Too many villians??

[_chris70_]

We all like a good bad guy or girl, in fact it's usually fun to see what our regular characters make of them. But since I stopped watching in 2000, when the show left ITV in the UK, and particularly in the last 3 years I have been reading of villian after villian in the show.

As a watcher particularly in the mid 90s I remember such baddies as Saul, Dodge, Diana etc. but they perhaps couldn't be described as 'evil'. They had a chip on their shoulder, or strange believes, but looking at the Most Popular Villians survey, just how many murdering psychos did the show have from 2005 until recent??

Is there just too many? And for a show that used to be vaguely credible, is it all a bit over the top and sensationalist?

[Oxidizer]

Villans are popular and probably gain ratings so I'm guessing there's so many to compete with the previous year's... if that makes sense.

[emmasi]

I like villains when they're sympathetic and have their own twisted set of morals and ethics. Particularly when they're motivated by love. People motivated by petty selfishness come off as one-dimensional to me, and are therefore unintersting. (With the exception of Josh who was human enough to make it funny.) Those characters I could certainly do without.

In the last few years there have been quite a few villains, but the majority of them were also interesting characters and it was fun working out where they were coming from, especially if like Zoe and Corey there's a side to their personality that is quite easily intergrated with the happy, positive young go-getters of the bay. To see them turn out to have such all-consuming hatred and vengeance inside them makes you wonder what's lurking beneath the surface of the other characters.

Jonah and Rocco are the types that fall in with the wrong crowd and end up doing something they regret. The element of guilt and personal torment makes these characters sympathetic as well. Makes you wonder what you'd do in that situation, and maybe not to judge people so harshly for doing the wrong thing.

Then you've got people like Charlie and Diesel who start out minding their own business. They're unusual to start with but they only become villainous through the interference of existing characters. If the Summer Bay residents weren't so dead-set on saving everyone, would they end up in so much peril? Not a chance. But then they wouldn't be Summer Bay residents.

It may be over the top sometimes, but I'd rather take the bad with the good. Which is to say... take the bad guys who are bad characters with the bad guys who are good characters... instead of not having any good bad characters at all... yeah.

[Sally_Fletcher]

I find myself really liking the bad guys... Like Josh and Johnny...

And they make it interesting - I mean, who'd watch Home and Away is Summer Bay was a happy place where nothing ever happens?

[alexx]

And they make it interesting - I mean, who'd watch Home and Away is Summer Bay was a happy place where nothing ever happens?

we dont need a bad-egg character to make it interesting.

I think the point the original poster was making was that during the 90’s there was in no way as many bad guy/girl storylines one after another – they were actually recurring roles that came back year after year (in the case of Saul, Diana, Robert) – so we knew them, we got to know them personally as they interacted and made their own relationships within Summer Bay… Whereas the ‘bad guys/girls’ of 2005 last a couple of months and then its straight onto the next bad boy/girl…so we end up with loads of them within a short space of time…which is more OTT.

[Cerise]

I'm really loving the recent Villains. We don't need them one after another buttheir enjoyable to watch especially if they're hot

[Cal]

Yes, there has been too many Villains. The stalker return wasn't necessary(I did like it though, but not as much as the original). Mumma Rose's return (actually, both of her returns) were also unnecessary.

The best villain, in my opinion, would be Sarah. She was just completely out of this world with her craziness. She was also damn hot.

Corey was a nice touch. Kelli was a good touch, but it dragged on way to long.

Just my 2 cents.

[Cerise]

Sarah was one of the best Villains ever. Probably one of mt favorites

I agree with what Cal said about Kelli - lets face it, I love her and she's really damn hot but it's getting a bit dragged out... that doesn't mean I won't miss her.

[bttb-rox!]

I have to agree with what most of you are saying, that Sarah was the best villian, I also think that Zoe was awesome....actually I'd put them at equal awesomeness .

I also agree with what Andy said a few posts back, about how storylines involving baddies e.g Zoe usually attract viewers and thus push the ratings higher. The stalker storyline saw some of the best ratings the show had seen in years, so I guess that is a push to create more storylines along the same lines by bringing in new characters A.K.A villains , such as Kelli, the list could go on and on.

But whenever a new villian comes to the bay to wreak havock and/or to cause trouble for a specific resident of the bay in this case Amanda, IMO is really exciting!!

So all in all I agree with the title of this topic, yes there has been a few too many baddies in the bay, but I don't think that that has made the show unrealistic, although it is true to say that it is very unlikely that a small town would have so many crazy people causing havoc in it!!!

[ste]

I absolutely love villains, and H&A has always had the best ones, right from the start! It's one of the things I love about the show.

But I agree with what (I think) the original poster was saying, that we don't need so many of them, one after the next after the next after the next... In fact less is more. When there hasn't been a bad guy for a while, it makes it all the more exciting when one comes along.