How not to write a villain... Thumbnail is some of the best written villains in Cinema History...

*Hero:* "Wait, who are you?" *Villain:* "I was the guard in that meeting you attended. Last month? Remember?!" *Hero:* "I remember a meeting... and a random guard in the back... I have to be honest. This reveal is kinda falling flat on me."

Revealing the villain to the audience but not to the hero can work well. If the audience can see everyone's cards, it can see the villain and hero trying to outmanoeuvre each other. It makes every conversation between them tense. The audience is waiting for the moment the villain accidentally spills a piece of information that makes the hero suspicious. Columbo was build around this premise, that is why it shows the murder being committed at the start. The mystery being only a mystery by hiding information from the audience creates anti-tension.

What also made Moriarty's reveal engaging is the red herring. He made sure to throw Sherlock off of him by leaving clues that he was gay and nothing else and just some random dude who was about to cheat on Molly-his over exposure to perfume and leaving his number for Sherlock to call him unbeknownst to Molly who he was dating at the time. We the audience think it's Molly having bad luck with guys but then turns out he was hiding in plain sight all this time

One of the best villain introductions using the "hidden in plain sight" trope has got to be Yoshikage Kira. The fact that you just see him in the background as an ordinary citizen without a name does so much justice to his motive of being a serial killer with a peaceful, quiet life.

The Harry Potter misdirection trope is a good one, both because Harry himself, as the vessel through which we experience the story, is mislead, like you said, but also because by the end, we know WHY Harry was mislead, and the reason is literally hiding in plain sight in the same shot in which we see the distraction for the first time.

I sincerely enjoyed the Kingsman, but most of what you said was spot on. Another big issue that I have with "The Shepard" is that he is completely overshadowed by the other villain Rasputin (especially in the marketing). Rasputin was crazy, eccentric, an absolute ball of charisma who stole every scene he was in. He dies halfway through the movie and we're left with... A vaguely ominous dude, with an unclear backstory, motivations and goals. What doesn't help matters is that we are given the most generic backstory of "British Aristocracy took my land" as his entire reason for starting World War I, with the goal of wiping England off the face of the Earth. They could have done something with it and had him be a villain whose goals were to bring down Europe at large having experienced the evils of the kind of imperialism they partake in, but nope, he's just whiny and wants to destroy the world. Worst of all we are given absolutely no information on how in the living hell he was able to get the resources to do any of this, or how he was able to convince any of his followers (from different countries mind you, who have very little reason to want England destroyed) to go along with him Really the reveal leaves you with more questions than answers. Plus, he's just not the kind of villain the Kingsmen franchise is known for. Valentine and Poppy were fun eccentric villains with a lot of unique flavor.. "The Shepard" was every spy movie villain ever.

This is also why Emperor from Star wars is done so good - you see his face partialy in blured hologram but no heroes and no audience really knows who he is at the beggining. Everyone is in lack of knowledge but by music and simple lines audience can figure him out before the characters in the movies giving that irony in

One thing about Snape in the first movie, is that this was released well before the 7th book was, so no one really knew what side Snape would end up being on in the end. What we did know was that Snape and Harry were very antagonistic towards each other (Snape for then-unspecified reasons, and Harry responded likewise).

For me, the reason for them hiding the villain right from the start was painfully obvious: his face was going to be seen as a different character somewhere else in the movie. The bald head and extremely thick accent only told me to look for someone with a different accent and hair, and the one guy hovering in a few scenes matched the build of the villain.

A good example of hiding a villains face is the fire lord in avatar the last air bender. His face is always hidden behind the fire, the people we see interacting with him are his close family so they clearly see what he looks like, and his face isn’t revealed until the last season

For me, the ultimate villain reveal is Vader in the original SW. I was 4 when I saw it, so around 1982. But that entire first sequence with battle, the Stormtroopers, and then Vader rolling up, HUGE, all black, flowing cape, menacing voice...and even at a young age I could tell that even the other bad guys were scared of him. It might seem cliche' at this point, but that's a moment I've never forgotten in over 40 years and will stay with me forever. People really, REALLY don't know how to write compelling villains anymore and it's a real shame.

