Trilogy Villain or One by One?

[Asteroid-Man]

So one thing that Phantom Menace did right was a badass villain... but then they killed him off and replaced him with some ****** political baddie.

Do you want them to follow the main outline of the first trilogy (the two second in commands in part one, where the "political" one dies and the pure-evil baddie goes missing, the surviving one and the main baddie in the shadows in the second film winning it out, and the reveal of the main baddie in part 3 with the badass second in command) or the prequel trilogy (new baddies in every film, but the main boss in all three).

What do you guys think?

[MessiahDecoy123]

Trilogy villain with a powerful character arc and badass side villains.

[MessiahDecoy123]

If you switch main villain every movie it hurts the resonance of the entire trilogy.

[dude love]

One by one, with an overarching villain.

[BATZARRO WWD]

I think building up is important. Since this is already being planned as a trilogy, It would help to establish one villain who seems invincible while those under him might or might not change.

[Solidus]

I agree have one main villain for the entire thing like a Vader that really is part of the plot and interacts with it/the characters throughout giving tension/drama. But I would not mind some side villains from film to film. I mean even in the OT we had to a point Boba Fett, and ROTJ we had Jabba. I think having some side villain is great. But I would like a main villain throughout the entire trilogy.

[BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by Asteroid-Man

So one thing that Phantom Menace did right was a badass villain... but then they killed him off and replaced him with some ****** political baddie.

Do you want them to follow the main outline of the first trilogy (the two second in commands in part one, where the "political" one dies and the pure-evil baddie goes missing, the surviving one and the main baddie in the shadows in the second film winning it out, and the reveal of the main baddie in part 3 with the badass second in command) or the prequel trilogy (new baddies in every film, but the main boss in all three).

What do you guys think?

The Phantom Menace didn't really do it right, none of them did. In the original Trilogy we saw Vader torture numerous people, murder his own men without a flinch for being inefficient, and cut off his sons own hand. We saw Tarkin blow up a planet to make an example, after going back on his promise having used said threat as a means of extortion. The Emperor was built up to the whole trilogy and was basically the Star Wars answer to Satan.

Compare that to Darth Maul, who looked cool but he didn't do anything. The score was the only thing to build a threatening presence for him on screen. Count Dooku did nothing and Grevious was just a coward who inevitably gets his ass kicked by Obi-Wan. One of the reasons we all remember that scene where Anakin kills the younglings so well is because it was the only scene in the prequels where someone's actions were actually villainous. In the prequels the plots told us these characters were evil but their actions said nothing. The new films can have multiple antagonists like the prequels did, but they need to actually act the part too.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by BenKenobi

The Phantom Menace didn't really do it right, none of them did. In the original Trilogy we saw Vader torture numerous people, murder his own men without a flinch for being inefficient, and cut off his sons own hand. We saw Tarkin blow up a planet to make an example, after going back on his promise having used said threat as a means of extortion. The Emperor was built up to the whole trilogy and was basically the Star Wars answer to Satan.

Compare that to Darth Maul, who looked cool but he didn't do anything. The score was the only thing to build a threatening presence for him on screen. Count Dooku did nothing and Grevious was just a coward who inevitably gets his ass kicked by Obi-Wan. One of the reasons we all remember that scene where Anakin kills the younglings so well is because it was the only scene in the prequels where someone's actions were actually villainous. In the prequels the plots told us these characters were evil but their actions said nothing. The new films can have multiple antagonists like the prequels did, but they need to actually act the part too.

I've posted something along these lines in the past. I agree 100%. Maul looked cool but they never did anything to earn our fear/respect.

[Gotham's Knight]

A new villain in each film with one Sith Lord or some other powerful villain operating in the shadows and manipulating events.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

A new villain in each film with one Sith Lord or some other powerful villain operating in the shadows and manipulating events.

I would say no to that. That is what the PT did, and to me it did not work. Of course they could make it work. But again I think the villain (especially in films like these (adventure/hero epics) need to interact with the world more, if they don't they are not as intimidating or memorable at times. We need someone like Vader who earns our fear, by doing some terrible deeds, and being part of the action, chasing the hero ect.

[MessiahDecoy123]

That's basically what the prequels did.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

That's basically what the prequels did.

I assume you are referring to Gotham with this? Because I agree lol.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by Solidus

I would say no to that. That is what the PT did, and to me it did not work. Of course they could make it work. But again I think the villain (especially in films like these (adventure/hero epics) need to interact with the world more, if they don't they are not as intimidating or memorable at times. We need someone like Vader who earns our fear, by doing some terrible deeds, and being part of the action, chasing the hero ect.

damn beat me to it.

