Today's User Submitted Daily (USD) Poll was submitted by Alex Forrest who was picked randomly from our Poll Submissions (see below).
Let us know in the comments what you voted for and why? Want to see your Poll posted on the site? Click the Blue Button below
Rules
- Polls need to be TV/Movie related.
- You must supply a Poll Question, and the possible choices. Please try to keep the number of options to a reasonable amount (Max of 20 Items)
- You can only Submit 1 Poll Per Day. Previous polls submitted will still be eligible for posting (ie you don't need to keep submitting the same poll everyday)
Each day we will pick one submitted poll at random to post on the site.
It really depends on the show storyline etc etc. For example Cole worked on Charmed as a Villain for multipe seasons, Slade in Arrow was a fitting one season Baddy. On the other hand Petar Pan in Once should've been a whole season Villain cause there was so much story to tell.
But usally the most fitting is a 1 season Villain, slowly introducing him and develop an final episode face off.
There is no definitive answer to this. A big bad needs to go when either: a) the storyline becomes repetitive or b) the character is no longer useful to the story
Gus Fring from Breaking Bad lasted the perfect amount of time; they kept him crucial to the story and then just when it was about to get a bit repetitive if he lasted any longer, they killed him.
On the contrary, many would argue that Malcolm Merlyn in Arrow has outstayed his welcome as a big bad, which would be quite fair.
depends on the show, but I actually prefer supernatural dramas to have it being one season like Buffy does. I hate villains that outstay there welcome as a big bad. Vampire Diaries is the perfect example of what not to do with villains, I just simply find they redeem and overuse all there villains. Supernatural aswell did it well in early seasons, but in the later seasons villains like Crowley outstay there welcome.
i agree, also i think Malcolm Merlyn should not be utilized again as a full season bad guy. I like his character but like you said could become repetitive.
I can think of plenty that have lasted too long (3XK from Castle, Pelant from Bones) but I can also think of plenty that haven't been around long enough (mostly one-off guest stars and mini arcs.
This is such an open ended question, which is great by the way, but it makes picking a definitive option nigh on impossible.
But if I had to pick a series that has absolutely nailed it with each enemy or villain, it is without a doubt Person of Interest.
For me villains make the show/movie more interesting when they challenge character's stance in terms of morals, decisions and life/death.
I definitely don't like them as a baddie of the week that gets beaten or escape easily.
I prefer overarching villains, if they present a real threat. For example, Moriarty from Sherlock outwitted Sherlock and had Sherlock on his feet, which as a viewers we dont get to see.
Still in the end it depends on the characters and point they are serving.
Some villains can be set up in the first season and last the entire series by coming in and out of focus until the ultimate showdown in the series finale. Others can last for just one season dying in the season finale and be equally as compelling..
For me personally I think to even qualify as a "Big Bad" the villein has to last something close to a full season minimum! IF they don't , to me they are just a more typical antagonist - Not a "Big Bad!"
It depends on the character itself and the show. For me, if a villain is done right, played by the right actor, and the writing supports them, I want them to stay as long as possible. I like that a villain can be so good at bad that you love him. Sometimes more than the hero.
Agreed. I hated the Leviathans and love Crowley. I did love James Patrick Stuart as a villain but I wish he would have played anything other than a Leviathan.
It depends, if a show is able to create a cat and mouse dynamic without getting old a villain can be there for the whole show, but most of the time it is a season or half a season, because getting a villain that can be sustained for let's say 6 seasons is not impossible but it's hard as hell
I think it really depends on the show, the storyline and the characters! And let's face it, it also depends on the actor as well, I think. Look at Joseph Morgan for instance, not sure Klaus would have made it alive if it wasn't for him "killing" it playing him. I know that characters like Angel and Spike weren't meant to stay long when they first appeared on Buffy. But that's one example and I guess we could definitely give a few other ones. As for my personal tastes, I generally don't like it when they go too early in a season (which is what happened in TVD last season and that was one of the reasons why I thought it was the weakest so far). I'd rather see a villain that becomes kinda of the driving force of the show for the whole season. I also need them to be charismatic enough to make me root for them somehow no matter how devious they can get. Or I want someone who will be completely frightening even I feel zero "empathy" for them. Either, I love it when those force the hero to do less heroic things and reveal something about themselves they (/ we) didn't necessarily know. But again it depends on the show, the storylines, etc...
