Misused (titles crowner 10/2/14): Bigger Bad

This may be a radical solution, but it's always an option to divorce Bigger Bad from Big Bad even further by making the criteria much stricter. The Bigger Bad (or whatever better name can be found for it) would then always be a greater evil than the Big Bad, and can never become a Big Bad in its own right by facing the heroes in any part of the story, episodic or otherwise—they're strictly an ultimate evil looming over the whole story. To my mind crossover between the two would imply either another Arc Villain, The Man Behind the Man, or simply another rung in the Sorting Algorithm of Evil, not a "disinvolved greater villain".

edited 24th Aug '14 11:57:56 AM by Morgenthaler

Post 46 shows why linking Bigger Bad to the Big Bad is a problem, by showing how randomly Big Bad is used:

Oops, I forgot to include the first one. The second one I don't exactly know how to explain, but I updated my definition.

Edit: My updated definition;

The Bigger Bad is the villain who has greater influence on the setting as a whole than the Big Bad, but doesn't directly affect the story, as they would then be the Big Bad. How much they are involved in the plot, how much influence to the plot they have, or if they're connected in any way to the Big Bad or not doesn't matter. They are just the villain that has greater influence on the setting than the Big Bad, but have limited to no affect on the story.

edited 24th Aug '14 1:12:08 PM by SatoshiBakura

That's a bit better.

That's exactly what I've been trying to do, although not to the extent that you suggest. Although I think the issue here is not only about stricter criteria but also clearer criteria.

But I think that there should be at least some connection, because otherwise the Bigger Bad is nothing more than a villain who is more powerful/influential than the Big Bad, and that is a rather broad trope description. That is also somewhat counterintuitive, as if the Bigger Bad is more influential than the Big Bad but doesn't have any actual influence over the Big Bad, then they are really just another villain.

There can be a connection with the Big Bad, but there doesn't have to be a connection. Just as long as the Bigger Bad stays out of the way for the most part, or else they would be the Big Bad.

Edit: Also, I'm waiting to see approval on my description. If the majority approves, then I will edit the Bigger Bad page to fit in with my description.

edited 24th Aug '14 1:21:59 PM by SatoshiBakura

Like I said before, if there doesn't have to be a connection, then I think the "Bigger" part of the trope name should be replaced with something else.

The Bigger Bad has to have some connection to the Big Bad otherwise they are just another Big Bad. It's in the name. That doesn't mean they have any direct or indirect connection to the PLOT of the Big Bad, but they can't be completely unrelated to anything that is going on.

For example, Power Rangers In Space revealed that there was this powerful enemy called Dark Spector that all other villains knew and were afraid of. He gathered together all prior enemies into a Legion of Doom, along with some newly introduced villains. The fact he commands such respect and is portrayed as an Ultimate Evil makes him a Bigger Bad, and was more of a figure in the background with no direct involvement on the day to day battle the Rangers had against his underling Astronema. But leading up to that point he had absolutely NO influence on the actions of the other villains and was also not an Evil Overlord until that season.

I think it may also be confusing in that sometimes the Bigger Bad is only a vague force that has no direct involvement with the story at any point, while at other times they do step into the action and become a regular Big Bad for the story arc.

Here's a rewrite of the proposed definition that excises the Big Bad references: The Bigger Bad is the villain who has the greatest influence on the setting as a whole, but doesn't directly affect the story. How much they appear, how important they are to characters within the work, or if they're connected in any way to the story's villain doesn't matter. They are just the villain with the greatest influence on the setting, but have limited to no effect on the story itself.

The reason it's called Bigger Bad is because the Bigger Bad has a greater influence on the setting as a whole than the Big Bad.

They wouldn't be another Big Bad because they're not involved as much in the plot.

A Bigger Bad can be totally distant from the Big Bad but they still have influence over the setting. Take the Chronicles of Prydain: The overall series Big Bad is Arawn Death-Lord, but the local Grim Reaper, Gwyn the Hunter, doesn't serve Arawn, but an unkown lord who may have greater power than Arawn, but no connection between Arawn and this mysterious lord is made.

Edit: Not the greatest in the setting, just greater than the Big Bad. Big Bad is used as a comparison, and the connection either is or isn't. Besides, their can be a Bigger Bad that is not the greatest influence in the setting. I'm not changing my definition just because you don't think Big Bad shouldn't be mentioned at all, because that's pretty extreme.

edited 24th Aug '14 2:11:37 PM by SatoshiBakura

If that's going to be the definition of Bigger Bad then we should cut it, cause it's redundant with Ultimate Evil.

The Ultimate Evil page is, ironically, too narrowly defined by the wiki compared to how the rest of the world would use the term. It should probably be renamed "Faceless Evil" or something. Ultimate Evil is, by definition of terms, the greatest evil or something beyond normal evil. My face is intact.

edited 24th Aug '14 2:04:23 PM by KJMackley

You obviously did not read the Ultimate Evil page. Go there and prepare to face palm.

