Too many villians??

[WillowsTara]

Don't forget Kelli goes into the Vengefull catgory- Imagine what would it be like if that accident would have never happened, Maybe Amanda wouldn't have even come to the bay if Kelli had been alright... (And Peter would still be single). Kelli believed it was Amanda's fault, and she even hurt Belle/Peter/Ryan and some of the others to get to her.

Zoey and Corey were good villians too I agree, althought Charlie just wanted friends.

Cam and Ethan are just both idiots and not worthy of the title, althought Josh wasn't that bad as a villian..

[Jess]

Hmm, this topic has certainly got me thinking. If we don't have villains that fall into the Eve Jacobsen category of totally pyschotic (whatever the reasons behind her behaviour, or her motivations), then what are we left with? We're, IMO, left with people like Diana who are more "character driven" villains - that's to say that they're more out for revenge for one person, one specific incident, (rather like Kelli, even though I'm not convinced by the proportionality of her actions) rather than hell-bent on destroying the entire town. Okay, Eve did have specific motives but her actions were definately more widespread and I got the vibe from the storyline that it was an attempt at "What kind of villain can we bring in to create sensationalist promos to boost our ratings?", rather than a character-driven decision. 'Cause, at the end of the day, there is a problem with the more character-driven moves. I'm not sure if they have the same effect on ratings as the out-and-out "baddies" do. The more casual viewer maybe wouldn't appreciate so much the character aspects of the storyline and rather be more interested in how many people are massacred.

To try and paraphrase that rather incoherent ramble, and address the question of the original poster: there's more villains to boost ratings.

Thinking through all of this has brought up another question for me. Is it possible to have an entirely motivationless bad guy, who is still credible?

Lol, this probably makes no sense whatsoever!

[rennyren]

A motivationless bad guy? Interesting thought. So they kind of "Look! I'm cutting <insert character here> into tiny little pieces! Why, I hear you ask? Well, nothing good on TV, really!" Just an absolute psychopath who does things just because they can?

Somehow I think that might be pushing it a bit too far. It would also be ridiculously hard to act. If you've ever studied acting, you know it's all about motivation. So you'd be going "I'm moving over here! Why? Because they just came in over there and I don't want them to see me. Why? Because I'm eavesdropping and I don't want them to know. Why?" etc etc etc for all of eternity never ending and driving us all insane. With that kind of villain it would come off as just completely a farce, because you'd have the actor going "I'm moving over here! Why? Because I can! Yes!" It would make for very confusing watching. I think the villains always need to have a motivation behind their characters to tie them in to the story lines, because when it comes down to it, Home and Away is a small town. No psycho in their right mind would choose a small town to attack. And now I'm just confusing myself.

I also think we need more villians like Corey. I loved Corey! For a start, he was dead sexy, which always helps. And then you never really expected him until you started seeing the scrapbook of "people I've killed" (Love the term emmasi!) and I was still left going "No! But he looks so innocent!" And he was able to fit in so well with the characters, and never had melodramatic I'm going to look slightly to the side of the camera and sneer ominously. And at least his character was constant - all the baddies seem to go completely nuts when they're eventually revealed, but he just kept right on believing that he was right, and what he was doing was completely fair enough. He was awesome.

[Perry]

Is it possible to have an entirely motivationless bad guy, who is still credible?

IMO, the scariest horror movie killers are the ones that are killing for the sake of killing, Halloween, Psycho (although it is revealed at the end that he is trying to replace his dead mother- there is still no real reason).

-Mr Bad from E street didn't really have a motive (or I can't remember it) but it worked really well for the show.

In the end how many villains can come into Summer Bay with a credible motive?

"I am Norma Jocobson the long lost evil identical twin sister of Eve and I'm getting vengeance for my sister's death".

I can't speak for Corey as I went away just as he came into the show and came back when he was long gone but the motive with him seems reasonable from what I've heard, but

Kelli's just is rediculous and "she would of gotten away with it to if it wasn't for those pesky teenagers"

. I think if they are going to have a Villain a real villain without motive it could work but it has to be done right and it has to be scary; "I wish we knew why Lucas snapped but we don't, I'm just glad he's locked up at Reefton Lakes and he will never be released".

[emmasi]

A motivationless bad guy? Interesting thought. So they kind of "Look! I'm cutting <insert character here> into tiny little pieces! Why, I hear you ask? Well, nothing good on TV, really!" Just an absolute psychopath who does things just because they can?

Somehow I think that might be pushing it a bit too far.

One word: Dom.

[Pierced Musie]

They need someone like Mr Blonde from Reservoir Dogs. Psycho because he can be.

[Perry]

A motivationless bad guy? Interesting thought. So they kind of "Look! I'm cutting <insert character here> into tiny little pieces! Why, I hear you ask? Well, nothing good on TV, really!" Just an absolute psychopath who does things just because they can?

Somehow I think that might be pushing it a bit too far.

One word: Dom.

Oh and Dom was damn scary too! See it does work!