Definitely the show. Buffy managed to have a single big bad per season and it was awesome. Justified on the other hand has had Boyd Crowder as a main villain since day 1, however he's also taken a secondary role to every season's big bad and its been great. The only problem is when the big bad just gets too powerful to the point of implausibility for the story.
Boyd Crowder and Walton Goggins are the perfect example of a "villain" done right. I love Boyd and WG is one of the best actors on television. Boyd wasn't supposed to last on Justified. He was supposed to die in S1, but the chemistry between he and Timothy Olyphant kept his character alive. He's done heinous things, he is a villain but he's a villain I love and will root for in the final season. Raylan is going all out after him, Ava turned on him and his family is crap but I just have to pull for him. As long as I have Raylan/Boyd scenes all season long, I will be happy.
I say half season and one season because sometimes they can make a villain to mustache twirl they be over the top I like the format that OUAT is doing having arc with each villain and planting who next villain can be but also like how Buffy done it have big bad every season then come back to the first original big bad that started it all
I voted for "Depends" because even though I don't think a Big Bad should last longer than one or two seasons, some of the best ones last only half a season, or their characters change in interesting ways throughout the series. It's all about how the Big Bad is written, and how long he or she STAYS a Big Bad.
Crowley needs to go...I agree. And a few of the big bads need more story told and shouldn't be so "easy" to kill, example Eve (mother of all) defeated in like one episode, and Abaddon...I thought the fight would've lasted longer or she would've caused more damage...I still love the show and I always will...but as I said above...Crowley needs to go...(sorry Mark Shepperd)
I usually prefer the half season format like OUAT S3 and Teen Wolf S3. While 3A of OUAT is considered to be the worst by most people, Pan never failed (tehe, get it?) to impress.
I think a big bad lasting one season is too long, unless the season is short anyway, but Slade on Arrow was just dragged out wayyyy too long for me, less than half a season of him being the big bad would have been much better for me. Teen Wolf season 1&2 had a big bad lasting all season but we didnt know who it was until near the end so that worked really well.
I can't think of any example where a big bad lasting more than one season worked for me, maybe Pretty Little Liars if that counts? The most recent example I can think of is Peter in Teen Wolf, who I liked in season one but when they brought him back I didn't like him at all. I think he's far out stayed his welcome and I was so disappointed they didn't kill him off. Cole on Charmed was very meh and he just sort of came and went, I wasn't too fond of it.
Walton Goggins is easily one of the top actors on tv right now. Anyone who's seen The Shield and Justified would back me up on that argument.
But I think the last season for Justified we can't really root for Raylan or Boyd. They are essentially both Captain Ahabs. Raylan's white whale is Boyd and Boyd's white whale is being seen as something other than a petty crime boss. So what happens when a shoot first Marshal squares off against a criminal with an iron will, collateral damage.
I see the final season of Justified ending one of 3 ways: 1) Both Boyd and Raylan kill each other. 2) Raylan kills Boyd or gets him in jail but in the process Art dies, he's kicked out of the Marshals in disgrace, and Winnona wants nothing to do with him. In other words a pyrrhic victory. 3) Boyd escapes with nothing and learns Ava turned on him and he realizes he's partly to blame for this. Another pyrrhic victory.
Depends. More than half the time, half a season to a season works, other times...the main villain become a part of the show's fabric and has such a big role in the mythology that killing them before the end would have seemed ridiculous.
Personally, I hate anything in between because it feels too much like a reboot. Come to think of it, I think it only happens when a show thinks they are being canceled and that season will be their last.
I agree again. I could also see an ending where both Boyd and Raylan die in the coal mines, drinking a bottle of whiskey. I want neither to die or give in to the other, but to somehow end the series with both going on or out as they lived.
Add me to this list that loves Justified and am going to miss it a lot, both Boyd and Raylan are super characters. Walton Goggins always improves any show he is on.
It really depends. Red John in Mentalist, they dragged that out too long. I loved the 5 year storyline with SPN. Especially with genre shows the he big bad of the season can get boring. How can you supersize every season? It gets repetative and even for genre shows the overpowering of the hero becomes unbelievable. On Teen Wolf it was great they kept Peter who again was a big bad. On Buffy I found Evil Willow a surprising and refreshing twist and Episodes like Joyce natural death were shocking and grounding.
if you want to show to last long, you need big bad after another each one toping the other, so you don't want 1 for too long unless they are a frenemy (how you spell that:?)
