Not Tropeworthy: Overarching Villain

When I visit pages on Villains Wiki, I sometimes see pages that say "X is the main antagonist (Big Bad) of the X franchise", "X is the central antagonist (The Heavy) of the X franchise", and "X is the overarching antagonist (Greater-Scope Villain) of the X franchise", "X is the secondary antagonist of the X franchise", or "X is a major antagonist of the X franchise".

Edited by dgenega5764 on Jan 22nd 2022 at 6:16:01 AM

I see that to but this is not that site. My main concern is are we listing characters who fit the current definition and a lot of them don't. And that includes ones I added. For instance would someone like The Man in Black from the Amazing Spider-Man films count. He appears in both films and is connected to the Big Bad of each. I honestly don't know. I don't think so but by the current definition you could make an argument that he is more of a one than Norman who is listed.

Edited by Bullman on Jan 22nd 2022 at 8:30:10 AM

Yeah, we really shouldn't be putting any villain's wiki norms here. That site's rules and style is incompatible with TVT, and tropes aren't things you can just break down into arbitrary categories.

As has been said multiple times on the Complete Monster cleanup thread, we are not Villains Wiki.

That, and the Villains Wiki has no say in how TV Tropes does things, as has also been said multiple times.

I think Bullman is saying everything I'd be saying right now, but far better worded (and in smaller posts, too). The only thing I'd emphasise is that, currently, focussing on a villain appearing the most (which is effectively what the trope is currently doing) is chairs. There's nothing inherently trope-worthy about that, and many works would run the risk of listing every single villain under the trope if the villains have any kind of organisation or group (and have therefore been around for the same length of time). That's meaningless.

However, if we do what Bullman is suggesting (and what the current trope is attempting to do) and link this to the villain's importance to the existence (or continuation) of the Myth Arc, then we've got something that might be tropable and act as a way of consolidating a villain who might span several of the really powerful villain tropes (for example, Yhwach being both a Greater-Scope Villain for two-thirds of the work and the Big Bad for the remainder can be given a consolidated entry that states the reason why he's both tropes: in this case, because he's responsible for everything, including the work's most iconic Big Bad, Aizen — without him, there would be no Myth Arc).

If you want to link the frequency of appearance with that new Myth Arc importance, then the Bleach example would change to Aizen, who is the work's most frequently appearing villain and is the second-most important Myth Arc driver after Yhwach. Either way, the point here is that we've got something that singles out a significant villain without dragging in all the other villains in a work. In works that have an organisation or group of villains who have been around for the same amount of time, it might help to establish that one significant Myth Arc driving villain from all the rest of the villain regulars — and maybe there will be be works where a couple of villains share this Overarching Villain slot because they're equally present and equally important to the Myth Arc, but at least we'd have a framework for when multiple villains can count (something the current trope lacks).

That said, my gut tells me that if we go Bullman's route, the "appears the most" aspect that the trope is currently relying on will either become de-emphasised, or no longer be relevant — because troping the Myth Arc driver is much more significant than just counting how many times a villain crops up in a work compared to other villains. The Myth Arc driver will be factoring in the "has the most significance for the longest period of time" aspect of the current trope while removing the visibility emphasis — this is something we see in the existing villain tropes, where the work's most significant villain is not always the villain that's introduced first; it's not uncommon for there to be an inverse relationship between Myth Arc importance and how long they've been visibly present in a work, as they activate their lower level villains first (especially The Heavy or The Dragon).

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 23rd 2022 at 2:38:18 AM

Maybe we should create a new trope to describe the Myth Arc driver to differentiate them from a frequently recurring villain. Overarching Villain should be used to describe a frequently recurring villain, while "Myth Arc Villain" or "Myth Villain" should become a separate trope to describe characters such as Yhwach, who are important to the overall Myth Arc, but aren't necessarily recurring enough to be considered an Overarching Villain.

Edited by dgenega5764 on Jan 23rd 2022 at 3:27:47 AM

The Overarching Villain should already cover the "Myth arc villain". Simply being the most recurring villain is not in itself trope worthy or more accurately we have Arch-Enemy or Big Bad for that. What we should do in my opinion is make the Myth Arc and most recurring work hand in hand. That way you can get the most appearances and importance. So again, we don't get ones like Navel from iCarly who doesn't really fit either and is more accurately just the Arch-Enemy.