I think part of the problem was that The King’s Man was trying to be three different movies at once- if it had just tried to be one of them, it could’ve done it right. But as it is, it put so much emphasis on the Rasputin subplot, and the part about his son joining the war, that it had no time to properly develop an overarching villain. Even if we had seen his face, while it would’ve helped, it would’ve been so much better to just give him more of a personality or motive. But, of course, there was no time. Personally, I think it would have been far better if they just stretched the Rasputin sub-plot out into the whole film, and made him the villain (with a bit more development for him, of course). He was far more fun to watch, and it felt like taking an express train straight into Russia and back was just rushing that whole part of the story.

A villain is a thug, a super villain is an artist.

I enjoyed how Kingsman's boss villain was a mystery until the end. But the mystery villain didn't intrigue me as much since I was enjoying what was happening throughout the movie.

I assumed in the departed that Jack Nicholson was cast in shadow for two reasons: to avoid having to digitally de-age Nicholson and to imply the danger and mystery with which the youngster would view the life and character of the older gangster.

3 effective way to introduce villain imo is. 1. Show them right at the start with entrance that describes who they are. 2. Make them seem like they would be a supporting character. 3. Use a pawn.

I just believe the title should be "how to reveal a villain"

I didn't watch the Kingsman. But from what you said they tried to mimic James Bond's uber-villain Blofeld from the original movies. It is revealed to the audience the SPECTRE organization in the second Bond movie "From Russia with love", but we never see Blofeld, just shadows, or half his body. Bond has to climb up the organization, where every enemy has a number, until defeating the number 2 in Thunderbolt. In the last movie of the Sean Connery cycle, we know that he must now face the number 1 and we finally see Blofeld for the first time. For this moment on he is a recurring character for several movies until the copyright fight in the seventies that "killed" the character. So, I don't really think that it is a problem to hide the villain from the audience, but I understand that in 007 movies such as Thunderbolt nobody knows who is the number one, not even the members of SPECTRE. Perhaps not even the number 2. By the way, for any fans of Austin Powers, you must watch the Sean Connery 007 movies to understand all references.

The idea that the audience and the characters not being on the same page is a bad thing is a slap in the face to the concept of mysteries and reveals. Let's imagine that we are just instantly shown his face. What changes? We just know what he looks like; he loses the dramatic presence of a shadowy figure. The *real* flaw is that he's not engaging, not that he's hidden. Seeing him in shadows is a neat way to get the audience to question what a character looks like, and can be used to pay off a reveal extremely well. For an example, let's look at Fire Lord Ozai from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Zuko, Azula, and a lot of other people all knew what he looked like. But, we didn't. Why? Because it symbolised how far the audience was from defeating him; he was a shadowy background figure, untouchable but always there. It was only when Zuko finally saw him again that we saw his face. We were finally seeing into the Fire Nation (through Zuko, and later the Gaang) and were in reach of Ozai. It's a coincidence that Zuko was there and it served to emphasise the moment, but regardless, it symbolises something. A villain reveal shouldn't be thrown out because "um the characters saw his face and so should the audience" when it could be used to place emphasis on the right moment, to underline a theme.

I agree with your take on the kingsman! I wasn’t sure why I had decided to stop watching the movie halfway through when I tried watching it a few days ago. This perfectly explained why! I was frustrated with not knowing what the villain looked like while other characters did. Rasputin’s character gave me more anticipation than the main villain himself. It felt like the reveal of the main villain would not be as fun or exciting to see as the Rasputin part of the plot was. Great video!

The only disagreement I'll have with what you said about the villain reveal in the Kings Man is that the intent is to surprise the audience at the same time as the heroes. But not revealing the villain, we don't become omniscient viewers, but instead it serves to put us directly in line with the protagonists of the story. We know what they know. When that betrayal comes, it's meant for us to feel it as they do. Not saying it was executed perfectly, but I understood what they were going for.