1 season. 1 season is enough for villain arc.For next season, introduce another one to keep the storyline interesting.Create an equal compelling and vicious villain to keep the audience hooked.
As much as I loved Katherine, her arc should have ended in season 2 itself. But the problem was that she got lost somewhere between the moonstone and Klaus storyline.
When the big bad stops becoming well done, interesting and exciting to watch and just becomes a nuisance every season. When as the viewer you watch the show and go bored now can they just kill off this bad guy already he keeps doing the same predictable shit and its old now. See Bones and Pellant as a good example of that. That son of a bitch should have been done after a few episodes to be honest and they kept it going for a decent while. And I say this as not even a religious viewer of the show but more of a casual viewer. And even I was like "really? This guy again still hunting the group. Why!". Even after he died they hinted about how his influence wasn't done yet, oh for the love of pete the guy was dead and buried apparently and he was still causing havoc. Enough.
I think it is hard for shows to burn through a villain a season. It can get predictable and then boring. It is probably harder though to create a compelling villain and compelling heroes who accomplish dramatic things without defeating the villain at the end of the season, but when it is done well, it is quite exciting. Villains are important to driving plot, but they have to lose or it feels like you're treading water. So for me, it depends, just how good are the writers? If they are mediocre, stick with the expected, it works easily for the structure of TV. If they are brilliant, reach for the stars and give us a compelling villain for as long as it takes to keep the story going.
I agree with most people that it depends. I think what most shows have to watch out for is keeping a villain around endlessly. When the hero fails to defeat the villain over and over again, eventually it becomes unbelievably frustrating for the audience. "OMG, will this guy just die already?!". There are only so many times you can accept the villain getting away or cheating death before it becomes ridiculous. And seeing the heroes get defeated or outsmarted over and over again is incredibly annoying, not to mention it portrays them as lame and incompetent. Some p[rime examples: Sylar on Heroes - the show desperately held on to him and gave him more screen time than almost any other character because ratings were dwindling and ZQ was at the height of his popualrity, with the Star Trek movies. Klaus on TVD. Amanda on Nikita - brilliant complex character in the first 2 seasons, unbearable caricature of mustache-twirly evil in the last 2 seasons. And the irony is, her predecessor as the Big Bad, Percy, was the perfect example of how you handle a main villain. He was killed off at the end of Season 2, in his prime, just when it felt like there was nothing more to do with his character. Sloane on Alias - he was a terrific, multilayered villain played by a great actor, but at some point the back-and-forth of his being good, evil, good, evil, then good again just became too much. The idea that everyone would be willing to trust him over and over again after the various betrayals was beyond dumb.
That being said, there are also cases where a show burns through a villain too quickly, before they're really been developed properly and reached their full potential. Peter Pan from OUaT immediately comes to mind (I see a couple of other commentators have mentioned him as well)... I know a lot of people thought 3A was weak, but I wish they'd developed Pan more. Robbie Kay has such great charisma and stole every scene. I'd stopped watching Supernatural by that point but I hear Eve in Season 6 is another good example.
Ultimately, if you want to keep the Big Bad around for seasons on end, you have to shift their role somewhat so it's not the same thing over and over again. Moving them into frenemy territory is a pretty good tactic, and I hope that's what they do with Merlyn in the upcoming season of Arrow.
It depends on the show to be fair. Sometimes it works if they're just popping up now and then being evil for little episode arcs but villains that are the main villain for like 2 seasons in a row (e.g. Klaus in VD) makes the story drag and drags the show down.
NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.
It really depends on the show storyline etc etc. For example Cole worked on Charmed as a Villain for multipe seasons, Slade in Arrow was a fitting one season Baddy.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand Petar Pan in Once should've been a whole season Villain cause there was so much story to tell.
But usally the most fitting is a 1 season Villain, slowly introducing him and develop an final episode face off.
There is no definitive answer to this. A big bad needs to go when either:
ReplyDeletea) the storyline becomes repetitive or
b) the character is no longer useful to the story
Gus Fring from Breaking Bad lasted the perfect amount of time; they kept him crucial to the story and then just when it was about to get a bit repetitive if he lasted any longer, they killed him.