What options have been suggested other than disambiguating?

& In the trope talk discussion that triggered all this, the original creator of OV did mention that they initially called OV Myth Arc Villain, but the consensus was to change that name to OV. So, I don't know the reason why, but as Bullman says, OV already has this covered.

I think the suggestions so far are disambig or clarify the trope as "Most recurring Myth Arc Villain" — but in a way that makes this recurrence aspect meaningful.

I'm on my phone at the moment and always struggle this way. Are there any other options? And how do we word them?

Edited by Wyldchyld on Jan 26th 2022 at 5:15:47 AM

I'm not personally seeing what makes this trope stand out enough to be independent. After all, we merged Bigger Bad into Greater-Scope Villain not too long ago for not being distinct enough.

I personally see this as overlapping with The Heavy (most important/primary villian of the work), Greater-Scope Villain (the greater enemy behind the plot even if not directly involved with it), Man Behind the Man (for when the greater scope villian is directly involved with the plot), and even Big Bad itself (leader of the villians of the work).

I could also see Villainous Legacy belonging for examples where "villain dies or disappears but all of the future antagonists are tied to them in some manner".

The most common uses of the trope I see are either "The Man Behind the Man to 2+ BigBads" or "recurring secondary antagonist". The former may already be redundant and the latter doesn't sound like this trope.

I suppose “character who is the overall Big Bad of the series even when other characters serve as interim Big Bads” can just be noted in the Big Bad entry.

I can actually speak a bit more closely on the whole Villains Wiki stuff even though I am a bit late to that, as I am a mod on the wiki and one of its most active users. Yeah, the way we scale the villains are inherently quite subjective and we have had our fair share of arguments over it to the point where we have had to make rules when it comes to edit warring over it. That isn't really something that you can apply to tropes as easily especially since the sites are fundamentally different.

When it comes to Overarching Villain itself I am not totally sure what to do with it, I guess disambiguating could work.

So, do we disambiguate or make the trope's description clearer. I can go either way but am leaning the former.

Same. As I mentioned in the Trope Talk thread, the main idea behind this trope is covered by others already.

What would clarifying the trope mean other than what was suggested here?

Not much. Hence why I am leaning towards disambiguating.

I was asking because it was suggested as a crowner option, so I was hoping those who mentioned it could clarify it so I know what to add when putting it on there. (I still favor disambiguating, which would be the other crowner option.)

Id prefer Keeping the trope personally, I don't agree that its chairs, and I think its salvageable with just some work as to what it is?

Like, for my idea, Maybe have it be a requirement that there has to be a Franchise / Multiple work trope were the villain appears and has influence in several of them, and cant apply if the Work is Standalone?

With somebody like Sheev Palpatine, He is the Big Bad of the Skywalker Saga, and there's a slew of other works where he can serve as either the main villain of, one villain of, or his influence is felt, ETC. With someone like William Afton from FNAF its a whole series of games and other parts of the franchise, sometimes he is the Big Bad of a specific game, sometimes he is simply one of many villains, and his different incarnations are important in other sections of the series like the Books

Under this definition cases like the RWBY examples wouldn't count as both are single work villains.

Basically The Heavy would be for villains of a specific work who is a recurring presence throughout a Work, like Lucifer from Supernatural, whilst this would be for villains who span across different works or Installments?

Edited by Snoketrope on Feb 1st 2022 at 1:09:43 AM

Nobody said it's Chairs. Those who favor getting rid of it are arguing that it's redundant with other tropes.

Edited by GastonRabbit on Feb 1st 2022 at 3:19:50 AM

I say keep as is. Palpatine, for example, is the Overarching Villain of the Skywalker Saga.

Yes someone did, I was responding to Wyld. And I'm aware, I've been following the debate, I just don't agree and think it can just be made to apply to 'Franchise wide' / 'Multiple work' Villains which isn't quite covered by the Tropes brought up.

I Do think theirs at least Merit in a franchise-wide villain trope. A good example would be Palpatine who is the franchise wide villain but a decent number of villains in the franchise get their own time as Big Bad or Arc Villain.