Hi
Ouch...that's bad. Definitely needs cleanup; good catch.
Okay, according to the trope creator, he intended this to be "Ultimate Evil" at first, but changed the name because that one was already taken. On the Ultimate Evil page itself, it sums up this trope as "the strongest bad guy in the setting". I'll leave that as the foundation to build this entire discussion from.
Anyway, part of the confusion with this one is that there's too many "moving parts". In the Discussion page, the trope creator states that the label of "Bigger Bad" greatly depends on the context of the story within the universe it inhabits. He gives the examples of Sauran and Morgoth from the Tolkienverse. In The Hobbit, both Morgoth and Sauron are "bigger bads", because they're some lurking evil not directly involved in the story. In The Lord Of The Rings, Sauron is now the Big Bad while Morgoth is the "Bigger Bad". So then, does that mean the Ringwraiths and Saruman are the Big Bad Ensemble specifically for "The Fellowship of the Ring" and "The Two Towers" while Sauron is merely the "Bigger Bad"?
This relativity is already "Strike One" against the clarity of the trope, because as I said, there's too many "moving parts" for people to keep track of, and it easily falls prey to Fan Myopia. I've only seen the Lord of the Rings movies, and I barely remember anything about Morgoth. Also, why would this make Morgoth the "bigger" anything? According to the discussion page, Morgoth has nothing to do with Sauron's plans—he's just some much stronger bad guy. If we take this into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, then that means Thanos is not the Bigger Bad (as he's listed on that page), because he's directly responsible for the conflict in The Avengers. This would, however, make him the Bigger Bad to every other MCU movie (including the Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, and Thor films) because he's a looming, bigger threat that had NOTHING TO DO with the conflict in those films.
Thus, the relativity of "Work" vs. "Larger Universe" automatically causes problems with this trope before we even delve into the deeper meaning, because to even properly use this trope, you need accurate, encyclopedic knowledge of the fictional universe. That's kind of an issue for a wiki.
edited 22nd Aug '14 11:08:31 AM by KingZeal
I think the problem is that the description is unclear. People interpret Bigger Bad in different ways. I tend to think it as the the villain who is more powerful then the Big Bad, but not necessarily the Biggest Bad. Also, I think the Bigger Bad can have influence, but it must be limited and not drastic. The Big Bad is the one causing the plot current plot, the Bigger Bad is the greater power.
I think the description is clear if you actually read it, but until I did read it I thought it was something like when you defeat the current Big Bad but then then his boss shows up.
IDK, I usually hesitate to support name changes, but I feel like the name makes it seem more common and/or directly relevant to the plot than it is. Not to say it is irrelevant to the plot, knowing there is a more powerful evil out there even if it does not do anything changes to texture of the conflict with the Big Bad, I think, but it is still basically a trope about the setting rather than the plot or characters.
IDK what it could be called... Background Bigger Bad, Bigger Bad In The Background?
Or maybe ditching the Big Bad convention all together might be better. It confuses the issue about Big Bad referring to the primary antagonist.
edited 22nd Aug '14 11:35:26 AM by rexpensive
Can we simplify the description down to a paragraph? There are half a dozen in there with extremely varying examples. It seems to me a big part of what makes the whole thing rather nebulous.
As far as I can tell, the general idea here is "villain who is higher up / more of a threat than current antagonist, but is not the cause of the current story arc". This is what separates it from Man Behind the Man, where we have a "higher up villain who is the cause of antagonist instigating current story arc". But all these side examples of "if a Bigger Bad does this its a completely different trope", "if they're facists its this trope instead" doesn't help illustrate the central idea.
Can we set a number of conditions for this perhaps? Like was done on Deus ex Machina? "character must meet conditions a), b) and c)" would make the whole thing considerably more concrete.
edited 22nd Aug '14 11:41:54 AM by ashlay
That some gunky description. Methinks we ought to try out a description modelled on Complete Monster.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
The Middle-earth Legendarium examples may seem like they're making this a lot more complicated than it is, because that happens to be from an extremely complex, well-developed universe and mythology with, to use your term, a lot of moving parts (LOTR itself being only the final act of a much, much longer mythology). To clarify Morgoth, he's not just "some stronger bad guy", he's literally the Satan figure of his universe (and he may be Satan if we take the implications that Middle-earth is the prehistory of our own world at face value, though that's not really relevant to this discussion), creating "evil" as a concept and overshadowing every other bad guy in terms of power and influence - but he spends much of his career as a Sealed Evil in a Can whose direct ability to act is limited (he's been chilling in the Void for approx. six thousand years by the time LOTR takes place, hence why he's not relevant there and only gets a handful of mentions). He was also Sauron's predecessor as Dark Lord/mentor/former master, to clarify that relationship.
