rename Villain Who Doesn't Do Anything: Ptitlehcyek1gf

Split off from this discussion.

The trope's title makes it sound like it's very similar either to Designated Villain or Offstage Villain, but in reality it's distinct from those. (It's closer in definition to Filler Villain.) And it appears to be a snowclone of Pirates Who Don't Do Anything which this trope is, again, unrelated to. It only has 7 non-index wick, and only brought 1 person to the wiki since February. I think we'd be on pretty solid ground renaming this one.

But maybe it should be merged with Filler Villain instead. As currently defined:

• Filler Villain is the driving force of the A-plot of a Filler Arc. This guy could be removed from the show entirely (without having any effect on the overall Myth Arc) by cutting out five episodes from the middle of the season.
• Villain Who Doesn't Do Anything is the driving force of a B-plot that never interacts with the A-plot. This guy could be removed from the show entirely (without having any effect on the overall Myth Arc) by cutting out five minutes from every episode.

Basically, Villain Who Doesn't Do Anything is a Padding Villain. Is the distinction between Filler and Padding enough to keep these two villain types separate?

I should point out (as I did on the other thread) that one difference between these two is that Filler Villain requires filler, meaning it can only appear in certain types of works. For example, movies and other non-serial works will (usually) not have filler, but can easily have padding, which means they can have examples of a Villain Who Doesn't Do Anything.

In other words, the tropes are not the same. The question is whether they're similar enough to merge or not.

The real question is if this crowner will ever attract enough votes to be considered consensus.

Am I the only one who thinks that the entire thing is a trainwreck of a trope?

I'm looking over the examples, and I inevitably think about how much many of those examples aren't actually villains (Gary Oak from Pokemon is quite clearly The Rival), have appropriate roles in their story (Oogie Boogie in The Nightmare Before Christmas - he's essentially the devil in Deal with the Devil), or are only minor characters that nonetheless act appropriately villainous in their few appearances (the two Fosters Home For Imaginary Friends examples).

I'd personally say to zap the whole thing and move what few halfway-decent examples exist over to Filler Villain (like Shocker).

Bump post.

Is there a reason why people don't want to discuss this or something? Crowner is also kind of dry at the moment...

No, you're looking at it wrong. The lack of replies doesn't mean we don't have consensus, it means we have carte blanche to fix this trope however we want because no one else cares about it!

edited 15th May '11 4:21:30 PM by MetaFour

Meh, I don't particularly like being in that situation, but I guess there's not much of a way around it.

The crowner is currently 6 yeas and 2 nays. I'm pretty sure those numbers are the same as on Wednesday. Unless we get a sudden influx of votes, I think we've got consensus to merge.

I still disagree with the merge, but given the amount of votes and wicks to the page, I don't think anyone else is going to care if we just do away with it now. We can probably call this in a day or so.

Well, now it's 6 yeas to 5 nays.

I guess some people do care, then.

And now it's 6 yeas to 6 nays.

Question!

What about the villains who just sit and do nothing but observe and let his minions do stuff?

Orcus on His Throne... kinda?

6 yays, 8 nays. The tide has definitely turned.

It looks like consensus is against merging. Does anyone object to renaming it?

Arguments for renaming:

• The title is misleading. Villain Who Doesn't Do Anything sounds like it should be akin to Designated Villain or Orcus on His Throne; and its name looks like a snowclone of Pirates Who Don't Do Anything. All of those tropes involve a character who doesn't do the things they're alleged to do (or at least not on-screen); this trope is about a villain whose villainous actions don't affect the A-plot.
• The villains in this trope are doing something. It's just that what they're doing doesn't have a significant effect on the plot.
• It only has 7 non-index wicks, and only 1 off-site inbound link, so renaming it won't disrupt anything.

edited 19th May '11 6:40:35 PM by MetaFour

Yeah, I voted it down because I think the "intro" made a good case for them being different tropes (or at least different enough that having them both on the same page would be weird). However, I definitely do not favor leaving it alone.

Well, this is going nowhere. So merge is out of the question...rename then?

Seeing as no one appears opposed to renaming, I've created an alt-titles crowner.

Pointless Villain? Plot-Irrelevant Villain?

Maybe Plug In Villain or something along that line? Might as well try something a little more creative.

Oh come on. Surely we can get more votes than this.

The trope text has some problems. It seems like complaint bait and a grab-bag of disparate elements.

As it is currently written, it is a villain who:

• Fails to Kick the Dog good and hard, since apparently this is required of all villains for some reason.
• Isn't pivotal to the A-story. Being a minor character, being in a B-story or having any role other than being key to the A-story somehow renders them a "useless character".
• Fails to be "interesting".

The leading new name suggests something more objective than the current text.

edited 24th May '11 10:54:04 PM by Camacan

Well, the current text needs some fixing too. I thought that had already been brought up?

@Camacan: Yeah, the intro could stand to be reworked. I think your second bullet point is the only one that's truly crucial to this trope.