Sounds like your video title should be how not to stage a villain.

Also it depends on what kind of villain you're going for. The villain in Dragon Quest XI might just be your prototypical categorically evil villain (then again, so is Sauron). But what makes him work is the buld-up. He isn't seen in the entire first half of the game, but he is mentioned. So you know that there is a looming threat there that the party will eventually have to deal with. But then just as you're about to get to your goal, you see him for the first time. And he does something that showcases just how dangerous he is to the world by not only destroying the thing you were seeking in order to defeat him, but also by causing a cataclysm and changing the party dynamic to the point where it becomes a different game as a result.

When i watched the kings man i felt the exact way you described. I wasn’t very curious about who it was even though the film tried to make you. I’ve thought about why that was and you explained it excellently. Love your videos. First i watched was the Little miss sunshine. Subbed right after. Absolutely. Love. This. Channel!

I love your videos! Keep up the great work!

That bit about how having a new villain kill an old villain to show how strong they are reminds me of how in Tar Trek Next Gen, the token klingon crew member became the go to character to get knocked out to show how strong the monster of the week is, to the point it's now a trope. Try not to overdo a plot convenience, kids.

I liked the reveal of the villian in Kingsman. Mostly because of the ammount of hate and venom you can feel from him in every scene. Like a viper in a patch of grass; you feel it's nearby, but you overlook it until it bites you. So filled with hate, that he started one of the greatest and most terrible wars in history, just to attempt to weaken Britan.

Snape was a anti hero not a villian. Harry's dad was his bully and he was a double agent

The Snape misdirection pays out in the first movie: his scar was reacting to back face McTurban

+1 new subscriber. I somehow stumbled upon this video and I must say - FANTASTIC essay! - i agree with your take on kingsman. However, I want to point out you as a creator! I watch endless video essays and this is, no joke, one of the best “short” video essays I’ve watched . Your script and editing - they are great …. However I believe what makes this really stand out to me is your choice of references . You know Heath ledger’s joker is a staple in the video essay community and cover it in such an elegant way. The use of the kane reference from WWE (WWF in my day 😅) …. fabulous! You’ve made me consider villains in a new light . No pun intended. Keep up the INCREDIBLE work!

The Walking Dead introduced Negan in a very cool way too.

Excellent video, man. As always, it makes me reconsider stuff in my own scripts. And I get what you mean about not wanting to turn into a critical video channel, I feel the same way. But as you show in this video, sometimes you have to highlight failed attempts at certain ideas in order to praise successful attempts at those same ideas in other works.

I saw your video on little miss sunshine and had to see more, so glad I found your channel!!

Fantastic incite! Thank you.

- Sees Megamind in thumbnail. - Checks the comments without watching the video. - Not a single Megamind mentioned.

That's a good way of putting it. It's like the suitcase and pulp fiction. No one except for one person saw what was in the briefcase so I don't feel betrayed

I loved the concept of The Kings Man, and I do hope we get a World War II version, but yeah, after Rasputin’s death, the movie feels kinda… villainless. I know Hitler is supposed to be just a pawn, as weird as that sounds out of context, but if they do make a WWII version, they’re really gonna have to step their game up with the Shepherd

ProZD made a great sketch about these kinds of twist villains: „It was me all along, Bobby Smith!“ „Who are you again?“ „Remember, I am that one business guy from the beginning. I bet you didn‘t expect that!“ „oh yeah, I vaguely remember you. what was your name again?“

I didn't even know there was a third Kingsman film and I'm watching this video nearly a year after you made it

These videos always spark an “ah-ha”/lightbulb moment for me!!

Excellent work

This was extremely helpful

I don't understand the whole premise of "ooOOOoOOOoo mystery villain!" in the first place. Yeah you can argue it sets up some intrigue as you try and guess who's whom in the film, but to me that seems so distracting as you spend more time trying to deduce and less time just enjoying the film. I'd prefer if we knew good from bad immediately so that we, the audience knows who's whom, but the characters don't so we get off on how they interact with each other and we know a secret they don't. THAT is suspenseful. Never knowing who will say the wrong thing, or tip their hand too early, or drop a clue that everyone else may have missed but the other party caught it quick and runs with it. I feel that the "mystery villain" has been done to death and needs a breather.