And no, I wouldn't consider Sauron a Bigger Bad and Saruman/The Nine a Big Bad Ensemble during Two Towers. Both are directly tied to Sauron (The Nine get their orders straight from him, Saruman works for him while also plotting to double-cross him) and, perhaps more importantly, Lot R is one narrative with distinctions artificially imposed by publishers who didn't want to print one doorstopper; Sauron is both directly involved, and there's no good reason to split the narrative into chunks. Contrast The Hobbit, which is a completely separate story, and in which, while "The Necromancer" (Sauron) gets brought up several times in a context that makes it clear he's the nastiest guy around, the Big Bad is Smaug, who isn't affiliated with him at all. "The Necromancer" is more a feature of the setting than he is a character in the story, which is close to what I had in mind when launching the trope.
But like I said, this is a really complicated set of examples. Here's another one I was thinking of when creating the trope that's much more straightforward - the Order of the Stick. Xykon's the Big Bad; he's the one the heroes are mostly concerned with stopping (okay, there's a bit of a Big Bad Ensemble these days, but Xykon's the most prominent and arguably most dangerous of that crowd). The Snarl is the Bigger Bad - it's much more powerful than Xykon, could destroy the world, but it's a mindless Sealed Evil that has barely interacted with the plot in any meaningful way, not caused it. The threat isn't the Snarl, it's what Xykon (or Redcloak, or the IFCC, etc) might do to harness it's power/do with said power once they've harnessed it.
I'd also keep in mind that most fictional universes aren't going to be as complicated/ have as many moving parts as the LOTR example. I think that 90% of the time you'd just need to be familiar with one story to spot this trope. It certainly seemed straightforward to me when I launched it, and I think it still is. I certainly think it should have a better name, though. The description was actually much shorter when the trope was launched, but people kept misusing it and tropers (myself at others) kept adding to it to try and clarify and eventually the page as it stands now happened.
EDIT: The MCU example is weird, because the franchise is ongoing, but Thanos is certainly not the Bigger Bad of The Avengers - he's a textbook Man Behind the Man, as far as I'm concerned. Guardians is a bit more complicated, since Ronan is less Thanos's minion than he is "running his own agenda that Thanos has agreed to help him with in return for Ronan grabbing a McGuffin for him", but I still don't think it's a good example. I'd just as soon ax the MCU entry entirely until we know exactly how the Thanos plotline will play out, but I think it's more likely he'll end up as the closest thing it'll have to a single Big Bad.
edited 22nd Aug '14 11:55:06 AM by MasterGhandalf
''All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us..."
Yet, I have noticed examples where the Bigger Bad is a villain who is already dead, but leaves in influence on the plot. I think this trope should be split: one trope should be the villain that is more powerful than the Big Bad, and the other should be the villain the influences the Big Bad even after death.
Edit: And about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Thanos does count as a Bigger Bad because he is the most powerful villain in the setting, but not influencing the plot so far. In The Avengers, Loki is the one leading Chitauri army, while Thanos is the one who gives him the army. In Guardians of the Galaxy, Thanos is the most powerful presence in the film, but after Ronan goes his own way, Thanos doesn't do anything. I say Thanos is the Bigger Bad for now.
edited 22nd Aug '14 12:04:40 PM by SatoshiBakura
There's Predecessor Villain, another trope of mine, that's for a villain who is completely dead/removed from the story but still has influence (if I had to come up with a random example off the top of my head, let's say Salazar Slytherin). I'd still point towards Morgoth specifically as Bigger Bad (or at least both) because of the Word of God regarding how he suffused the world with his spirit resulting in his continued presence in a spiritual sense as well as his lingering influence.
I think you underestimate how confusing that is going to be.
As Larkmarn mentioned to me in PM, your description would literally mean that every work that takes place in or around Nazi Germany could technically shoehorn Adolf Hitler as a Bigger Bad, including Wolfenstein, Indiana Jones, Schindlers List, etc, etc. Likewise, every single story that references the Biblical Hell could do the same with Satan.
