TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Split: Breakout Villain

Go To

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#1: Oct 15th 2010 at 8:40:18 AM

WARNING: LONG POST.

now that the trope's been renamed, i would like to note something that's been bothering me for a while. mostly copied from the renaming thread:

Breakout Villain is understood by most people to be the villain parallel of Breakout Character. in fact, it's a subtrope, as the definition for the trope explains. as per the definition of Breakout Character, "Someone who was once a one-note C-character becomes a central part of the regular cast." the original trope namer for that trope, fonzie, is the perfect example: he was a minor character at the beginning, but proved so popular that the creators/writers/producers gave him more and more protagonism until he practically became the main character. this was in the show.

in the case of Breakout Villain, i see two different scenarios. i think this could be split:

on the one hand, you have the villains that were initially intended to be one-off. however, they proved popular so the creators/writers decided to keep using them, and eventually their presence was expected enough that they became major villains. this is something that happens during the series' run. the creators/authors introduce them, take notice of their popularity, and give them bigger roles accordingly. this would be the direct parallel to the Breakout Character definition, but for villains. examples of these would be the daleks, ben linus, the joker, arguably morgana (she does appear in a lot of myths, with lots of different evil plots) etc.

on the other hand, according to the current description of Breakout Villain (third paragraph, "in some cases...") you also have the villains that were initially intended to be one-off, and remained one-off, but were very memorable in their one appearance (or perhaps very few, relative to the total length of the work). the creator/writer does not bring them back to the same work/series, but if you ask the audience who the Big Bad of the work/series was, they're more likely to remember this one-off villain because his villainy, evil deeds and the way they affected the rest of the characters were just that memorable. examples of these would be moriarty himself (who only appeared in the final problem and i think one other story which was a prequel), kaworu (makes his appearance and dies in episode 24), mordred (who only comes in toward the end of the legends and is basically remembered for having killed arthur), etc.

note that the description for Breakout Character states that he/she "becomes a central part of the regular cast"— which for a villain subtrope would mean popping up again and again and again. even moriarty himself, the former Trope Namer for Breakout Villain, didn't do that— at least not in conan doyle's sherlock holmes. he only does that now because the post-doyle writers/creators were doyle's audience to begin with. so he's not a Breakout Character, at least not in doyle's stories.

also, i would be careful when using the word "minor." in this context it's meant as a character who has very few appearances in-series, but it can be taken to mean the overall impact of the character. i would never use the word "minor" for a villain that, say, managed to kill the hero for real. unless Death Is Cheap and the hero gets killed really often, of course. but in cases like moriarty and mordred, i wouldn't really use the word "minor." it's so ambiguous.

ideas? do you think this merits a split?

Nyktos (srahc 84) eltit Since: Jan, 2001
(srahc 84) eltit
#2: Oct 15th 2010 at 8:12:02 PM

I'm pretty sure the ones that only show up once are covered by Ensemble Dark Horse.

I guess it is.
Stranger goat milk? from Nowhere in particular Since: Nov, 2009
goat milk?
#3: Oct 16th 2010 at 11:42:55 AM

It is describing two tropes, but I agree, the second just sounds like a type of Ensemble Dark Horse. I would say just remove the second type from the definition and prune any examples that apply to it. Splitting would result in something that's essentially a villain version of Ensemble Dark Horse, which so far as I can tell, doesn't exclude villains, itself.

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#4: Oct 18th 2010 at 9:01:11 AM

^ alright, that sounds like a good idea. i'll start working on it this week, then.

HappyMaskMan Rock Solid! Since: Aug, 2009
Rock Solid!
#5: Oct 18th 2010 at 9:05:09 AM

I think there's a difference between a villain who happens to be an Ensemble Dark Horse and a villain who comes to be considered the "villain of the series" through Pop-Cultural Osmosis.

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#6: Oct 18th 2010 at 10:43:29 AM

now that you mention it, yeah, that's true. an Ensemble Dark Horse is a minor character that becomes unexplainably popular, while a pop-culture-ascended villain doesn't necessarily have to be popular or liked at all, he just has to be recognized as more important story-wise than he was initially intended to be. (i might've been thinking along these lines when i first noticed the trend, but it seems i let go of this angle somewhere along the way, haha...)

i would have to check the examples to see how much this happens, maybe it could be its own trope. in any case i wouldn't want those examples to simply be cut and wind up lost in cyberhistory— moriarty used to be the Trope Namer, after all. that's gotta be worth something.

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#7: Oct 18th 2010 at 10:54:29 AM

They aren't the same trope at all. This doesn't have anything to do with popularity. It's more about a sort of cultural filter on works thanks to the way they've been adapted.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
carla Since: Jan, 2010
#8: Oct 18th 2010 at 11:52:10 AM

^ so shall i take this to YKKTW, then? (again, i'd have to check if there are enough examples already for a split).