He has some good points. But I swear this dude just has a vendetta against dramatic irony

I feel like it's worth mentioning that in The Kingsman they're clearly emulating the reveal of Blofeld from James Bond, since Kingsman as a franchise in many ways is a lampoon of the James Bond series. With Blofeld in the original movies they also did the thing where his henchmen see his face but we don't, but I feel like that still worked because of a couple of things. First, it helped compound that Blofeld wasn't a field agent like Bond but rather a mastermind running a shadowy criminal organization. This compounded by how he very rarely raises his voice and is almost always seen sitting and running things from a well furnished office or conference room. Second Blofeld's reveal was well paced in his reveals over multiple movies. In _Dr. No_ we're introduced to SPECTER but not Blofeld. Then in _From Russia With Love_ we're introduced to Blofeld being the head of SPECTER but we never see his face. Only the Henchmen he sends out after Bond. Then in _Thunderball_ we finally see him from the front, but his face is still obscured and tantalizingly we almost see his face but not quite. Each movie helped to build audience anticipation, until finally we got the reveal of Blofeld's face in the third act of _You Only Live Twice._ And it helps I think that there's no special twist or cutesly backstory to Blofeld. He's just Blofeld, the cold blooded leader of SPECTER. And the payoff feels earned, because it establishes IMO that Bond, and by proxy we the audience, had not earned the right to know who Blofeld was at first. Only by sticking with it and working through the ranks of SPECTER does Bond earn the right to finally come face to face with his nemesis, and by extension we the audience have only earned the right to finally see him after we follow Bond through that whole ordeal. But in The Kingsman, they tried to fit that whole multi movie arc into the span of one movie. And so the reveal feels rushed and kind of lame. Like imagine if Rasputin and Mata Hari had been allowed to be the main villains of their own respective movies and had the slow buildup of who the leader of the secret organization was, I think it could have been stronger. But alas

I think we can all agree the true villain reveal in The King’s Man was in that credit scene

give snape a bullshit redemption arc in last 5 minutes of his character

What you call "frustrating" others may reference as being 'suspenseful'. Great video though, very thoughtful and evocative perspective. I gladly subscribe for more of this kind of well presented content.

The villain presentation in Kingsman is obviously a reference to several James Bond films and a parody of them. I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds hilarious.

The thumbnail is very misleading. I dont expect to watch a video about kingsman. Heck i dont even watch one.

With storytelling the obvious formula is it takes a great villain to build an even greater hero. If one or the other is weak? The story will fall on it's own face. A hero is never just is anymore than a villain just is and how you introduce them and reveal their motivations will greatly impact the show. Usually heroes have a weakness they need to overcome and villains with their obvious strength? Have a weakness that just needs to be found and how creatively the show plays with these basic formula's determines how good the show is to the audience. This is really basic stuff but all good stories have it.

I've tried writing in so as to hide the identity of the character, but I found that I lost a lot when I did. If the character is central enough to be worth hiding, he has two roles in the story, and you need to write around them in both. Then when they are revealed, the reader will have been prevented from knowing them well enough to care, defeating the whole purpose. I'd rather show the reader the motivating factors and character development openly so that they can get interested in the character, and instead of having one question about who the character is, they can have a slew of different questions, because they understand the character, the pressures on them, and their duality and the inevitability of conflict of one sort or another.

I enjoyed the movie but felt the main bad guy was boring. I greatly enjoyed Rasputin as a bad guy.