[TheDreamMaster]

Originally Posted by Solidus

I would say no to that. That is what the PT did, and to me it did not work. Of course they could make it work. But again I think the villain (especially in films like these (adventure/hero epics) need to interact with the world more, if they don't they are not as intimidating or memorable at times. We need someone like Vader who earns our fear, by doing some terrible deeds, and being part of the action, chasing the hero ect.

Yeah, I mean, it seems like Dooku and Maul only got any character development with things like the Clone Wars series. Dooku worked alright in AOTC, but without his other appearences, he offers roughly the same thing Maul did overall, with the exception of having connections to the Jedi, Qui-gon specifically.

I hope we get a villian that can stand as an equal to Vader, but set themselves apart as something that is not a cheap copy.

[Gotham's Knight]

True but I personally feel it could be done well. I didn't even think of the prequels and how they used the same thing when writing it. However, I do feel a solo film villain can be done well. Take for example, The Dark Knight Trilogy. TDK's Joker is arguably one of the most recognizable villains on film in the last decade because of the writing and performance. Now, this could be chalked up to him being a previously established character and fair enough. But, take Silva from Skyfall. Or Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs. A villain that just appears in one film can be as memorable as one that is carried throughout a trilogy.

But, I feel a lot of it lies in the execution and writing. Silva and Hannibal Lector were well written characters, unlike Darth Maul, Dooku and General Grevious. That and the performances were memorable.

But, again, you guys do have a point that in films at this scale, it does help if the villain gets to interact with the world more often. So, perhaps something closer to the OT would work better. A villain working in the shadows, a memorable villain in the field and a third minor villain.

[Grievous]

They will create as many characters as possible, gotta make money with toys,collectables,etc. So a new bad guy for each movie is almost a sure thing. But in order for it to work it needs a villian that will be present throughout all 3 films.

[Happy Jack]

There needs to be a solid antagonist for the trilogy just as there needs to be a solid protagonist. But of course, heroes and villains hardly ever work alone so including side characters to color the fringes of the story is appropriate. This is what the original trilogy did so well with characters like Han and Leia as well as memorable villains like Jabba, Boba Fett (though he was very minor) and the Emperor.

[TheDreamMaster]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

True but I personally feel it could be done well. I didn't even think of the prequels and how they used the same thing when writing it. However, I do feel a solo film villain can be done well. Take for example, The Dark Knight Trilogy. TDK's Joker is arguably one of the most recognizable villains on film in the last decade because of the writing and performance. Now, this could be chalked up to him being a previously established character and fair enough. But, take Silva from Skyfall. Or Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs. A villain that just appears in one film can be as memorable as one that is carried throughout a trilogy.

But, I feel a lot of it lies in the execution and writing. Silva and Hannibal Lector were well written characters, unlike Darth Maul, Dooku and General Grevious. That and the performances were memorable.

But, again, you guys do have a point that in films at this scale, it does help if the villain gets to interact with the world more often. So, perhaps something closer to the OT would work better. A villain working in the shadows, a memorable villain in the field and a third minor villain.

I actually pretty much agree here, and it might be interesting to see our news heroes grow against several mounting threats, versus the one overhwelming threat of the OT. There are of course more themes and other players in the films of course (Jabba and the bounty hunters, etc.) but the Empire was always the main focus, with Vader as the cnetral villian until Palpatine came into play in person in ROTJ.

I do agree, the villian(s) has to be memorable though. For example, I really liked Star Trek '09, however not knowing much Trek all I know is Nero essentially rebooted the universe in film terms. Thats honestly a huge thing for a character to do. the problem is, I don't honestly remember a thing about Nero. I remember what he looked like alright, and I remembe rhe blew up Vulcan, but I don't remember lines, I don't remember any other actions, and I actually don't remember how he died. So I'd have to say the new villian (and this actually goes for all the characters) need to be well developed and memorable for these films to stand alongside the OT.

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think the biggest factor missing from the prequels was the sense of desperation of a rag tag group of protagonist going against a seemingly unstoppable empire.

It made it easier to root for the last jedi and rebel forces.

I hope for episode 7-9 they have Luke trying to organize and train a group of jedi to take on an entire empire. Luke dies at the end but the Jedi Order is established and able to bring order to the force.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by Gotham's Knight

True but I personally feel it could be done well. I didn't even think of the prequels and how they used the same thing when writing it. However, I do feel a solo film villain can be done well. Take for example, The Dark Knight Trilogy. TDK's Joker is arguably one of the most recognizable villains on film in the last decade because of the writing and performance. Now, this could be chalked up to him being a previously established character and fair enough. But, take Silva from Skyfall. Or Hannibal Lector in The Silence of the Lambs. A villain that just appears in one film can be as memorable as one that is carried throughout a trilogy.

