Gianakin_
SW Prequels Defender
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2006
- Messages
- 21,479
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
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.
One by one, with an overarching villain.
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.
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 think they should let the sith lay low for awhile, and then reappear at the end of episode 9 setting up the next trilogy.
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
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.