Late comment here. I largely agree with the rule of letting the audience know the same things as the protagonist(s), but I'd point out at least two exceptions to the rule. The first is when there's some soul-deep secret that completely redefines how we view them and their situation... say, that (late spoiler warning for Inception) Dom is responsible for Mal's death. The stage is set for that reveal across most of the film, with the events surrounding her death illustrated, its impact on the protagonist highlighted several times, the world-building rules about how it could even be done established, etc. We may or may not have realized that there was one more missing piece that would tie everything together, but our attention was still focused on the spot where that missing piece would go. The second is a frequent feature of heist movies: the unspoken plan. Right at the climax, everything seems to have gone terribly wrong... and then it's revealed that no, this was actually the plan all along and the antiheroes come out smelling like roses. The protagonists knew all about the plan from the start, but we in the audience didn't. I think part of why this works is that we watch that type of movie in a different way. Like going to a magic show, we want the entertainer to trick us and impress us while doing so.

Honestly The King's Man was a good film, but I didn't care about the villain but I want to mention one excellent example of writing a character, not really a villain in this case but a twist character Credence from Fantastic Beasts and where to find them in almost all scenes involving his sister is shown in the background I'm not gonna write the plot of the entire film here but basically everything suggests that his sister is an obscurial, but it turns out he's the obscurial Grindelwald is written pretty well too, he's disguised as Mr. Graves for most of the film, and when he's first introduced all we see is a shot of his back, and later when we he's disguised as Graves he's also introduced the same way. Also, I guess both Graves and Grindelwald have similar haircuts, which could have been a way of teasing the plot twist.

This video makes a great point the Snape example. It's hypothetically possible for a movie to, essentially, lie to the audience even when there is no narration or even dialogue.

???? Bro the villain in the kingsman was a plot twist ( an obvious one but still a plot twist ) we couldn’t see his face because it was supposed to be a surprise, that character is underwhelming but not because of how he was framed, that’s full pulpy goodness

I think having Rasputin be the villain of that movie could've been way more fun. He was just so charismatic and fun to watch on screen like the previous two villains in that franchise.

I'm working on my first story and I understand all too well how important it is to get the introduction of your main villain done properly. I believe a story is only as good as its villain, and if that opportunity is lost on a crappy introduction then best of luck having a memorable story that captures readers and leaves an impression on them. I believe a good villain can't just be an obstacle in the way of the hero accomplishing what they want. There has to be more to them than just that. It's very important for the reader/audience to understand why they have the motivations they do.

I very much dig your work. Wondering if you've ever seen the Cooper/Beery version of Treasure Island...

would love to hear your thoughts on comparing him to ATLAs villian

Following characters and their feelings are what makes Breaking bad & Better call Saul so good.

I do believe the reaction we all had was" oh, that guy?"

Saw's villain reveal still one of the best.

6:07 don't we sort of find that out in the first movie?

9:53 Well said, I have not seen the third Kingsmen film to tell you about it's villain, since as far as I know it takes place in the past and has nothing to do with the 2 first films, it just takes place in the same universe. If you can I would like you to review the other 2 main villains in the series.

Even after reading all the books and seeing all the movies, I was still convinced Severus Snape was evil. The only difference is that he was not on Voldemort’s side. Dumbledore trusted Snape because he was a brutal secret weapon. Evil is unique because you can use it as a weapon without being it. That is how wars are won.

I liked kingsman movies but I never watched the king's man. Thank you for telling me it's bad. I had doubts about it being good and you confirmed it.

A cool way to introduce a twist villain that features heavily in flashbacks before his reveal would be to have him turn around and we see his face, but that doesn't tell us anything about his identity. His eyes have been gouged out and the hair and eyebrows are gone, as well as most of the flesh on the lips. He is covered in burn scars and his voicebox is damaged beyond repair. We have no idea what he looked like before the horrible accident, and his build is generic, so he could be anyone. Add in some well-placed red herrings and we're in business. Also, the damaged voice box could lead up to an awesome confrontation with the hero. Hero walks into a dark room. Villain: the doctors tell me i have four years to live. And my voice will die before i do. So here we sit, me and my words, each dwindling into nothing. But while I shall cease to speak, you shall never cease to hear my voice in your nightmares.

