Anti-Christ Villain

[Leonard Meltsner]

Especially since we know quite a few things about the identity of the antichrist from the Bible, and he will not be focused on the town of Odyssey, as awesome as it may be.

[Laurie]

//nodnod

An Antichrist theme (and the idea of something concerning Revelation as a whole) would be much too strong a theme. You mention Blackgaard, Novacom, and GRC in your original post, tuneup, but the fact is, all of those were fictional entities, and even if they felt real, we all knew in the back of our minds that they weren't real. The Antichrist is not a fictional being, just as the Tribulation is not a fictional period, and I think that making such a show would be much too strong for the target audience (which, it should be noted, includes eight-year-olds).

Bold and underlined sentence is exactly what I have been trying to say.

[tuneup]

Guess I thought in my mind, Glossman and some of the people of Novacom would be killed by the Anti-Christ villain with a gun. Like Nikolai did.

[Caswin]

Guess I thought in my mind, Glossman and some of the people of Novacom would be killed by the Anti-Christ villain with a gun. Like Nikolai did.

...

Wait, so... if I'm following you, and my Left Behind knowledge is accurate, that would make the Chairman into Jonathan Stonagal, Philip Glossman into Joshua Todd-Cothran, and you think that if there was an "Antichrist" villain, it would follow the plot of Left Behind in minute detail, down to the part where he holds a meeting of the most powerful people in the world, then shoots two of them with a gun and...

...

You know that things that happen in Left Behind aren't equal to the Book of Revelation, right? There have been many interpretations and adaptations of the Apocalypse.

[tuneup]

Guess I thought in my mind, Glossman and some of the people of Novacom would be killed by the Anti-Christ villain with a gun. Like Nikolai did.

...

Wait, so... if I'm following you, and my Left Behind knowledge is accurate, that would make the Chairman into Jonathan Stonagal, Philip Glossman into Joshua Todd-Cothran, and you think that if there was an "Antichrist" villain, it would follow the plot of Left Behind in minute detail, down to the part where he holds a meeting of the most powerful people in the world, then shoots two of them with a gun and...

...

You know that things that happen in Left Behind aren't equal to the Book of Revelation, right? There have been many interpretations and adaptations of the Apocalypse.

That's what I thought.

Was that bad?

If no anti-Christ villain than what? An aethist villain who is challenging Christians?

[TigerintheShadows]

I'd be careful with that. Dr. Blackgaard and Cryin' Bryan Dern are/were atheists, but that's not the first thing you think of when you think of who they are. A character should always, always, always be defined by who they are, not what they are (religion, superpowers, race, et cetera)--that is a cardinal rule of characterization. I'm not sure what that would be saying about atheists; I see some very unfortunate implications in making an exclusively "atheist" villain when there have been many others.

I realize that we're talking about a show with mostly Christian characters and that it's run by a Christian organization (for lack of better terminology), but just because it's a show with those perameters does not mean that we need to make every atheist a villain or anti-hero. "Christian show" does not mean "crucify-atheists-fest". I realize that this was not necessarily the point you were trying to make, but not all threats to Christianity are non-Christians (sometimes I think the church is a greater threat to itself than any other outside forces--note my use of capitalization).

[Leonard Meltsner]

I'd be careful with that. Dr. Blackgaard and Cryin' Bryan Dern are/were atheists, but that's not the first thing you think of when you think of who they are. A character should always, always, always be defined by who they are, not what they are (religion, superpowers, race, et cetera)--that is a cardinal rule of characterization. I'm not sure what that would be saying about atheists; I see some very unfortunate implications in making an exclusively "atheist" villain when there have been many others.

I realize that we're talking about a show with mostly Christian characters and that it's run by a Christian organization (for lack of better terminology), but just because it's a show with those perameters does not mean that we need to make every atheist a villain or anti-hero. "Christian show" does not mean "crucify-atheists-fest". I realize that this was not necessarily the point you were trying to make, but not all threats to Christianity are Christians (sometimes I think the church is a greater threat to itself than any other outside forces--note my use of capitalization).

