Does lack of a Big Bad spoil a season?

[Mr Trick]

What I mean is when you have season long big bad who doesn't appear in many of the episodes does this limit their impact or take away from the season?

One of the flaws with S1 of Buffy was that the Master didn't feature in nearly enough episodes and sometimes when he did his story wasn't that well advanced. I get that they only did 12 episodes that season, but still think he could have featured more than he did.

If Spike and Dru had not featured so much during the second then I think you really would have lost some of the fun and interest of that season.

It is important to get a balance too, so they don't have to be in every episode and it is good to have stand alones. I did like how they did it in three where the BB were linked to the personal side of the characters which were also a big part of that season. And I think the Mayor and Faith appeared in just enough episodes to make them important enough, but also the central characters were given room to deveolpment without them at times too.

 

[Taake]

I think most big bads of Buffy were pretty well-balanced arc-wise (especially the Master, Spike and Dru and the Mayor)

I think it's worse when they amp up a big bad (*cough cough* The First *cough cough*) and ultimately it gets tedious because all they do is walk around and chat about how big and bad they are and in the end it doesn't deliver (ubervamps super hard to kill... but suddenly in Chosen they're as killable as any vampire if not more as newly awakened Potentials can hold their own against them).

When it comes to big bads I do think there's a balance but to err on the side of caution I would say that the earlier seasons got it right with their "less is more" attitude.

 

[Mr Trick]

I think most big bads of Buffy were pretty well-balanced arc-wise (especially the Master, Spike and Dru and the Mayor)

I think it's worse when they amp up a big bad (*cough cough* The First *cough cough*) and ultimately it gets tedious because all they do is walk around and chat about how big and bad they are and in the end it doesn't deliver (ubervamps super hard to kill... but suddenly in Chosen they're as killable as any vampire if not more as newly awakened Potentials can hold their own against them).

When it comes to big bads I do think there's a balance but to err on the side of caution I would say that the earlier seasons got it right with their "less is more" attitude.

Think you are right although I still think they could have used the Master a bit better, but then if some of the stand alone episodes had been better than maybe his absence would have been so noticable.

Good point about them being amped up too much. That is maybe the only thing I didn't like with Glory is that once they introduced her that maybe she was in too many episodes with a bit too much of her just talking for the sake of it. But mostly I loved Glory and the stuff they did with her.

 

[thetopher]

Big Bads have to have a balance of screen time that shows that their actually doing things/being effectively evil:

In S1 The Master isn't seen that much and when he is...well he's stuck underground. Hard to make him threatening when he's trapped somewhere- at least until that final episode.

In S2 we have a good balance. When Spike shows up he's generally awesome- either being shown to be competent or charasmatic. He's usually doing something interesting even if its just walking around. When the torch passes to Angelus even more so. Angelus is in every episode (because he's the only Big Bad that was even in the credits) and usually gets some good lines whenever he appears.

S3 we have the Mayor, who's a mystery villain. In his every appearance we found out more about him, his plans for the town and his ultimate end game. Add to that his natural screen presence and his humanising relationship with Faith and it's easy to see why he's seen as an effective Big Bad.

S4- Adam is barely on-screen and when he is he doesn't say/do that much. The most interesting thing about his 'big' plot is his conspiring with Spike and secretly sabotaging the Scooby's unity. Other than that Maggie Walsh was more sinister.

S5- Glory was another mystery villain. While I don't think she had that effective onscreen presence (others may disagree) she had that 'we don't know who she is/what her plans are' that the Mayor had. But she also had raw power which made her probably the biggest threat.
One downside is that to explain the length of her story arc Glory came across as kinda lazy and also pretty stupid.

S6- The Trio weren't really a mystery and didn't have any big plans, nor did they hold you're attention that much imo. They were amusing and Warren was a heinous villain but ultimately they didn't lend any sense of threat or direction to the season- their arc doesn't 'build' anywhere.
But apparently that was the point.
Dark Willow is a shot in the arm that the season needed, and after 18 episodes of nothing very threatening, she perhaps comes across as more effective than she really is. Still, shock value adds something (just like it did with Angelus or Faith)- a former ally/friend turning evil is fun to watch.