Buck fifty here, watched "King's Man," didn't even realize that the villain was in shots previous. I just got a big, "who the hell are you?"

another great example of this is how fisk was handled in the daredevil show. you don't see him until Matt knows about him (at least i believe)

Harry Potter's Snape was an Anti-Villain. Snape was assigned by Dumblemore to be antagonist against his will. Snape's job was to watch over Harry Potter as well as to be his protector. Snae was force to be hostile to Harry. Oddly Snape had been discovered to have been in love with Harry's mother. If Snape was able to fight back against the bullying by Harry's father, he could have become a friend of Harry's parents as well as becoming Harry's godfather. Snape was portray as a tragic character who help Harry simply because he was in love with Harry's mother. For Snape, he is one of the best tragic Anti-villains in history of motion pictures and literature.

If I see a villain introduced from behind, it either needs to be short, at the beginning of the movie, or after we have met them in a movie designed for you to try and work out who the villain is.

There is a much bigger problem which is the TV and movie rule 'if they don't reveal the villains face then you immediately know its someone you are seeing'. Then it usually becomes a fairly simple case of deduction its not the heroes, It is not the red herring who is acting like a villain but it is someone in and around the main group. This is usually enough to thin it down to one or two people. Now sometimes they try to be sneaky by having it be Bob the friendly security guard or the like, a minor background character you see around. Now in TV shows it can be a little simpler as if the go out of their way no to show a person it is the new character for that episode. Its closely related to 'The Know Actor' say in a spy thriller they say the mole it is one of these people and flash up a series of pictures if one of them is an actor you've seen before guess who it is.

I completely agree with you, however I wonder how this applies to 'Tales from the Crypt' season 6 episode 15 🤔

I prefer using underestimation to show my villains. The villain is usually introduced first, and has a starting scene I find hard to forget. Each villain introduces himself, or herself during the start of each of my stories, sometimes later. Once you are into the story you immediately realize the most important part of the villain - and thus also that of the protagonist - the mindset. Whether it is a fixed mindset or a growth mindset helps you to better feel like you are actually witnessing the events described in the story. Bad fiction forgets this rule. You need to base your villain on a person you have known about from real life, then flesh this character out and slowly work your way around things so that everything fits - and there are not too many connections or loose ends in your story. Begin asking yourself what if X was scary, like Stephen King does and that is where you can add the underestimation your other characters show towards the villain to build him or her up, like you do with the protagonist and other characters too. Thanks for your video man!! Excellent and on point narration. Best wishes to you from Reykjavik in Iceland!!.

The Harry Snape scene, i realised right now, his scar acted up because quirrel was right beside Snape. And that made his scar hurt.

When I watched the kings man I genuinely didn’t even know who it was, like it wasn’t that big of a reveal

nice

This reminds me of when they hide the hero for a while in the beginning too. Specifically Incredible Hulk. It always seemed silly to me that he was kept hidden in the beginning even though both the trailers and our own knowledge know exactly what he looks like.

6:25 Not only is the actual villain in the same shot. But the person who you think is the villain glances over at the actual bad guy cause he noticed Harry's pain when he was ataring at him. Snape kinda made the connection right then and there on who Voldemort was.

In the Harry Potter cut scene I noticed that Snape reacted to Harry's pain by looking at Quirrell - not something I caught in the film when I watched it previously but it showed why Snape would suspect Quirrell later on in the film

The main thing on writing a villain, the audience reveal should be either before the protagonist knows the identity, ir when the identity is discovered. any other showcases of a villain are a outside perspective, thus we dont see it.

I agree about the villain from the Kings Man. Plus he was kind of generic. He loves his goats, but then he kills one in a fit of pique because he's eeeeevil. He lives on a rock spire in the middle of nowhere for... reasons... and it just happens to be the only place in the world where you can find a particular type of wool, conveniently for the protagonists. The movie overall was fun enough, but between the villain not being very impressive, and the misdirection with the son's war ambitions... I really disliked that subplot, actually.