On the contrary, many would argue that Malcolm Merlyn in Arrow has outstayed his welcome as a big bad, which would be quite fair.
depends on the show, but I actually prefer supernatural dramas to have it being one season like Buffy does. I hate villains that outstay there welcome as a big bad. Vampire Diaries is the perfect example of what not to do with villains, I just simply find they redeem and overuse all there villains. Supernatural aswell did it well in early seasons, but in the later seasons villains like Crowley outstay there welcome.
ReplyDeletei agree, also i think Malcolm Merlyn should not be utilized again as a full season bad guy. I like his character but like you said could become repetitive.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely not whole show.
ReplyDeleteI can think of plenty that have lasted too long (3XK from Castle, Pelant from Bones) but I can also think of plenty that haven't been around long enough (mostly one-off guest stars and mini arcs.
ReplyDeleteThis is such an open ended question, which is great by the way, but it makes picking a definitive option nigh on impossible.
But if I had to pick a series that has absolutely nailed it with each enemy or villain, it is without a doubt Person of Interest.
Depends, on Supernatural the leviathans went on way to long, as I did not find them in the least bit scary, but Crowley can stick around forever.
ReplyDeleteFor me villains make the show/movie more interesting when they challenge character's stance in terms of morals, decisions and life/death.
ReplyDeleteI definitely don't like them as a baddie of the week that gets beaten or escape easily.
I prefer overarching villains, if they present a real threat. For example, Moriarty from Sherlock outwitted Sherlock and had Sherlock on his feet, which as a viewers we dont get to see.
Still in the end it depends on the characters and point they are serving.
Some villains can be set up in the first season and last the entire series by coming in and out of focus until the ultimate showdown in the series finale. Others can last for just one season dying in the season finale and be equally as compelling..
ReplyDeleteFor me personally I think to even qualify as a "Big Bad" the villein has to last something close to a full season minimum! IF they don't , to me they are just a more typical antagonist - Not a "Big Bad!"
It depends on the character itself and the show. For me, if a villain is done right, played by the right actor, and the writing supports them, I want them to stay as long as possible. I like that a villain can be so good at bad that you love him. Sometimes more than the hero.
ReplyDeleteReally? The Leviathans terrified me with their whole "eating themselves" ritual if they didn't do something well.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I hated the Leviathans and love Crowley. I did love James Patrick Stuart as a villain but I wish he would have played anything other than a Leviathan.
ReplyDeleteIt depends, if a show is able to create a cat and mouse dynamic without getting old a villain can be there for the whole show, but most of the time it is a season or half a season, because getting a villain that can be sustained for let's say 6 seasons is not impossible but it's hard as hell
ReplyDeleteI think it really depends on the show, the storyline and the characters! And let's face it, it also depends on the actor as well, I think. Look at Joseph Morgan for instance, not sure Klaus would have made it alive if it wasn't for him "killing" it playing him.
ReplyDeleteI know that characters like Angel and Spike weren't meant to stay long when they first appeared on Buffy. But that's one example and I guess we could definitely give a few other ones.
As for my personal tastes, I generally don't like it when they go too early in a season (which is what happened in TVD last season and that was one of the reasons why I thought it was the weakest so far). I'd rather see a villain that becomes kinda of the driving force of the show for the whole season. I also need them to be charismatic enough to make me root for them somehow no matter how devious they can get. Or I want someone who will be completely frightening even I feel zero "empathy" for them. Either, I love it when those force the hero to do less heroic things and reveal something about themselves they (/ we) didn't necessarily know.
But again it depends on the show, the storylines, etc...
Definitely the show. Buffy managed to have a single big bad per season and it was awesome. Justified on the other hand has had Boyd Crowder as a main villain since day 1, however he's also taken a secondary role to every season's big bad and its been great. The only problem is when the big bad just gets too powerful to the point of implausibility for the story.
ReplyDeleteBoyd Crowder and Walton Goggins are the perfect example of a "villain" done right. I love Boyd and WG is one of the best actors on television. Boyd wasn't supposed to last on Justified. He was supposed to die in S1, but the chemistry between he and Timothy Olyphant kept his character alive. He's done heinous things, he is a villain but he's a villain I love and will root for in the final season. Raylan is going all out after him, Ava turned on him and his family is crap but I just have to pull for him. As long as I have Raylan/Boyd scenes all season long, I will be happy.