By the argument provided, The Snarl becomes a fuzzy example the moment that the Order is made aware of its existence and the direct threat it poses via the Gates. While Xykon is The Heavy, and the villain directly trying to seize the gates, figuring out the Gates' secrets, and stopping whatever lies on the other side has become part of the Order's mission.
Despite assurances that this sort of complexity is "rare", it's a problem if the trope starts to fall apart because a story is complicated. The way it's currently being defined makes it an absolute nightmare to figure out in something like the Marvel Universe.
Now here's a confusing one from Red Vs Blue. But beware, it's spoileriffic.
Does Sigma qualify as a Bigger Bad at any point in the story? He can't be the Bigger Bad of Reconstruction, since he is the Big Bad (pretty much part of the Meta), but what about any other seasons? Recreation or Revelation or even the Blood Gulch Chronicles, does he count at any of those times?
edited 22nd Aug '14 12:12:06 PM by SatoshiBakura
Re Order of the Stick: There's been a fair bit of Word of God saying quite the opposite, actually (that the story is about the characters, not the gates, that the Snarl is not the antagonist, and IIRC that Xykon will be the final boss).
Re Hitler: That's something I myself explicitly pointed out in the trope description, actually. Hitler's "role", if you want to call it that, in Raiders of the Lost Ark is, I think, a textbook example of how a human dictator can be used as a Bigger Bad; sure, the antagonists are nominally on his payroll, but the Big Bad is Belloq, who wants to use the Ark to talk to God, not help Hitler.
Re Satan: I'd actually see that as a valid use, so long as we have evidence that in this story Satan and/or Hell actually exist. Otherwise it's just part of a character or characters' religious context.
Re Marvel Universe: That's a very good point. I'd actually argue against the trope's validity in such a context, since the odds of even the remotest, most cosmos-shattering bad getting pulled into a story and getting beat up by a hero or heroes are pretty damn good.
edited 22nd Aug '14 12:13:33 PM by MasterGhandalf
''All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us..."
What you said above is exactly what I mean by "moving parts". According to what you just said:
- The character is discredited if Word of God says so (which, again is Fan Myopia, because not everyone who sees a work is going to be aware of what Word of God said).
- ANY example of a Mythology/Religion, Public Domain Character or Historical Domain Character where there was a larger villain/malevolent entity counts so long as that character is confirmed to exist.
- It counts for a Verse like Lord Of The Rings, but not one like the Marvel Universe. (Which, I guess, means that any universe still in publication or production would be disqualified.)
EDIT: Also, I made posts related to this subject way back here
and here.
edited 22nd Aug '14 12:38:39 PM by KingZeal
Unfortunately this kind of misuse tends to happen whenever you have contextually complicated tropes. I've always viewed a Bigger Bad as being a villain who has some form of relevance to a story and is somehow "bigger" than the current Big Bad without being directly connected to it. In many cases you are only told of their influence after the fact. This still often includes The Man Behind the Man simply because of the hierarchy that is often established by the bad guys, you have a Big Bad and then you have someone the Big Bad was reporting to or influenced by.
It's because of this open-ended definition that there is misuse, someone might simply not be as familiar with the overall mythology of the work and believe an example is correct based on their limited knowledge.
Yeah, but the problem is that some people believe that Bigger Bad and The Man Behind the Man can't overlap. I think of Bigger Bad of just being bigger than the Big Bad and it can be either connected or not to the Big Bad.
edited 22nd Aug '14 4:43:02 PM by SatoshiBakura
I think it's important to make a distinction between the two tropes, myself, largely because The Man Behind the Man is (normally) the "real" Big Bad, while the Bigger Bad is not.
I've been thinking about how to communicate the idea in a simple and straightforward way, since it's very easy to understand in my head but clearly hasn't come across that way both in and out of this thread- and so I've come up with some basic criteria that I think a character must fill to fit this trope.
1. A villainous character or evil force that is more powerful than the Big Bad confirmed to existnote in the setting. They may or may not actually appear.
2. They may or may not be connected in some form to the Big Badnote , but the story isn't about them; they don't drive the plot, and if the Big Bad is connected to them it is that character and their actions the story is chiefly confirmed with. They don't need to be defeated for the story to be concluded, and in many cases they won't be.