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#9: Oct 20th 2010 at 10:42:03 AM

ok, i'll be classifying as:

type A — villains that were initially one-off, but proved so popular that the creators/writers decided to bring them back until they became the main villain in the audience's eyes.

type B — villains that were one-off, but were so memorable that they became the main villain in the audience's eyes. they may be used as such in subsequent adaptations.

wick check:

anime/manga:

  • seto kaiba: type A.
  • kaworu nagisa: funnily enough, i think he manages to be both of them. type B for the original anime, type A in a few of the sequels/spin-offs. he's also a more straightforward Ensemble Dark Horse in that he can be considered an Anti-Villain or even somewhat heroic/Nakama-ish depending on the situation and which spin-off you consider.

comic books:

  • black adam: sounds like a type A.
  • the Batman villains: i would say the joker is definitely a type A. can a series have more than one Breakout Villain, though? you can't have more than one villain be the main villain.
  • lex luthor: type A. as far as kryptonite goes, can an object be a Breakout Villain?
  • the shredder: type A.
  • the Spider Man villains: see question in Batman examples. unlike the joker, i don't know if i'd count any of them as Breakout Villains, although that might be reverse-Fan Myopia on my part. perhaps venom, i don't know.
  • boba fett: hardly the main villain of the series. does he even count for the trope as it is currently defined?
  • agent smith: type A.

literature:

  • Sherlock Holmes villains: moriarty only appeared in two stories, so he's a type B. arguably a type A when including post-doylian adaptations. irene adler is much less remembered by the public, let alone as a villain (she's the poster-girl for Promoted to Love Interest, though). sebastian moran is hardly the main villain of the series.
  • mordred: type B. he only appeared as a villain toward the end of the stories and was mainly remembered for killing arthur. he's only recurring in the adaptations, and might be a type A in some of them.
  • sauron: type A.
  • the wicked witch of the west: type B, only recursive in the adaptations.
  • the queen of hearts: type B, only recursive in the adaptations. don't think the jabberwock can be considered the main villain of the series.
  • thoth-amon: type B, only recursive in the adaptations.

live-action TV:

  • nicole wallace: type B.
  • the daleks: type A.
  • ben linus: type A.
  • sigfried: type A, probably. not sure what "a few times" means as i'm not that familiar with the show.
  • Battlestar Galactica: i have no idea. i'm not sure i understand which cylon is which from the description. but it sounds to me like the creators had that planned? (that is, it wasn't a result of his popularity...). if that's what happened, then he wouldn't even be an example of the trope.
  • scorpius: type A.
  • spike: type A.
  • gul dukat: if he became recurring, then type A.
  • K.A.R.R.: only appeared in two episodes, so type B.
  • murdoc: not sure. may overlap, actually. apparently he was so well-liked that he came back once per season (which would make him a type A), and the show had seven seasons, so he was in seven episodes... but seven out of 139 might make him count for type B.
  • sylar: type A.
  • the kromaggs: from their being described as a Malignant Plot Tumor, i'm guessing type A.

video games. oh, video game villains are hard to classify:

  • bowser: i would say he counts as a type A. the same creators (nintendo) keep bringing him back.
  • albert wesker: pretty much the same as bowser, type A.
  • revolver ocelot: same.
  • sargeras: not sure, i'm not familiar with the game. does he keep popping back? the way the examples make it sound is that his backstory made him sound bigger than intended (which would make him a type B).
  • wilhelm strauss: not sure, seems like a type A.

western animation:

8 examples for type B that i'm sure of. think that's enough for a split? (i'm thinking hard split, making a new trope called Upgraded Villain or something, but let me know). going through these also made me realize that people are using a wider definition of the trope as-is (type A), to include villains that are not the main villains. perhaps the definition can be expanded to accomodate that.

edited 20th Oct '10 10:46:15 AM by carla

shimaspawn from Here and Now Since: May, 2010 Relationship Status: In your bunk
#10: Oct 20th 2010 at 11:36:58 AM

I think soft split might be better than hard split honestly. It doesn't really have enough examples for two pages.

Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#11: Oct 20th 2010 at 12:01:39 PM

I'd say calling the Breakout Villain the "Main" villain is misleading. He becomes a major villain. Superheroes, in particular tend to have a stable of major villains, but no one single "main villain". Spiderman doesn't have a single Main villain — he's got both Doc Ock and The Green Goblin. Superman has Lex Luthor and Bizarro and Darkseid. Batman has The Joker but also Catwoman, Rhas al'ghul, and Bane.