I like the first 2 kingsman movie. Turned the 3rd one off half way through, probably the only time I’ve ever not finished a movie.

hmmm this isn't 'how not to write a villain'... this is 'how not to use the camera in the wrong way to introduce a villain'

1:48 it sounds more like you’re annoyed they’ve chosen to hide the villain's identity. Edit - so it probably doesn’t help that the reveal is pretty crap as well. It sounds like there are just too many scenes with the villain before the reveal, and not enough with his alter ego. Like they wanted to have him be mysterious, but wanted lots of scenes of his perspective throughout (which inherently undermines mystery).

What I will love to see is a movie that creates a charming yet evil villain the audience loves but the hero kills on the first movie, then in the sequel when the hero destroys the new villain it is reveal that he was just a puppet, and then the villain from the first film appears having a big scar but revealing he survived and defeats the hero the audience would be shocked not only for the returning of this villain but because he also wins, and the third film would be about the secondary heroes trying to defeat for good this villain and saving the main hero

The hidden villain Troup rarely works. The best example I can give is blofelt in the James bond series with the exception of the Christoph waltz version. We first get introduced to blofelt in from Russia with love as a calculating no nonsense man in charge of specter. In thunderball he is portrayed the same with both films obscuring his face. In both films this works he is just as mysterious as the organization he runs and if we never got a name or face to the character he would go down as one of the best villains in cinema. Unfortunately we go you only live twice some would hail this as one of the best bond films or at least most influential. In it blofelt is kept in the shadows like in the previous movies but his character is dramatically different almost indecisive about how to handle some of the situations including how to deal with bond. By the time we get a face reveal of Donald pleasance most of what made the character work in previous movies had already evaporated and were left with an incompetent villain unable to kill bond and he just spouts monolog. If it was a one off I could forgive it but it would continue into her majestys secret service and diamonds are forever and technically the opening to for your eyes only. Blofelt wouldn't work until specter where the man in shadows from Russia and thunderball would be brought into the light of day. Waltzs version is that complete character with no real flaws even going into no time to die he remains in character to previously established lore.

What I learned, fomo is powerful.

If dramatic irony is the audience knowing more than the characters, then is there a term for when the opposite is done well? For example, in a heist story when key details of the heist aren't revealed to the audience until the very end?

The only villain from the king's man i remember is Rasputin

Not talking about movies but games, the dentist from payday 2 is in my opinion is the perfect villain. We work for him, and he never seems malicious in any way. Eventually, we stop working for him, and Locke appears to be the more obvious villain, especially as he sets us up in Alaska. However, when Bain gets kidnapped, Locke becomes our ally, and the dentist our villain.

It's not so much how to write a villain as how to not ruin a mystery for my part. I hate the live action Batman iterations and all modern take on Batman for this. In the Batman Animated Series and Justice League, Batman was a mystery. How he worked was a mystery. So his near invincibility could be chalked upto his mistereous ways. We could say he had superior techniques to find out information. It worked. But the recent trend of grounding a mythos in reality shatters that mystery. And so we are left with a Batman who tortures people for information, knowing that statistically it is less likely to succeed.

I know it is not really related, but I am curious if you did a JJBA Golden Wind analise on Diavolo, has he is hidden until about the end, but uses another form of him in order to hide. I am just curious, and I know it's probably a no.

The only reason we feel cheated not seeing the Shepherds face in King's Man is because we were given nothing else to latch onto. Nothing to intrigue us. Nothing to make us feel invested. The classic Bond villain Blofeld is a good comparison. Blofeld doesn't show his face but his manner of speaking, attire, mysterious codename, and his cat all give him enough character to intrigue us and make us want to learn more. The Shepherd is just some bald dude who lives in a barn. Blofeld also has much clearer motivations whereas I *still* don't fully understand the Shepherd's motivation, even after watching the movie and reading the plot summary multiple times.

Honestly the fact that Rasputin is more memorable then the actual bad guy says a lot

Well it felt a lot like Wilson behind his fence, you know from home improvement.

In your point about Harry Potter and Snape, Harry is also looking forward n the same direction as Voldemort who is concealed in cloth (otherwise why else is he facing Harry other than impartiality scheming with Snape even if we the audience don’t hear it)