PT Was Grievous a good villain?

Would have been cool just to see him in the hanger on Courscant at the end of Episode 2 where Dooku meets with Sidious. He wouldn't have to say anything, he could just be there looking imposing and cool. It sets up that he's a bad guy in Sidious's inner circle, privy to the plans and schemes and plots, and isn't too much of a surprise when we see him in Episode 3. For me that would have been a decent enough entry into the SW universe for him.

 

He was really cool for me because I have a wild imagination, so learning his backstory and everything in the EU was cool. I thought he did his job well in the films.
darth_mccartney: That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

Not really.

 

I think GG was awesome but he literally came out of no where. Just setting him up in ATOC by having a few lines about his development would do the job nicely.

Yet his role is what it is. It needn't be any bigger.

 

"It is a volcanic planet. You will be safe there."

I'm sorry, what the heck are you talking about? What does one have to do with the other? Who is writing your lines? How could Obi-Wan tear open your exoskeleton with his bare hands? You are a terrible villain. Have a Ricola.

 

Grievous is a visually cool character to look at, but at the end of the day we're getting a cyborg that came out of a magician's hat with little backstory. He's under-developed, thats for sure. Not to mention he's basically the savage combat-thirsty Maul repeat which isn't very nice.

So in my opinion, he isn't a good villain.

 

To be honest, when I first watched RotS I had no idea how this guy came out of nowhere and died so quickly...really a waste. I really wouldn't have bothered to learn more about this guy if I didn't have a friend who was nuts about him (and transferred the obsession to me...)
Grievous is much better in the EU and I would have to say given his past before he was a cyborg, would make a better protagonist than antagonist of his own story.

 

Agreed. I enjoy how the EU puts such a wider perspective on Grevious' story.

 

He was a pretty average one in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

He served his purpose. It's difficult to create a backstory for a villian who's meant to die sometime in the trilogy either way. The villians' deaths were meant to mean something but not too much to overshadow the real direction of the movies.

Sent from my GT-S5660 using Tapatalk 2

 

Yes, he was an awesome villain. Four lightsabers, an awesome voice, an intimidating "face", and the way he was wielding his lightsabers so they spun around and cut into the floor as he walked towards Obi-Wan was just scary and awesome.

 

Grievous had a greet look and the attitude needed to be a villain. However, there was no real development of his character to make the audience fear him. I remember being so surprised seeing him in ROTS. I thought he was awesome, but wished they introduced his background to the audience. It like here's a new villain and then he's defeated around the middle of the movie. What fun is that having a great concept of a villain being easily written off. I know he was featured in the animated series. However, you can't expect every fan to know to watch the animated series to be filled in on the characters.

 

Yep, Phoenix 267' my sentiments exactly. Grevious looks cool, but George didn't give him much to do.

 

Grievous was a decent enough villain. The problem with the prequels is that they suffer from their own hype. We hear about characters roughly a year in advance of the film. We spend the next year reading about them in Star Wars Insider, hearing how badass they are, talking about them on the internet, seeing official images, EU stories, etc, etc. We anticipate with glee what the character will be like and how awesome he will be.

Then the movie comes out, we meet the character, and within 90 minutes they are dead. It is very hard not to having an anticlimatic feeling.

I'm starting to get the sense of history repeating itself with "The Inquisitor". We shall see.

 

i think he was a solid bad guy

 

Animated version yes. Live action version **** no.

 

If you watch the fight again, his chest area was damaged with an electrostaff a few seconds prior.

He's not really like Maul at all. Maul is a savage, bloodthirsty demon, like you said. Grievous is a mustache-twirling braggart who talks a big talk but runs away as soon as the odds turn against him. He's dangerous, but he's all the more reprehensible because he doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

 

His development relies a bit too heavily on the EU, but I'd say he's one of the most iconic things from the PT.

 

I notice this in a lot of cases with the Prequels.

 

I said this before and I'll say it again. Warfare is not about honor or even courage(though obviously one must be brave int he first place to step onto a battlefield). It is about winning. If you are overmatched you had better run. You then live to fight another day. Read Sun Tzu. GG lived up to every bit of it. Sun Tzu won wars with smaller forces with a big part of his tactics being to run away when need be. You cannot win if you are dead.

Mace Windu was an idiot for calling him a coward.

 

The Grievous character is cool and i agree that he should of been in at least one scene in AOTC. I read somewhere that Grievous was used in the battle of Geonosis and that he killed a few Jedi and Clones.

It would of been cool if there was a scene of Clone's firing in the sand cloud after the federation ship got shot down where Grievous's shadow just kills a few clones with his clawed feet. Enough of a scene where we are wondering WTF? but then in ROTS we know who he is.

 

I thought he was, but would have liked some additional back story. IIRC, his first appearances were in the Clone Wars series that aired between Episodes II and III. I didn't have access to wherever it aired.

 

I'm a little torn. I loved the character in SW:CW. I like him in RotS but it's a shame he wasn't introduced in AotC. TCW GG was pretty good, he got one or two character studies that built him up, but for the most part he was just a cliché.

As he's only in about 1/4 of one film it's not very fair to compare him to the main antagonists. However there's nothing much to tie him to the protagonists, so he has diminished importance to the story...

I'd say he compares more favourably to other one-shot Star Wars villains such as Tarkin, Bobba Fett, Jabba, Maul and Dooku. RotS left me lamenting the under-use of Grievous, but that can be seen as a positive; GG leaves us wanting more! He's arguably just another disposable villain-of-the-week, but he got better screen time than Bobba and Maul. If he had some sort of personal dispute or history with a protagonist established earlier in the saga, he might have trumped characters like Jabba or Tarkin, maybe even ANH Vader.

If you view ANH as one film, GG is probably as decent a henchman as Vader was. They were both built up by their Jedi enemies and both gave moustache twirlingly, set chewingly OTT performances. But there's just not enough there with GG. GL tried to shoehorn in that scene with him killing Shaak Ti but it just didn't work. Too little too late. He should have been at Geonosis and wiped out about 30 Jedi in front of Kenobi, or nuked Theed from orbit in TPM (or both). He should have given the goodies reason to hate or fear him, or should have had some reason to hate and fear the goodies. Something.

tl;dr: I want to like him (and kind of do) but the problem is more to do with the way the saga is written than how good or bad he is.

 

Grievous serves as a distraction throughout the film. A fun distraction, but a distraction nonetheless. The early Clone Wars episodes from '03 featured Durge and Asajj Ventress as the main secondary villains; both of which were featured quite a bit when compared with Dooku and Sidious. Then later, Grievous was the main villain. While seeing Asajj Ventress in the films would've been quite neat, I'm glad they went with Grievous (especially over Durge). While watching the CW microseries is beneficial in understanding Grievous, I think one of the reasons GL included him, from what I have read in the past, was to introduce a Vader-like character that is part living being and part machine. The technology that went into building him is supposed to be a precursor to what was done with Vader. That being said, he could have benefited from an introduction at the end of AOTC or a little more backstory, but the same could be said for other villains in the PT.

All things considered, I like Grievous and think he's one of the more fun aspects of the PT. He's a very different kind of character, if not a bit gimmicky with the ability to wield four lightsabers at once; but would you expect anything less from GL?

 

Like several other villains in the PT he was just sort of dumped into a single film, did some shiny CGI intense stuff and then died without being developed at all.

He was basically the Jango/Maul of ROTS - characters that existed to serve the plot.