Does The Walking Dead NEED Villains?

Villains are a huge part of the Walking Dead universe, but, are they NECESSARY?

A funny thing happened a few days ago, after my article on the worst Walking Dead death of 2020, someone said how the death of a villain, be it good or bad, was, essentially, irrelevant because, people don’t watch the shows for the villains, but the heroes. They said that the audience needs people to root for, and they need the villains to die.

I won’t argue the second and third points, Hell, I don’t even think I can argue them, because, if you don’t care about the characters in a show…why would you watch it? Any drama needs someone the audience cares about: Without such a character, it’s dead in the water.

But, the first point? …I’m not so sure about that. I mean, yes, we do watch shows for the hero(es) rather than the villain(s), but, without conflict, things become stagnant, and, for a TV show…that’s death.

I will be the first to say that The Walking Dead (to say nothing of its sister series) doesn’t necessarily need a villain that Rick’s group/the communities defeat at the end of a season, because, in the first season, there wasn’t one. You could argue that Ed or Merle was (I even used them as two of my “Most Irredeemable Villains” list for that first season), but, neither of them posed any real threat to Rick, or the group at large, so, to say they were “The Villains” would be a bit of a stretch.

However, to say that the villains are, essentially, irrelevant? That’s just as much of a stretch.

If you want a good idea of just how important a villain can be to The Walking Dead, look back at seasons three and four, both of which centered, largely, on Rick’s group’s war with The Governor. The Governor was a constant, looming presence throughout season three, and the first half of season four, and whose actions were the central jumping-off point for the actions of Rick’s group, as well as their character development throughout the latter half of that season.

Even in season two of the show, while much slower paced than the succeeding two seasons, the drama was primarily driven by Shane’s descent into madness, and the growing conflict between him and Rick, which came to a head in that season’s penultimate episode.

If those seasons, for whatever reason, did not have Shane or The Governor (Or anyone else) to serve as antagonists, the show would have gotten very boring, assuming it even made it to a third season, because there would have been no one to instigate conflict for Rick or the group.

There would still be walkers, obviously, but, having new characters be oblivious to the fact that they were dead (The way Hershel was in season two), couldn’t go on forever, the same can be said for just randomly running into herds: It could be done here or there, but, without something else to pose a threat and mix things up, the walkers would have become stale, or the size of the herds the group would have to survive would have to reach ridiculous proportions, leading to diminishing returns.

If you want an idea of what The Walking Dead would look like without a villain, I think the closest we can get (beyond season one, which is a different animal because of its introductory nature) is season five of Fear The Walking Dead.

Yes, it did have villains, but, let’s be honest: They were mostly “hands-off” during that season. Neither Logan nor Virginia presented themselves as any sort of ever-present threat, and most of the season focused on Morgan’s group meeting and collecting new people across Texas, and just trying to find a new home.

Virginia became a threat near the end of the season, but, just compare her threat level to that of say, The Governor, and you get an idea of how much more…distant of a villain she was. Throughout the entirety of season five, the only member of Morgan’s group to die is Tom, only in the second-to-last episode of the season, and not even directly. He dies when a bridge collapses because he didn’t retreat with the rest of the group after Virginia drew a herd to them. In contrast, The Governor killed three members of Rick’s group in season three of The Walking Dead, only one of them indirectly, stretching across the entire second half of that season.

The point is: Season five of Fear was…kind of boring. I did and will continue to defend the choice of having minimal protagonist deaths in that season as unique, because, I feel like the constant “A person must die at every premiere/midseason/finale episode” trick had been done far too much over a couple of years, but, that doesn’t necessarily mean that having no deaths or not building to an appropriate death is inherently good, and, I feel like part of that problem came from that season feeling like the villains…weren’t really there.

Yes, we knew they were out there in the abstract, and there were a few run-ins with them, but, they weren’t a threat. That’s the whole point of a villain: To pose a threat to the hero(es), if they aren’t doing that, then, the story lacks urgency. The very reason I did my “Worst Walking Dead Death of 2020″ article was because the death in question made Beta feel like he wasn’t that much of a threat, even though, throughout the rest of season ten of The Walking Dead, he had been the most frightening individual in the show! When there isn’t a threat to deal with, dramas become hollow, and make them go from “Must-see TV” to…”Can-miss TV”.

But, what do you guys think? Do you agree? Does The Walking Dead need villains? Would the shows be better or worse without them? I’m curious to hear what you have to say.

And, if you enjoyed this and want to learn how to be your own hero in a zombie apocalypse (By keeping yourself alive), then why not pick up a copy of my book, The Rules: A Guide To Surviving The Zombie Apocalypse! You can also get it at Amazon here, on iTunes here!