S7- The First is really effectively built up... (possibly the best imo) until we find out that it's the First. Then it's onscreen/referred to far too much and yet it doesn't do anything. It's arc is artificially stretched out and feels rather flimsy until Caleb shows up. But until then the First just talks/taunts- and even then doesn't even interact with any of the main characters. Wasted opportunity imo.

So yeah, the better seasons tend to have the good big bads (2, 3 and 5). But then again sometimes the seasons being weak/less good has little to do with the villain and more to do with other factors, such as the plot/characterisation and such.
I mean, even if Adam is a bit dull/silly, I still like plenty of S4.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

It's tricky with big bads because you have to balance how many episodes they're in with a good story. If the big bad is in every episode and doesn't do anything, or even if they do, it can get tired fast. You can do what Once Upon a Time does and have two big bads for the season, one in the first half and one in the second, kind of like s2. But I prefer what they did with the Mayor and Faith in s3. I would have even liked Adam if they handled him right. He was introduced a little too late, then shoved aside for the Faith and Jonathan episodes. We needed more of him onscreen I think and doing something that seemed real threatening.

Think you are right although I still think they could have used the Master a bit better, but then if some of the stand alone episodes had been better than maybe his absence would have been so noticable.

Good point about them being amped up too much. That is maybe the only thing I didn't like with Glory is that once they introduced her that maybe she was in too many episodes with a bit too much of her just talking for the sake of it. But mostly I loved Glory and the stuff they did with her.

I still love the Master but I agree he could have been in a few more scenes. Had they though through the whole Angel/Darla/Master backstory at the time then maybe we would have got more there. And even though hes stuck underground he still does stuff and comes off threatening. I agree about Glory, she should have gotten the Mayor treatment. Introduce her, then have her on the sidelines until mid season where she can start doing stuff.

One downside is that to explain the length of her story arc Glory came across as kinda lazy and also pretty stupid.

S7- The First is really effectively built up... (possibly the best imo) until we find out that it's the First. Then it's onscreen/referred to far too much and yet it doesn't do anything. It's arc is artificially stretched out and feels rather flimsy until Caleb shows up. But until then the First just talks/taunts- and even then doesn't even interact with any of the main characters. Wasted opportunity imo.

Yea I agree about Adam and s4. Yea Glory just appeared to be doing who knows what the whole season, just sitting around asking (threatening) people about the key. I think maybe it's a fault on the writers, since there was really nothing to Glorys plan. Get the key, open the portal. There should have been something else that she could have been doing or planning. Also Ben is Glory. I thought that was stupid and a lazy way to explain that she's not always Glory so it's not like she's just sitting around doing nothing. I also agree about the First. it just seemed too heavy handed. Once they introduce the first, it's ALL about the First, even though the First is never doing anything! I really don't see what the big rush to stop the First was about because we never got a good plan or timeline of what it needed to do to accomplish it's goals. Sure they needed to protect the potentials from getting killed by bringers, they tried to bring in the Turok-Han, which I still think was poorly used, but like you said it wasn't until Caleb showed up that things got interesting.

Anyways back to the question, I think that yes not enough screen time does lessen the impact or threat of the big bad, but too much can feel like a drag. So there's a balance needed.

 

[Mr Trick]

It's tricky with big bads because you have to balance how many episodes they're in with a good story. If the big bad is in every episode and doesn't do anything, or even if they do, it can get tired fast. You can do what Once Upon a Time does and have two big bads for the season, one in the first half and one in the second, kind of like s2. But I prefer what they did with the Mayor and Faith in s3. I would have even liked Adam if they handled him right. He was introduced a little too late, then shoved aside for the Faith and Jonathan episodes. We needed more of him onscreen I think and doing something that seemed real threatening.

I still love the Master but I agree he could have been in a few more scenes. Had they though through the whole Angel/Darla/Master backstory at the time then maybe we would have got more there. And even though hes stuck underground he still does stuff and comes off threatening. I agree about Glory, she should have gotten the Mayor treatment. Introduce her, then have her on the sidelines until mid season where she can start doing stuff.

