A How-To on Villainy in the NATIONAL TREASURE Universe
Or, a helpful comparison between Ian Howe and Mitch Wilkinson for all prospective NT villains.
Driven, ambitious, goal-oriented, yet doesn't actually commit a crime unless he sees a need to do so (for example, stealing the Declaration of Independence, kidnapping Abigail, etc.). Many know Ian as the greedy millionaire English treasure hunter who originally financed Ben Gates's hunt for the Charlotte, and while I disagree with this for personal reasons, I think a lot can be learned from Ian.
He runs a tight ship. This is best seen during his break-in to the National Archives. He tells his team what the objective at hand is and how long they have to accomplish it in, and the team delivers. They operate with the efficiency of a team trained in break-ins and other sorts of complex operations.
He is driven. Ian sets a goal for himself and invests a great deal of time, effort, and money toward reaching that goal, but he doesn't do this for just anything. He wants to steal the Declaration of Independence? Requires days of preparation, research, and the obtaining of various materials such as what looks suspiciously like bricks of C4. Getting a kid to talk? Not so much.
He keeps it together, even in the face of tragedy. Here, I'm referring to the shaft scene, which has become almost notorious amongst the anti-Ian community in the fandom. Allow me to explain: Due to pure happenstance, Ian's right hand man Shaw falls to his death. After the rest of the wooden staircase breaks apart and forces everyone onto elevators or to safety in some way, Ian is still composed enough to demand that they all keep going, expecting to find treasure at the end of the road, and even though he is frustrated with what seems to be the end result, to the point of pulling a gun on Riley (who at the time is trying to convince Ian to come back down so they can talk about this together), he never raises his voice or shows many outward signs of extreme emotion. In short: even under extreme stress, no one can dispute that he is still in control of himself.
When Ian doesn't need to be a bully, he's not. Take the kid in Philadelphia, for example. Ian could try to intimidate the kid into talking, or he could do what he did: get on the kid's level, use his indoor voice, and speak well and kindly. (Of course, the Benjamin didn't hurt his case, but in fairness, the kid thought it was counterfeit.) Or consider Ian's hired guns. He could just as easily as every other bad guy around berate them for the smallest things and/or shoot them for their failure, but he doesn't. Instead, he can be heard complimenting them when they do something right. He allows Shaw's outburst about prison to slide, He doesn't snap at Victor when he offers an (incorrect) answer to his question about why 'Silence' is capitalized in the riddle. He is actually reasonably nice to them, though he is still their boss. He never needed to bully his men or the kid from Philadelphia, and because he didn't need to, he didn't.
And, most importantly, he doesn't flip-flop.
Oh, holy Lord, Mitch Wilkinson. I've come to the conclusion that he is the reason I hated Book of Secrets so much the first time I saw it (though lately I've come to appreciate Riley's lines and general character development, as well as that BOS highlights a lot of the major flaws in Ben's character), and even recently I still hate him as a character, because he's hackneyed and unnecessary. Observe:
How he gets Ben to cooperate. Spoiler alert: he only wanted to find the City of Gold for his family legacy, much like Ben did in the first movie, but the way he went about getting Ben's help was absolutely unnecessary. If he knew anything about anything about Gates and the story of the Templar Treasure, then he would know that Ben would at least relate to his predicament. In other words, he could've just asked for help, eliminating the need for any of his shenanigans in the movie in the first place.
He did next to no work. The only thing he did for himself was approach Ben's mom and force her to lie to her ex-husband. The rest of his time is spent following Gates and Co. around as they figure everything out. Ben even states as much: "You've had me do all the work so far, why stop now?" (Not bad for someone with the insight of applesauce.)
His redemption. Dear mother of Christ! This comes so far out of left field that I think it was just designed by the writers in an effort to make Mitch as popular in the fandom as Ian was, or at least more likeable, or something. Okay, some pro-tips: Ian was consistent; Shaw's death did not suddenly prompt him to switch sides or anything like that. If anything, it made him even more driven and determined to see out the end of the hunt, leading ultimately to his arrest. Second thing, if you're going to redeem a character, do two things first: 1) foreshadow the coming change, and 2) have me (the viewer) emotionally invested in the character so that I want that character to be redeemed by the end of the movie. These two things must be done simultaneously and well, or else it will come off like a cliche. Forget these things yet have the redemption anyway, and it comes off as cheap and leaves the viewer (such as me) with a bad impression of the movie as a whole and your villain specifically.
So you want to be a bad guy in the NT-verse?
Follow these simple tips:
Build rapport with people you interact with who aren't the hero. This includes the audience.
Remember these five things and you will be well on your way to becoming remembered in the fandom as a bad guy worth his salt (and possibly pick up a few fans and their OCs along the way).
Ian: I suppose I should be flattered that you like me so much.