Brava! Well said.

[The Top Crusader]

The very unlikely, but only possible way I see anything remotely like this happening is if it was tied to an Imagination Station or Room of Consequence or whatever adventure. However even then I don't think it would happen. I doubt Focus wants to get into eschatology where there are numerous interpretations of End Time events. They tend to avoid that type of conflict.

[Leonard Meltsner]

Besides, the only episode where they could've gotten away from that would've been episode 666, but that was The Jubilee Singers, Part 3.

[The Top Crusader]

Haha, I was hoping back then they would do something along those lines for episode 666... but alas.

[Marvin D.]

The closest to a villain we should have in Odyssey are some non-Christians who really make the Christians think about what they believe. There's not much, if any of that.

[tuneup]

Still an anti-Christ villain would be the next one. And about the "gun" part... he would've shot Glossman and/or the Chairman/Charles for their failures in not conquering the world.

Glossman - serving under Blackgaard.
Charles - helping Novacom control the world.

[TigerintheShadows]

I guess my next question is, "why would he care?" Seriously, the Antichrist is going to have a bigger agenda than shooting a corrupt politician and a corrupt businessman for their failures in a small town that barely anyone's ever heard of.

Still an anti-Christ villain would be the next one.

Why do we have to have an Antichrist villain? I repeat: It is a kids' show. The Tribulation is going to be more violent and horrific than the Holocaust, which, last I checked, isn't exactly kid-friendly material. Eschatology is one of the most hotly debated and disputed topics in the Christian community (right behind "Dating or Courting?" ), meaning that Focus on the Family, with its very broad ministry, is not about to take a public stance on it, even if individual employees do.

[Leonard Meltsner]

The Anti-Christ will have a very full schedule with the European Union and brokering "peace" between Israel and the arab nations. If Blackgaard can't be on 2 continents at the same time, then neither can the Anti-Christ.

[TigerintheShadows]

And in regards to the Bennett Charles thing, last I heard, he's currently residing in, most likely, federal prison, in no position to help or give support to anybody, and there is no way his name and fame would have enough respect in the eyes of a world political figure for even a second passing glance.

Philip Glossman, meanwhile, is currently off doing political things that I couldn't research because AIO Wiki malfunctioned at the last second--I digress, of course; the point is, Glossman basically has one boss and one employee--himself. He doesn't care about others as long as he gets what's in it for him. He's not interested in directly working for the Antichrist because he's looking out for his benefits and his benefits only, and the Antichrist isn't going to be seeking him out because the Antichrist will never have heard of Philip Glossman--and even if he did, no one's about to hire him. As manipulative as Glossman can be, he is also equally ineffectual.

[Caswin]

Well, to be fair, Mr. Charles was the right-hand of a man who nearly took over the world, and I always saw Glossman as a genuinely deft politician. (I also thought he actually seemed genuinely respectful towards Dr. Blackgaard, but that's another story. For the record, I think he was last heard complaining about Odyssey on a radio show.) Other than that, though, I agree with Ginny. There wouldn't be much of anything to gain by killing them, even if he wanted to.

Late edit:

The closest to a villain we should have in Odyssey are some non-Christians who really make the Christians think about what they believe. There's not much, if any of that.

I just wanted to add that there have been literally dozens of villains in Adventures in Odyssey, and they've played roles in some of the most well-regarded dramatic stories of the series. Or would you personally say those are low points?

[Mrs Jason Whittaker]

I should hope Odyssey doesn't start touting Dispensational theoloy. That would be incredibly irritating for Amillenialists.

[The Top Crusader]

Yeah, that is a good point.

[TigerintheShadows]

I should hope Odyssey doesn't start touting Dispensational theoloy. That would be incredibly irritating for Amillenialists.

Or anyone who disagrees with the Premillenial Dispensationalist theory. Matter of fact, I can see quite a few people who do agree with said theory becoming irritated.

[tuneup]

Ever since Blackgaard & Novacom, we haven't had a new saga between the forces of good and evil lately.

How about an anti-christ villain kinda like Nicholai from Left Behind.