ReplyDeleteI say half season and one season because sometimes they can make a villain to mustache twirl they be over the top I like the format that OUAT is doing having arc with each villain and planting who next villain can be but also like how Buffy done it have big bad every season then come back to the first original big bad that started it all
ReplyDeleteFor example-
ReplyDeleteCrowley: FOREVER!!!!!
I liked the leviathans and thought all of season 7 was appropriate for them....but agree 110% about Crowley <33333
ReplyDeleteI voted for "Depends" because even though I don't think a Big Bad should last longer than one or two seasons, some of the best ones last only half a season, or their characters change in interesting ways throughout the series. It's all about how the Big Bad is written, and how long he or she STAYS a Big Bad.
ReplyDeleteOf course it depends. Usually I think BIG bads should be 1 season at most. Rarely more, sometimes less. Dragging stuff out is usually a bad idea.
ReplyDeleteCrowley needs to go...I agree. And a few of the big bads need more story told and shouldn't be so "easy" to kill, example Eve (mother of all) defeated in like one episode, and Abaddon...I thought the fight would've lasted longer or she would've caused more damage...I still love the show and I always will...but as I said above...Crowley needs to go...(sorry Mark Shepperd)
ReplyDeleteIt depends.
ReplyDeleteI usually prefer the half season format like OUAT S3 and Teen Wolf S3. While 3A of OUAT is considered to be the worst by most people, Pan never failed (tehe, get it?) to impress.
I think a big bad lasting one season is too long, unless the season is short anyway, but Slade on Arrow was just dragged out wayyyy too long for me, less than half a season of him being the big bad would have been much better for me. Teen Wolf season 1&2 had a big bad lasting all season but we didnt know who it was until near the end so that worked really well.
I can't think of any example where a big bad lasting more than one season worked for me, maybe Pretty Little Liars if that counts? The most recent example I can think of is Peter in Teen Wolf, who I liked in season one but when they brought him back I didn't like him at all. I think he's far out stayed his welcome and I was so disappointed they didn't kill him off. Cole on Charmed was very meh and he just sort of came and went, I wasn't too fond of it.
Walton Goggins is easily one of the top actors on tv right now. Anyone who's seen The Shield and Justified would back me up on that argument.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the last season for Justified we can't really root for Raylan or Boyd. They are essentially both Captain Ahabs. Raylan's white whale is Boyd and Boyd's white whale is being seen as something other than a petty crime boss. So what happens when a shoot first Marshal squares off against a criminal with an iron will, collateral damage.
I see the final season of Justified ending one of 3 ways: 1) Both Boyd and Raylan kill each other. 2) Raylan kills Boyd or gets him in jail but in the process Art dies, he's kicked out of the Marshals in disgrace, and Winnona wants nothing to do with him. In other words a pyrrhic victory. 3) Boyd escapes with nothing and learns Ava turned on him and he realizes he's partly to blame for this. Another pyrrhic victory.
Depends. More than half the time, half a season to a season works, other times...the main villain become a part of the show's fabric and has such a big role in the mythology that killing them before the end would have seemed ridiculous.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I hate anything in between because it feels too much like a reboot. Come to think of it, I think it only happens when a show thinks they are being canceled and that season will be their last.
I agree again. I could also see an ending where both Boyd and Raylan die in the coal mines, drinking a bottle of whiskey. I want neither to die or give in to the other, but to somehow end the series with both going on or out as they lived.
ReplyDeleteAdd me to this list that loves Justified and am going to miss it a lot, both Boyd and Raylan are super characters. Walton Goggins always improves any show he is on.
ReplyDeleteKlaus is the perfect example of a vilain overstaying its welcome. He even got his own show!
ReplyDeleteIt really depends. Red John in Mentalist, they dragged that out too long. I loved the 5 year storyline with SPN. Especially with genre shows the he big bad of the season can get boring. How can you supersize every season? It gets repetative and even for genre shows the overpowering of the hero becomes unbelievable. On Teen Wolf it was great they kept Peter who again was a big bad. On Buffy I found Evil Willow a surprising and refreshing twist and Episodes like Joyce natural death were shocking and grounding.
