Why must all movies contain a bad guy?

[JohnL]

Ok, I know that *ALL* movies don't have a bad guy, but most do even if the plot is about something else. It's not enough that the characters are stranded on a planet with a horde of killer aliens and the whole place is about to blow up, there has to be a *BAD GUY*. It's not enough that the characters are trapped in an undersea base dealing with unknown creatures, there has to be a *BAD GUY*. The characters are on the run from some killer creature in the middle of the desert, and there's a *BAD GUY*!

It's like the makers of the movie are saying that the main plot isn't interesting enough to hold the viewer's interest so there has to be one character who eventually shows his true colors and tries to screw the rest of the characters. Maybe it's someone who's been plotting against the others right from the start, maybe it's a guy who ends up going pyscho because of the situation he's in, maybe they're just a coward who chickens out at the last minute and leaves the others high & dry, or maybe it's just a character who refuses to believe that anything out of the ordinary is going on, but in the end, someone will try to screw the rest of the characters 99% of the time.

[Brother Ragnarok]

Y'know, you're right.  I mean, Burke was cool and all, but I'm sick of corporate sabateurs trying to capture the monster or what have you.  For once just let the people face the monster without a human bad guy.  Human baddies are never as interesting as monsters anyway.

Brother R

[Mr_Vindictive]

Brother Ragnarok wrote:


> For once just let the people face the monster
> without a human bad guy.  Human baddies are never as
> interesting as monsters anyway.
>
> Brother R
>


Watch cube...pretty damn interesting bad guy

[Nathan Shumate]

It's pretty simple story mechanics.  Not only must there be conflict for there to be a story, but it helps reader identification and interest if there is a recognizably human character as antagonist, rather than solely an impersonal force.

There's also usually a need to run subplots to supplement the main plot and give the proceedings enough complexity to run ninety minutes or more.  And if your main plot involves an impersonal or nonhuman antagonist, it makes sense to devote a major subplot to a human antagonist, to give evil and opposition a recognizeable face.

Of course, the lesser examples of such probably don't think of it in terms of story mechanics and narrative balance; they just say, "Hey, why don't we rip off Aliens?"

[The Burgomaster]

If you take a screen writing course or read any book about screen writing, you will find that they all stress the use of some sort of bad guy (usually referred to as a "nemesis"). One book I read (called WRITING SCREENPLAYS THAT SELL) actually says that just about every script should have the following:

1. A hero (such as BATMAN)
2. The hero's reflection (such as ROBIN)
3. The hero's romance (such as VICKI VALE)
4. The nemesis (such as THE JOKER)

I thought it was a pretty interesting concept. If you think about it, at least 90 - 95% of all movies have characters that fit these functions.

I'm not judging whether this is good or bad, I'm just saying that it's true.

[Funk, E.]

Conflicts are most easily illustrated and comfortable for audiences to accept when the morality of the issue are clear. When two side reflect legitamate aspects of a moral delimma not only does the story become bogged down, but the audience becomes uncomfortable about either the legitamacy given to a side of an argument they do not argee with or the realization that the issue is not as clear as they would like it to be in their worldview. So moral ambiguity, bad. Black and white moral clarity, good... for the pocketbook.

[Fearless Freep]

So moral ambiguity, bad. Black and white moral clarity, good... for the pocketbook.

Well...moral ambiguity just doesn't have time to be fleshed out in a  90 minute action flick, so like 'commen sense' it's often played fast and loose with.  If you have 90 minutes to wrangle over a moral dillema, then you go for it, but if you have 90 minutes to escape the killer alien on your marooned space ship, the moral element to the story is going get short shrift

[Dunners]

You know Burgon? I've seen that book at my work lots of times( I work at a bookstore) but I've never looked at it really, I guess times too :)

[Goon]

Monsters tend to be like animals.  Unintelligent, and they kill out of instinct and hunger.  Human villains, on the other hand, can plan, trick, backstab, and be really evil just for the hell of it.
"All movies must contain a bad guy so that he can die in a vary creative, painful, and messy way."  That answer the question?  The best example is in the first "Octopus" movie.

-----ooo-'U'-ooo-----Kilroy was here.

[Nathan Shumate]

True, but a separate issue.  There are many great and morally ambiguous motion pictures (and other narratives) with protagonist and antagonist characters.  Their great strength is that human antagonists put human emotions and motives on the opposition to the protagonist.

[JohnL]

>Conflicts are most easily illustrated and comfortable for audiences to accept
>when the morality of the issue are clear

Except that the human bad guy is often such a small part of the story that leaving him out wouldn't substantially change the movie. Take Alien for example; What did making Ash and the company the bad guys really do for the story? Let's say that the company discovered the signal and honestly sent them there to investigate, Ash was just a normal guy who was a little impulsive (letting Kane back onto the ship) and who ends up being killed by the alien. Would the rest of the movie really be any different?

How about Aliens? In keeping with the theme of the first one, what if the company just didn't believe her and when they lost contact with the colony, they sent the team in to truly learn what happened. Burke ends up getting separated from the rest and killed. No major change to the story.

Alien 3 - 90% the same, but instead of Ripley being worried that the company would try to use the alien for some evil purpose, she's worried that they would try to save her and inadvertantly let the alien get free to reproduce.

Obviously, some movies make the human bad guy the focus, but I fail to see the need to have a human traitor in addition to the alien/creature/monster.

[Nathan Shumate]

JohnL wrote:

> Obviously, some movies make the human bad guy the focus, but I
> fail to see the need to have a human traitor in addition to the
> alien/creature/monster.

Very few movies can pull off having only one main plot with no subplots.  They're usually too straightforward and get boring.  That's one reason that action movies so often have a romance subplot (aside from the excuse to show boobies): sometimes people need a break from all the shooting and explosions.

[Funk, E.]

Well that and a romantic elemet icreases the demographic appeal. James Bond is so successful because it appeals to women as well with the romantic element in the formula.

Nathan: True I was covering a different facet of the question. Your point is well made. The human interface issue is a big part of why a monster movie frequently also has a human antagonist. Aliens are, well, alienating. You feel no affinity for their position or have a reason to be vested in their motives. Sometime the antagonist is provided so that you can have someone to feed to the monster that people won't mind seeing die.