It doesn't invalidate my points. If it did, every negative written example on this wiki would be removed.
Charred Knight: Someone just put this on Cut List, but honestly since the guy appears to have never read the page I don't know why I should even bother defending it, but since I have to I will. Smug Snake is when someone thinks they're the Magnificent Bastard but really isn't either due to a failure on the author, or on purpose. A good example is Umbridge who thinks she's some incredibly smart wizard but only does minor work for villains, or gets her ass kicked in some humorous way.
Someguy: Ah ok. The rather vague description made me think this was about the audience perception of the character rather than his role in the story.
How do you cancel a cutlist again?
Wizard Joni: Agreed.
Looney Toons: No problem, I'll delist it. Cutmasters handle that sort of thing.
Capt Famous: I have a proposed amendment to the definition. A Smug Snake is often found working in the shadows of a true Magnificent Bastard as a henchman or lackey of sorts. The underling snake has two main variations: The treacherous sidekick with ill-fated dreams of overthrowing his underestimated boss (Starscream in Transformers: The Movie), or the leech who forgets just how strongly he leans on his master for power, and meets his end by overstepping his authority/abilities (Moebius in Legacy of Kain: Defiance).
Willy Four Eyes: Who keeps adding Edward Cullen to the Smug Snake page? Sure, he's not exactly a likable character, but this trope he ain't. Sorry to break it to you.
Later: It popped up again?
Well, how DOESN'T he fit the trope? Is it just because he's not a villain?
Is it just me or is there a general misunderstanding here that "Magnificent Bastard=good villain, Smug Snake=bad villain? They may not be Magnificent, but a Smug Snake is only a bad villain if the writer fails to make him a good one. While villains like Culter Becket, Dolores Umbridge, Zant, Slade, Admiral Zhao, Prince Phobos, Scar, etc, do indeed belong on this list, they are certainly NOT bad villains since invoking hatred in the characters and the audience seems to be their purpose. Villains like Orochimaru, Millions Knives, Jason Macendale/the Hobgoblin, and a majority of the video game villains listed are ones who probably would count as villain failures.
Charred Knight: I think we should get rid of all the Magnificent Bastard done badly, and probably rewrite it to emphasis this.
Stranger: I'm not sure about the first part, since Magnificent Bastard done badly is pretty much Smug Snake done badly too, since the writers fail to make a villain that makes an impact. The second part I agree with. A villain can be a Smug Snake and still make an impact BECAUSE the audience hates him/her so much.
Willy Four Eyes: I gave it a shot. Should I add/take out any parts of it?
Earnest: Nice work!
Stranger: Edited it just a little bit. I felt the whole "Wannabe Magnificent Bastard" thing shouldn't be left out.
Killer Clowns: Regarding Kerrigan: she's pretty goddamn smug, but if my memory serves me (it's been a while) she one decent cerebrate-free achievement. She manages to trick Raynor and the Protoss into dancing like her puppets and killing Aldaris for her. Granted, with the arguable exception of Raynor, this required incredible stupidity on the part of the Protoss, and any observant player smelled trouble coming a mile away. You can't call this a Magnificent Bastard achievement due to its running on Plot Induced Stupidity, but its worth mentioning. I think it was supposed to make her a Magnificent Bastard... but failed. Or it wasn't, and Blizzard succeeded. Or maybe they'll just roll with what they've got.
Willy Four Eyes: Filed down OG!SuperRobotWars!Duminuss' entry. I can't vouch for or against the accuracy of the examples of her failed plots listed within (having only played the first OG game), but leaving them on the page makes the entry way too long.
Master Ghandalf- About Slade's inclusion here- I'd say he doesn't really qualify, as most Smug Snakes seem to incur real audience hatred in a similar manner to the Complete Monster (though more for personality than specific actions), which Slade does not. Rather, on the Teen Titans fansites I frequent, he always seems right up there with Raven as one of the most popular characters! He's not a full-fledged Magnificent Bastard, either, as he tends to let his sadism get the better of him at crucial moments and suffers from a case of Evil Cannot Comprehend Good, but I would argue that he is not a "true" Smug Snake. Like Long Feng, Nom Anor, and Saruman he seems to hover somewhere between the two tropes. Thoughts?
Stranger: Sure, he's not as Smug a Snake as Brother Blood or perhaps even the Brain, but he belongs here because for one, he's a smug villain who thinks he's in control of all situations but can't really see outside of his big plans (whereas a Magnificent Bastard would consider all possibilities and formulate Plan Bs) And also, while we may love his as a villain, anyone who's not a Misaimed Fandom would never remotely admire his cruely and actions aside from maybe in Season Four.
And we've gotta remember, a big difference between how much people will hate a Smug Snake and how much they'll hate a Complete Monster is that if, if done right, the audience will enjoy hating the Smug Snake. With a Complete Monster, it's just pure hate. And of course, with a Magnificent Bastard, the audience will admire the villain despite how evil they may be; which is why that trope's title is made up of a compliment ("Magnificent") and an insult ("Bastard")
Master Ghandalf- Makes sense. The problem arose from me thinking of villains like Zhao and Umbridge when putting a face on this trope (Slade doesn't really belong with them) and villains like Palpatine or Azula for Magnificent Bastard (he doesn't really belong with them either). It makes more sense that Smug Snake actually cover a wide spectrum of villains, including those like Slade who are would be Magnificent Bastards if only they hadn't overlooked that one (or a a couple) insignificant detail. I suppose Scar's inclusion should have tipped me off:)
Master Ghandalf - edited Slade's entry a bit to remove the bit about him losing to the Titans when he fights the whole team. That... doesn't really have anything to do with his being a Smug Snake, and more to do with the fact that he's one Badass Normal against a whole superpowered team. Besides, plenty of Magnificent Bastards (Xanatos, Lex Luthor, Thrawn, etc.) are no match for their respective heroes in a one-on-one fair fight. Slade's here for his arrogance and Villain Ball, not his combat skills.