ReplyDeleteif you want to show to last long, you need big bad after another each one toping the other, so you don't want 1 for too long unless they are a frenemy (how you spell that:?)
ReplyDeleteI think depends, because if it's a GOOD "Big Bad"/main villain, it can give to the show something really interesting...
ReplyDelete1 season. 1 season is enough for villain arc.For next season, introduce another one to keep the storyline interesting.Create an equal compelling and vicious villain to keep the audience hooked.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I loved Katherine, her arc should have ended in season 2 itself. But the problem was that she got lost somewhere between the moonstone and Klaus storyline.
ReplyDeleteDepends on the storyline -- just, please, not as long as Red John
ReplyDeleteWhen the big bad stops becoming well done, interesting and exciting to watch and just becomes a nuisance every season. When as the viewer you watch the show and go bored now can they just kill off this bad guy already he keeps doing the same predictable shit and its old now. See Bones and Pellant as a good example of that. That son of a bitch should have been done after a few episodes to be honest and they kept it going for a decent while. And I say this as not even a religious viewer of the show but more of a casual viewer. And even I was like "really? This guy again still hunting the group. Why!". Even after he died they hinted about how his influence wasn't done yet, oh for the love of pete the guy was dead and buried apparently and he was still causing havoc. Enough.
ReplyDeleteI think it is hard for shows to burn through a villain a season. It can get predictable and then boring. It is probably harder though to create a compelling villain and compelling heroes who accomplish dramatic things without defeating the villain at the end of the season, but when it is done well, it is quite exciting. Villains are important to driving plot, but they have to lose or it feels like you're treading water. So for me, it depends, just how good are the writers? If they are mediocre, stick with the expected, it works easily for the structure of TV. If they are brilliant, reach for the stars and give us a compelling villain for as long as it takes to keep the story going.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most people that it depends. I think what most shows have to watch out for is keeping a villain around endlessly. When the hero fails to defeat the villain over and over again, eventually it becomes unbelievably frustrating for the audience. "OMG, will this guy just die already?!". There are only so many times you can accept the villain getting away or cheating death before it becomes ridiculous. And seeing the heroes get defeated or outsmarted over and over again is incredibly annoying, not to mention it portrays them as lame and incompetent. Some p[rime examples:
ReplyDeleteSylar on Heroes - the show desperately held on to him and gave him more screen time than almost any other character because ratings were dwindling and ZQ was at the height of his popualrity, with the Star Trek movies.
Klaus on TVD.
Amanda on Nikita - brilliant complex character in the first 2 seasons, unbearable caricature of mustache-twirly evil in the last 2 seasons. And the irony is, her predecessor as the Big Bad, Percy, was the perfect example of how you handle a main villain. He was killed off at the end of Season 2, in his prime, just when it felt like there was nothing more to do with his character.
Sloane on Alias - he was a terrific, multilayered villain played by a great actor, but at some point the back-and-forth of his being good, evil, good, evil, then good again just became too much. The idea that everyone would be willing to trust him over and over again after the various betrayals was beyond dumb.
That being said, there are also cases where a show burns through a villain too quickly, before they're really been developed properly and reached their full potential. Peter Pan from OUaT immediately comes to mind (I see a couple of other commentators have mentioned him as well)... I know a lot of people thought 3A was weak, but I wish they'd developed Pan more. Robbie Kay has such great charisma and stole every scene. I'd stopped watching Supernatural by that point but I hear Eve in Season 6 is another good example.
Ultimately, if you want to keep the Big Bad around for seasons on end, you have to shift their role somewhat so it's not the same thing over and over again. Moving them into frenemy territory is a pretty good tactic, and I hope that's what they do with Merlyn in the upcoming season of Arrow.
In a way, the only good reason for them to keep Merlyn alive has been to give Thea a storyline...
ReplyDeleteDepends on the show, character & storyline.
ReplyDeleteIt depends on the show to be fair. Sometimes it works if they're just popping up now and then being evil for little episode arcs but villains that are the main villain for like 2 seasons in a row (e.g. Klaus in VD) makes the story drag and drags the show down.
ReplyDeleteDepends - in the case of Klaus from TVD, forever.
ReplyDelete