3. Related to the above, if the story is obviously building up to a final conflict with them, then they're not this trope, even if they haven't done much yetnote . Similarly, a character who is obviously chessmastering everybody else from a distance note probably isn't either; they've made themselves too much a part of things.
Anyone have further comments on these ideas? Also, I'm still down for a rename, since it sounds like the name is half the problem.
edited 22nd Aug '14 5:29:13 PM by MasterGhandalf
''All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us..."
...can still bite
I have always viewed Bigger Bad as someone or something who is indirectly responsible for the villainy in the story, but does not directly control the Big Bad. I think the issue that is causing confusion is how involved in the plot the Bigger Bad is supposed to be.
This is what Larkmarn says:
And these are excerpts from the trope description:
Note that despite the name, this is not a subtrope of Big Bad. A Bigger Bad is a more threatening force of evil in the setting and overshadows it, but due to mindlessness, imprisonment, lack of interest, or other factors, it is disconnected on a personal level from the main plot, which is caused by the Big Bad.
But these are also excerpts from the trope description:
In any work where Those Wacky Nazis are the antagonists, it's a virtual given that their marching orders ultimately come from Adolf Hitler, even if he doesn't physically appear. In any Christian allegory, Christianity-inspired work or vaguely-spiritual work written by a Christian, there will usually be some implication that Satan exists, somewhere, and is probably ultimately responsible for the evils of the Big Bad on account of being the originator of sin, but either can't or won't take much of an active role in the plot.
However, note that the Bigger Bad may be part of why the villain became the Big Bad in the first place.
Larkmarn says that the trope being the "bad guy indirectly responsible for the plot" is misuse, and the description itself says that it "isn't causing the conflict of the story". However, the description also says, "Don't take this to mean that the Bigger Bad needs to be completely physically absent from the story. They can certainly appear or even be indirectly behind the Big Bad." Exactly what does it mean to be "indirectly behind the Big Bad"? It also describes Satan as a Bigger Bad "probably ultimately responsible for the evils of the Big Bad on account of being the originator of sin" and that a "Bigger Bad may be part of why the villain became the Big Bad in the first place." If the Bigger Bad is ultimately responsible for the evils of the Big Bad (possibly because they caused the Big Bad to become a villain), then that means that they are indirectly responsible for the plot and that they did cause the conflict of the story, which are earlier cited as misuse. The trope description as it is now contradicts itself.
To root out the misuse, I believe we need a clear definition. Either the Bigger Bad is somewhat indirectly responsible for the villainy of the Big Bad, or they are not responsible at all.
As for the name, Bigger Bad to me infers somebody who is not only more poweful than the Big Bad but also someone or something that has a greater scope in their villainy. It is a somewhat vague name, because what exactly does the "Bigger" refer to? If the latter definition became the trope description, I think the trope name should be changed to Other Bad or Other Big Bad. If the former definition becomes the trope description, I think the name can be kept.
A good example to illustrate the two possible meanings of Bigger Bad would be Fate Zero, as it has two characters who each fit one of the definitions. Angra Mainyu fits the first definition, as the story infers that it was responsible for choosing eventual Big Bad Kotomine Kirei to be involved in the Grail War and thus the plot in general when he was not interested in the war and did not even know it existed. However, Angra Mainyu is not a person but rather an impersonal force and does not have any control over Kirei's actions, thus it is not The Man Behind the Man. Meanwhile, Matou Zouken fits the second definition. While he is ultimately responsible for a minor conflict in the story and is also dangerous and evil, he has no influence on the Big Bad and the only interaction he has with the Big Bad is a single conversation.
edited 22nd Aug '14 5:15:24 PM by shiro_okami
Your second point is not true. The story can build up a conflict with the Bigger Bad if it's the Big Bad that's driving it. An example would be in Yu-Gi-Oh!, where the final arc builds up a fight with Zorc, the Bigger Bad, but for most of the arc, Dark Bakura is the Big Bad who is setting up the fight.