Edit: Easier said than done. You will have to start a thread on that page, then change every single link on the wiki.

edited 24th Aug '14 2:06:05 PM by SatoshiBakura

That's going to cause a problem with some definitions. For instance, Thanos in The Avengers was agreed upon earlier in this thread to be an example of a Bigger Bad, but he'll eventually turn into a Big Bad once he's faced directly and is responsible for the main conflict in Avengers 3.

Which is pointed out as a flaw on post 42, because Big Bad is a term that gets used instead of Villain.

This is another reason why I used Big Bad in my description instead of Villain. The main villain isn't always the Big Bad; it can be a Dragon-in-Chief.

To me that doesn't really count as a Bigger Bad, at least not like the way you describe it.

But what I'm saying is that the reason it's called Bigger Bad is because his greater sphere of influence includes the Big Bad. "Bigger" implies that the Bigger Bad encompasses the Big Bad. Just saying they have more power or more influence than the Big Bad doesn't really make them bigger, just different or additional. What you actually describe in your example I would describe more as a Background Villain than a Bigger Bad.

The definition of the trope isn't even settled, so whether Thanos (or any other character for that matter) does or does not qualify is not yet relevant here (I've also seen disagreements in other places whether he isn't The Man Behind the Man instead, but that's a different matter). With the tightening of the definition I suggested, in that case Thanos would simply not qualify as a Bigger Bad anymore. It's the transient "They're a Bigger Bad here, but not a Bigger Bad there" depending on the scope of the story that is obviously causing a lot of the confusion. I can't think of another character trope that isn't being played with in some way with such a shaky foundation (aside from Big Bad—see below). Either they're a Bigger Bad in all parts, or they aren't in any part is a definition that is much easier to work with and less prone to misuse.

As pointed out it's the same issue with Big Bad and related tropes (used as anything from "Arc Villain", "major villain", "biggest villain in the whole story", and "multiple major villains working together/fighting each other"). That trope was already deemed unfixable in the previous thread on it, which may or may not determine the outcome of this thread.

edited 24th Aug '14 2:26:19 PM by Morgenthaler

I agree, and I also consider Thanos to be a Bigger Bad. I think that we should start offering suggestions on trope names in addition to suggestions on trope descriptions. It might be necessary to actually split the trope.

To me Bigger Bad implies bigger than the Big Bad. They have more influence than the Big Bad is what makes them bigger. And for the Chronicles of Prydain, again Gwyn is essentially the Grim Reaper of the setting. The unknown lord has influence because Gwyn serves him. But the unknown lord has nothing to do with Arawn at all.

Edit: That makes no sense. The current description for Bigger Bad states that a Big Bad can be Kicked Upstairs as well as the reverse (Bigger Bad to Big Bad). Thanos can be a Bigger Bad for most of the MCU and become a Big Bad in the final movie.

edited 24th Aug '14 2:34:41 PM by SatoshiBakura

That is just Serial Escalation or Sorting Algorithm of Evil. And what I was saying is that being expressly more powerful of influential than a previous Big Bad is part of what it means to be connected to them in some way.

Which is exactly my point. The fact that the trope, as currently written, is inherently contradictory is part of the problem here, and it's one stemming from how widely and vaguely Big Bad is used.

There certain aspects of the current description that should be kept, and this is one of them. Please explain to me how "Big Bad can be Kicked Upstairs and Bigger Bad can become a Big Bad in later installments" is contradictory.

There is now a You Know That Thing Where perfect for launching a new page to replace this one.]

Bigger bad is a problem page. Freeza is not an example, for instance, because without Freeza, Vegeta wouldn't likely be on Earth to begin with. Dr. Gero is not a "bigger bad", he is the Big Bad. He caused the problems, "present" and future. He caused them directly.

Villain Of Another Story will fix it all, and I didn't even have to take initiative. Thank you Satoshi Bakura.

Yeah, about that:

Villain of Another Story is never meant be merged with Bigger Bad. We will not merge it.

And Freiza is a Bigger Bad because he is a higher influence on the setting the Vegeta, but he doesn't take a role in the story arc he is first mentioned in. He becomes the Big Bad in the arc after.

edited 24th Aug '14 3:37:45 PM by SatoshiBakura

Villain of Another Story seems to be about a villain who makes a minor appearance in one story but is a main villain in another story. The scope of Bigger Bad is within a single story; while some Bigger Bad's become main villains later in the story, others may never take center stage.

Yeah, obviously. I did read the YKTTW description.

edited 24th Aug '14 3:49:57 PM by shiro_okami

Actually, it's the villainous counterpart of Hero of Another Story.

Edit: Oh...

edited 24th Aug '14 3:57:52 PM by SatoshiBakura