Trilogy Villain or One by One?

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by dude love

One by one, with an overarching villain.

Yup. But not in the shadows. I loved what the PT did with that, but it's time for something else.

[dude love]

Yeah, I don't mean in the shadows Blofield style. One big badass Vader head honcho, with underlings. Plus other peripheral gangsters, bounty hunters, pirates, etc.

[Gianakin_]

So, the OT.

[dude love]

Well the Empror was the shadowy puppet master in the OT too really.

[Gianakin_]

Indeed, but Vader, for all intents and purposes, was the main and overarching villain, who was also... tangible.

[Ray D.]

Basically I've imagined:
VII - Some minor league threat (pirates/something of that ilk), Imperials growing more upset with the Galactic Federation, and a Darksider from the Lost Tribe of Sith appearing and fighting Luke.
VIII - The Imperial Remnant feels they get the short end of the stick within the Galactic Federation and decide to overthrow it. A couple more LTOS Lords appear.
IX - LTOS invade Coruscant and the Jedi Temple. Every criminal and warriro organization in the galaxy come to the Jedi' aid, fearing the Sith taking over once more.

[Gianakin_]

That's not a bad basis at all, but it could do with some tweaking to let go of the "Empire" and "Sith" motif.

[BenKenobi]

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.

The reason for the quality of Nolans Batman films was his take it one film at a time approach. A lot film makers have a hardtime focusing on the film at hand alone when they are given the comfort of a guaranteed sequel. Usually the first film is a stand alone piece, then they spend the second film (now that they know they can get a third) building up to a climax at the end which turns out to some sort of cliff hanger (think Spider-Man 2, Empire Strikes Back). While this makes for a great movie, it really boxes the director in on the third film and usually results in a bit of a let down.

Lucas seemed to have this attitude that he could just push things off till later because he had three films and he wasted almost all of episode I which did absolutely nothing for his "tragedy of Darth Vader" plan.

[Gianakin_]

TDK ended with a massive cliffhanger. BB ended with a Joker tease. Nolan and Goyer had a trilogy plan. They took the "one film at a time" approach in terms of some elements and specifics (especially after Heath's death), but there was a trilogy plan, by Goyer's own admission (and he admitted it once before TDK and once before TDKR).

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by BenKenobi

The reason for the quality of Nolans Batman films was his take it one film at a time approach. A lot film makers have a hardtime focusing on the film at hand alone when they are given the comfort of a guaranteed sequel. Usually the first film is a stand alone piece, then they spend the second film (now that they know they can get a third) building up to a climax at the end which turns out to some sort of cliff hanger (think Spider-Man 2, Empire Strikes Back). While this makes for a great movie, it really boxes the director in on the third film and usually results in a bit of a let down.

Lucas seemed to have this attitude that he could just push things off till later because he had three films and he wasted almost all of episode I which did absolutely nothing for his "tragedy of Darth Vader" plan.

I think the fall of Anakin could've great cinema if executed better.

[Mr. Wooden Alligator]

One big villain, and one-two smaller ones who are working with the big villain because their character demands it. You could make the subordinates "cool" looking so they'd be like the Boba Fett of the ST, only with better deaths or resolutions to their arcs. Then you can have random smaller villains working under them, like the bounty hunters from TESB.

[Destructus86]

I'd like to see the first film start out with a primary villain right off the bat. With a secondary/lesser villain who becomes more and more threatening through the film. The second film would find the roles a bit reversed. The primary villain would find himself and his organization just trying to survive as the lesser villain becomes a much larger threat to the primary villain's organization and to the New Republic.

Thoughts?

[Lord]

What about this time having a villain that evolves together with the main character as the trilogy goes on, having his quest to gain power going side by side with the main characters tale

[Jedi-Spirit]

I vote for both

[Hellion]

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.

Agreed, the main thing with the PT baddies (Maul/Dooku/Grievous) is all the good stuff happens in the EU, they were basically Jedi fodder in the films......but thats also the PT in general, things are mentioned and referenced by characters with no real reason.

I'd like them to go the Palpatine/Vader route from the OT and throw in some more henchman or side/villains.

[NewYorkSpider]

One by One with a larger villian in the background.

[Lord]

With the last trilogies we had a sole villain in the background, for this new one i would like to see a villain whose quest interlaps with the main character's, who doesn't start as an all powerful master, but as somebody that spends the trilogy gaining power and allies.

You could even have a different villain giving the early problems while in the 3rd film the true villain uses the strength he had been gathering in the previous films to rise as the big bad. This way the villain's quest could even mirror the main character's

[Solidus]

That's a good idea, having a villain that some what grows in his powers as we go along. I'd be down for that. I'm fine with whatever as long as it's good. But the one villain at a time thing has been done so much in the past decade by comic book films I would like to see one that sticks with the story the entire way. But good idea about giving them a "growing" arc.

[Fives]

I think I'd like something similar to the OT where you have one main villain in all three, but also a secondary villain like Vader more or less in the new trilogy. They should follow more the OT in terms of main villains then the PT.

I do like the idea of the villain growing with each film. I also agree that I'd like an overarching villain for the new trilogy. I didn't really like having a seperate villain in each of the PT.

[Destructus86]

HOw about introducing a person or organization we THINK is the villain...but turns out they are just trying to save themselves from the real villain that wants merely in the way of their goal?

[KillerCarlson]

I think they should let the sith lay low for awhile, and then reappear at the end of episode 9 setting up the next trilogy.

[BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by KillerCarlson

I think they should let the sith lay low for awhile, and then reappear at the end of episode 9 setting up the next trilogy.

Star Wars is the Jedi and the Sith. They should do something with the idea that the force has been purified and perhaps theres a whole new type of evil entity out there now. Anyway I don't want to see IX-XI, they can make a new trillogy outside the primary saga after this.

[BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by Lord

With the last trilogies we had a sole villain in the background, for this new one i would like to see a villain whose quest interlaps with the main character's, who doesn't start as an all powerful master, but as somebody that spends the trilogy gaining power and allies.

You could even have a different villain giving the early problems while in the 3rd film the true villain uses the strength he had been gathering in the previous films to rise as the big bad. This way the villain's quest could even mirror the main character's

Obi-Wan and Anakin? Whatever happens the story of the Sequels needs to build itself as an unrealized climax to both the prequels and the original trilogy. The stakes need to be high from Episode VII all the way through IX.

[kang604]

I'd like to see a triple threat conflict, with the balance of power constantly shifting.

Off the top of my head: the New Republic lead by Leia with Luke and a re-established Jedi Order, the Mandalorians, and a Dark Side Force User, but not necessarily a Sith.

I think we also need to see a central character fall to the Dark Side, probably a good time would be at the end of the 2nd film.

[BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by kang604

I'd like to see a triple threat conflict, with the balance of power constantly shifting.

Off the top of my head: the New Republic lead by Leia with Luke and a re-established Jedi Order, the Mandalorians, and a Dark Side Force User, but not necessarily a Sith.

I think we also need to see a central character fall to the Dark Side, probably a good time would be at the end of the 2nd film.

Given that this is supposed to be the climax of the saga, I'd say make this a lawless time. The Empires been over thrown but who ever gave the Rebels and Leia power? Luke went off to rebuild the order but was that reasonable, did he understand why the original corrupted Jedi Order fell?

Heres an idea I had. The Crime Syndicates such as the Hutt Clan and Black Sun have taken control of various parts of the galaxy, while the Empire struggles to recuperate and the New Republic tries to take shape.