Edit: This is what I mean. People claim that Bigger Bad and The Man Behind the Man can't overlap. But if The Man Behind the Man doesn't decide to get involved, then he or she is the Bigger Bad. Bigger Bad should have limited to no involvement. I will make a distinction between Big Bad and Bigger Bad: Big Bad has involvment, Bigger Bad has influence.
edited 22nd Aug '14 5:16:39 PM by SatoshiBakura
...can still bite
In that case, I think Man Behind the Man overlaps with both Big Bad and Bigger Bad. If the Man Behind the Man ends up in direct conflict with the heroes, then he is the Big Bad. But if he does not, then he is the Bigger Bad.
edited 22nd Aug '14 5:24:36 PM by shiro_okami
- Big Bad: The ultimate villain of the story, who's causing the problem the heroes must solve.
- Bigger Bad: Bigger than the Big Bad, but less directly involved.
I've always though of the Bigger Bad as being a more powerful antagonist that the Big Bad of the current story in some way(power level, influence, money, status, etc.) who may have contact with the Big Bad or The Heavy but rarely(if ever) had any with The Hero.
Again, my key to differentiating Big Bad and Bigger Bad:
- A Big Bad has involvement.
- A Bigger Bad has influence.
This is probably the most confusing trope ever made on this wiki.
@19: Can you clarify that example? I have absolutely no familiarity with that work, and so what you've said tells me very little about who's doing what, or even if it's a good example.
@22: I'm sorry; I had no idea. Like I said, in my head, this is a very straightforward and easy to spot trope (in some stories, there's a villain out there who is bigger and worse than the Big Bad, but isn't directly involved with the plot). I wonder why it causes everyone such headaches (not complaining, genuinely curious)?
edited 22nd Aug '14 5:42:25 PM by MasterGhandalf
''All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us..."
My personal benchmark for Bigger Bad is the Aldmeri Dominion from Skyrim. Aside from a few acts here and there, the Dominion has nothing to do with the overall plot of Skyrim. The Big Bads of the game are the leaders behind the Civil War or Alduin the Dragon, depending on which story one is playing. The Aldmeri, however, are in the background, silently encouraging all parties against each other. They're waiting for everyone else to take each other out, so they can defeat them. Further, they're the REASON the Civil War is happening, because it's basically about the "right way" to fight against the Dominion (subterfuge and espionage vs. all out battle).
I will tell you about the last arc of Yu-Gi-Oh!. Dark Bakura sets up an RPG with Dark Yugi based on Dark Yugi's memories of his former life as the Pharaoh. If Dark Bakura wins the game, Zorc will be resurrected. Zorc is a being made of all of humanities negative emotions who was originally defeated and sealed away by the Pharaoh 3,000 years ago. Thief King Bakura, who had worked to summon him, became Dark Bakura while the Pharaoh became Dark Yugi. There is a build up to when Zorc will be summoned in game, and he is, but Dark Bakura set it all up.
Edit: And about the confusion: this trope was originally going to be named Ultimate Evil. Look how that turned out. As a result, the name Bigger Bad was chosen. Bigger Bad sounds very similar to The Man Behind the Man despite the fact they are different tropes. Also, people mistake Predecessor Villain for Bigger Bad because the description says that the Bigger Bad can be the reason why a person became a Big Bad.
edited 22nd Aug '14 5:52:07 PM by SatoshiBakura
Crown Description:
Bigger Bad found in: 3294 articles, excluding discussions. Since January 1, 2012 this article has brought 1,325 people to the wiki from non-search engine links.
Alright, finally time to tackle this. At 3,197 wicks and over 1,100 inbounds, I know I have my work cut out for myself.
Bigger Bad is chronically being misused as the "true Big Bad," usually in the form of the Man Behind the Man or just the next step of the Sorting Algorithm of Evil. It also sees itself misused as "bad guy indirectly responsible for the plot," basically an Unwitting Instigator of Doom but they're a villain (and they knew they were causing some doom, even if they didn't foresee the exact circumstances), which strikes me as misuse. What it really is is "a malevolent force of evil in the setting stronger and eviler than the Big Bad, but not directly involved in the plot."
Take a gander at the the page's discussion
, which is filled with people confused about the examples.
I've been cleaning up misuse wherever I can, and I know the trope creator does the same. And yet, there's still a ton of misuse out there.
So, of 30 wicks, 14 correct, 15 incorrect, and 1 inconclusive. Granted, that's still less than 1% of wicks, so I'm going to do more, but I figured I'd get this topic started to open discussion.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.