Yea I agree about Adam and s4. Yea Glory just appeared to be doing who knows what the whole season, just sitting around asking (threatening) people about the key. I think maybe it's a fault on the writers, since there was really nothing to Glorys plan. Get the key, open the portal. There should have been something else that she could have been doing or planning. Also Ben is Glory. I thought that was stupid and a lazy way to explain that she's not always Glory so it's not like she's just sitting around doing nothing. I also agree about the First. it just seemed too heavy handed. Once they introduce the first, it's ALL about the First, even though the First is never doing anything! I really don't see what the big rush to stop the First was about because we never got a good plan or timeline of what it needed to do to accomplish it's goals. Sure they needed to protect the potentials from getting killed by bringers, they tried to bring in the Turok-Han, which I still think was poorly used, but like you said it wasn't until Caleb showed up that things got interesting.

Anyways back to the question, I think that yes not enough screen time does lessen the impact or threat of the big bad, but too much can feel like a drag. So there's a balance needed.

I don't know I think there was more to Glory then you think. I guess the fact that she looked great but could still kick arse like Buffy was something they played on, and also Kramer did bring a lot of crasma to the role and played the comedy stuff really well. Also you had her as a real physical threat to Buffy which fed into a big part of Buffy's theme of that season, and then you had the memeable scene with Spike where he refuses to give up the information despite taking one hell of a beating.

 

[Taake]

S4- Adam is barely on-screen and when he is he doesn't say/do that much. The most interesting thing about his 'big' plot is his conspiring with Spike and secretly sabotaging the Scooby's unity. Other than that Maggie Walsh was more sinister.
.

Isn't that because Maggie Walsh was supposed to be the big bad/sinister lady but then like mid-season the actress wanted out?

 

[Mr Trick]

Isn't that because Maggie Walsh was supposed to be the big bad/sinister lady but then like mid-season the actress wanted out?

Think you maybe on to something. Its a shame about that as the actress was really good and it would have made for a much more interesting big bad I think.

 

[NothingVentured]

Not really. It's all a matter of opinion, but I liked S6 plenty until the Big Bad Willow stuff, which I thought was a joke. I'd have preferred no Big Bad to that.

The thing about Big Bads are the payoffs have to be worth the set-ups. To me, the only one who accomplished that was Glory. Angelus, by himself, was a crappy one. The build-up, Buffy finally being able to kill him, was great, but his motivations and threat-level were always suspect to me by the time of the finale. The Mayer just wanted to be a big snake in an era of fighter jets. Adam at least had the whole metaphor thing working strong, even if he was weak character-wise. The First was terribly under-used.

tl;dr: I don't think big bads and season enjoyability are intertwined.

 

[Mr Trick]

Not really. It's all a matter of opinion, but I liked S6 plenty until the Big Bad Willow stuff, which I thought was a joke. I'd have preferred no Big Bad to that.

The thing about Big Bads are the payoffs have to be worth the set-ups. To me, the only one who accomplished that was Glory. Angelus, by himself, was a crappy one. The build-up, Buffy finally being able to kill him, was great, but his motivations and threat-level were always suspect to me by the time of the finale. The Mayer just wanted to be a big snake in an era of fighter jets. Adam at least had the whole metaphor thing working strong, even if he was weak character-wise. The First was terribly under-used.

tl;dr: I don't think big bads and season enjoyability are intertwined.

Well like Angelus Dark Willow becoming a big bad was a great twist which you didn't see coming. Considering Angelus was the hyde to Angel's jekyll then I don't really see how his motivations were that weak. Also it wasn't just him, but also Spike and Dru and they made for a nice threesome which again added to all of their narratives. The Mayor was a great a big bad, and your critque could be made of so many villains in so many shows. If he had just jumped into a fighter jet then it would have been a bit dull don't you think? It is supposed to be a supernatural show after all😉

 

[NothingVentured]

Spike was in a wheelchair for most of the season and Dru never felt a threat. I'm not saying they (or the Mayor) weren't interesting characters, just that they weren't great Big Bads. Angelus was supposed to be a superbad, vicious vampire and all he does is kill some fish and Jenny. They had to insert a strung together apocalypse threat that didn't make sense to up the danger level. It's great emotionally, no question.