But, I feel a lot of it lies in the execution and writing. Silva and Hannibal Lector were well written characters, unlike Darth Maul, Dooku and General Grevious. That and the performances were memorable.

But, again, you guys do have a point that in films at this scale, it does help if the villain gets to interact with the world more often. So, perhaps something closer to the OT would work better. A villain working in the shadows, a memorable villain in the field and a third minor villain.

First Hannibal was in three films, actually four so lol. The Joker had more of a build up and with comics it is a little different, X-Men did good with keeping Magneto but having others. So I think with comics we've seen a lot of the new villain every time. I think they should go with one main one and small side henchman that could add to it. The villain needs to be very interactive. Darth Maul would have been a little interesting if he would have survived and went on to Episode II, it would have given so much more drive and emotion/drama when Obi-wan confronted the man that killed his master after so many years.

It could be somewhat of a mixture, but having a primary antagonist with the hero in these films seems to work better. There are so many ways to do it, but the PT way just never worked, but that was because of the writing which I agree. Good writing is what is needed first. But I still want a primary villain, and a shadow figure maybe mentioned and slowly is unveiled, kinda like the emperor in the OT. But I think cool different henchman would be exciting, but the main villain is very involved with the plot/characters.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

I think the biggest factor missing from the prequels was the sense of desperation of a rag tag group of protagonist going against a seemingly unstoppable empire.

It made it easier to root for the last jedi and rebel forces.

I hope for episode 7-9 they have Luke trying to organize and train a group of jedi to take on an entire empire. Luke dies at the end but the Jedi Order is established and able to bring order to the force.

Well depending on what they do but I think Episode 7-9 for many reasons will take place decades later, the Empire will be gone. If they follow the cannon set by EU. I think it's going to be something different. A new kind of threat.

[Happy Jack]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

I think the biggest factor missing from the prequels was the sense of desperation of a rag tag group of protagonist going against a seemingly unstoppable empire.

That was a big issue. There just was not a protagonist in those films, especially The Phantom Menace. I would say that was a bigger problem than having a strong villain and something that is absolutely crucial to nail in this new trilogy.

[Grievous]

Some fans didn't like how the prequel villians were pulled out of the air and killed off almost just as fast. Take my favorite character Grievous for example. He had a good back story and all the movie goers know is he had a cough problem and hated Jedi. Jango was a little easier cause you had Boba. Maul was kinda random too. I think if they bring in a new guy for each film they need to do a better job with the back story. Not saying a whole 5 minutes is needed but just long enough to show how they got to where they are now.

[Solidus]

I would agree with that, I still think a central strong villain is needed, but yea the problem defiantly was back story. I know the EU sure got into it, but the films need to give us a reason to care first and foremost.

[Gotham's Knight]

Originally Posted by Solidus

First Hannibal was in three films, actually four so lol. The Joker had more of a build up and with comics it is a little different, X-Men did good with keeping Magneto but having others. So I think with comics we've seen a lot of the new villain every time. I think they should go with one main one and small side henchman that could add to it. The villain needs to be very interactive. Darth Maul would have been a little interesting if he would have survived and went on to Episode II, it would have given so much more drive and emotion/drama when Obi-wan confronted the man that killed his master after so many years.

It could be somewhat of a mixture, but having a primary antagonist with the hero in these films seems to work better. There are so many ways to do it, but the PT way just never worked, but that was because of the writing which I agree. Good writing is what is needed first. But I still want a primary villain, and a shadow figure maybe mentioned and slowly is unveiled, kinda like the emperor in the OT. But I think cool different henchman would be exciting, but the main villain is very involved with the plot/characters.

With Hannibal, he made a splash in TSOTL without the need for the other films (plus, let's be honest, Hannibal and Hannibal Rising SUCKED). Sure, he had the other films but, like Darth Vader, he made a splash in his first appearance without the need for sequels or prequels to make him great.

With Joker, I did point out that build up as well I believe.

Looking at Darth Maul in TPM, even if he did survive, it doesn't change anything about how he was in that film. He was so boring and had no personality. But, if someone else wrote the scripts for the prequels, I do agree that it would have been interesting to see an older Obi Wan confront Darth Maul.

I do see your point though and definitely agree that one villain in multiple films can be a very good thing.

And, TheDreamMaster, that could be very interesting and a good way to mix it up. And Nero was a really weak villain in an otherwise very good movie.