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#12: Oct 20th 2010 at 1:06:50 PM

^ yep, i would say changing "the villain of the series" for "one of the major villains of the series" is way more accurate, and that way most of the examples still fit.

^^ soft split with the type A and type B definitions as stated above? i think it's the easiest way to go, i'm just worried some people might find it confusing. i mean, look at what's happening with Tsundere...

i'll try to draft an updated definition taking all of this into account later today, if nobody has any objections.

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#13: Oct 21st 2010 at 8:06:21 AM

okay, here's what i've got. let me know if it's alright, or if something can be tweaked:


Not every hero has an archvillain... initially. Sometimes, though, a villain will be introduced who ends up being a Breakout Character in his/her own right, and thus a Villain of the Week becomes a major villain of the series.

This can be caused by many things, from Executive Meddling, to Writer Revolt, to unbridled fan response to the character, to the writers being blown away by the performance of the actor who shows up to play the role.

Note that this is the accidental creation of an archenemy; it doesn't count if the powers that be set out to "make an archenemy for character X". A Breakout Villain is one who was meant to be a one-shot throw-away that, through fan/author/executive/all-of-the-above response became not only a recurring villain, but one of the series' major villains.

Breakout Villains come in two flavors:

  • Type A: The direct villainous counterpart to the Breakout Character, these are the villains that were initially intended to be one-off, but proved so popular that the creators/writers decided to keep bringing them back, making them more and more well-rounded, giving them deeper motivations and backstories until they became major villains in the audience's eyes.

  • Type B: These are the villains that actually were one-off characters, but were so memorable their minor appearances that they became main villains in the audience's eyes. They aren't necessarily immensely popular, but they are well-remembered through Pop-Cultural Osmosis. They may never again appear in the original authors' stories, but other authors or even the fans in general may make their parts bigger and more integral to the mythos in question, via subsequent stories, adaptations, or simply fanon.

Sometimes, these characters become antiheroes in their own right, with all the attendant risks. Most often, though, they retain their wonderful Big Bad status.

Compare Ensemble Dark Horse, Spotlight-Stealing Squad. Contrast with Token Motivational Nemesis, a major nemesis who is killed off as soon as the first story arc ends.

Madrugada Since: Jan, 2001
#14: Oct 21st 2010 at 8:24:25 AM

Specifying that they had to be intended to be "a one-shot throw-away" is going to cause problems — author intent is hard to prove. and it will lead to arguments about "what if he was supposed to be a minor but recurring villain?".

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#15: Oct 21st 2010 at 8:32:52 AM

^ that's true. although i have to say many of the examples (most of the comics section, at least) are villains that got killed in their first appearance, then were brought back because they were popular and Death Is Cheap. but yeah, hard to find proof of it without delving into speculation.

how would you suggest we phrase that? i'm reluctant to use the word "minor" because it implies little importance. if the villain were of little importance, there wouldn't be a type B— moriarty or mordred, for example, make sparse appearances in their respective sources, but both of them managed to kill the hero. i would hardly call them "minor."

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#16: Oct 26th 2010 at 8:44:45 AM

bump. any comments?

btw, i might need help splitting the examples. i'm not familiar enough with many of these fandoms. i'll start on that tonight, and let you know where i hit a bump.

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#17: Nov 2nd 2010 at 12:01:03 PM

if nobody has any objections, i could switch the descriptions tonight? (there was madrugada's concern, but i haven't heard anything back regarding that. any input is appreciated!) the actual splitting of the examples might have to wait until later, though.

Camacan from Australiatown Since: Jan, 2001
#18: Nov 2nd 2010 at 5:34:36 PM

I'm a bit worried about this split. There are going to be problem cases. Consider Professor Moriarty from Sherlock Holmes. He's a one-off villain in the original with great fame — but a major recurring villain in many adaptations. And between adaptions too, if you see what I mean.

A better way to deal with this distinction might be to mention its existence in the text and then mention cases where a villain has few appearances but a high profile on a case by case basis in the examples.

edited 2nd Nov '10 5:36:17 PM by Camacan

carla Since: Jan, 2010
#19: Nov 8th 2010 at 6:12:51 AM

so basically, switch the description so that it describes types A & B, and then encourage people to write their examples as "so-and-so from so-and-so series is a type A/B villain", but without a soft split? i'd be okay with that. if nobody disagrees, i could put the new definition up tonight and start adding types to a few of the villains i'm familiar with.

any comments on the "one-off" issue, though? better way to phrase that?

ExpiryBot Since: Dec, 1969
#20: Jan 12th 2011 at 11:04:07 AM

This thread expired after 60 days of inactivity.

Add Post

Total posts: 19
Top