I'm not talking about the Mayor piloting a jet. I'm saying it's dumb to want to go from invulnerable dude to big snake in a time of dynamite and fighter jets. Did what happened with The Judge not make him pause to think? Great character, but as a Big Bad he was kinda weak for me.

To me, the only BB that worked on all levels (emotion, metaphor, motivation, threat factor) was Glory.

But I enjoyed all seasons--S5 isn't even my fav. Hence my opinion that lacking a big bad doesn't spoil a season. I think Jasmine was a pretty good one and she doesn't redeem S4 for me. 😛

 

[thetopher]

The Mayor was a great a big bad, and your critque could be made of so many villains in so many shows.

Agreed. Basically any and all of the Big bads could have been defeated by a fighter jet. That critisicm of the Mayor makes no sense.

In fact in snake form he was far deadly than Glory.

Glory as metaphor is marmite -you either like her or hate her. And she doesn't connect to the audience on an emotional level- she's just 'insane/evil'- there's no nuance there.

 

[NothingVentured]

Glory was a God and unkillable outside of the Ben angle. Snake!Mayor wasn't. In fact he chose to go from invulnerable to vulnerable.

 

[Mr Trick]

But when you break it all down you can always find plot holes in villains involved in genre shows or films. So what it comes down to is how effective is the actor playing said Villain? In the case of the Mayor I say very effective. Was he or she an interesting character? Again I would say yes about the Mayor. His involvement with Faith and the whole father/daughter relationship added another sinister layer to his character. And did he bring something new to Buffy? Again I think he. His character was a logical extension of the people running things not being being on the up and up theme. And the fact that it all builds to graudation day and his big plot is perfect.

 

[NothingVentured]

He brought something new, yet was an extension of an existing theme? I'd also disagree about his relationship with Faith. I rolled my eyes back then and still do. His fastidiousness and quirks are what made him interesting to me but those don't translate to good Big Baddery to me.

But I'm not trying to convince anyone. It's an argument done a million times on a million forums. I was just explaining why I don't think having/not having a Big Bad matters much to the season as a whole.

 

[thetopher]

Glory was a God and unkillable outside of the Ben angle. Snake!Mayor wasn't. In fact he chose to go from invulnerable to vulnerable.

Glory got hit by a truck and then turned into Ben- far more kill-able that the Mayor actually.

 

[Fuffy Baith]

I don't know I think there was more to Glory then you think.

No, I think Glory as a character was fine. Like you said she was strong, she was funny and Clare Kramer did a great job with what she was given. But that's all surfacey stuff. I guess maybe it's just preference, but I just wanted Glory to do more, instead of sucking peoples minds and whining about not finding the key. The scene with Spike is great, and that's what I'm talking about, she should have been doing stuff like that from the beginning if finding the key was so important and on a time restraint.

And she doesn't connect to the audience on an emotional level- she's just 'insane/evil'- there's no nuance

I agree. She was a fun an interesting character, but ultimately I just didn't care about her motives and plan and killing Dawn. Really all she wanted was to go home. Sure in doing so it would kill Dawn and a bunch of people and open dimensions to other hell worlds, but those were just the consequences of obtaining her goal.

 

[AnthonyCordova]

I think the minute-by-minute amount of screen time the big bad has isn't important; how their time is used while they are on screen is the only thing that matters. If the circumstances surrounding the big bad are complicated, then it would be required to spend some time as the season develops to attend to those things. If the circumstances and the big bad are not as involved or complicated, then less time is required. However much time we spend with the big bad on camera after that is really up to how well they are used. If the time they spend on screen is riveting and compelling, then it doesn't really matter how often they show up, because the audience is happy. If it is not well done, any extra time on screen at all will feel like wasted time and will be resented. My favorite big bads of Buffy all found the right balance on the topic for me.

 

[Riderofapocalypse]

I don't think there has to be a 'big bad' exactly. As long as there is a ultimate obstacle/problem that needs solving which the good guys can overcome. Put have a 'big bad' instead of a 'big problem' is much more entertaining in my opinion. So I guess my short answer is no, but yes?