ST Who's The Baddie?

They haven't cheaply brought anyone back in the movies & I don't think they're about to start. That's what novels, comics & cartoons are for

 

if they bring Plagueis into the fold they risk just doing that though

I'd like a brand new villain not yet established in any comic, novel, tv series. That's what I'm hoping for anyway

 

I wouldn't call Plagueis featuring in Ep7 "cheap" like those other examples, bcs he's hasn't appeared in the films & only received 1 brief mention that only us fans will even remember. Although it's not cheap it's unnecessary & would be a strange choice IMO.

 

I wouldn't call it "cheap" either, simply based on the villain itself. Neither would I say it's impossible to make a Nightsister or some form of Sith witch a viable villain. There are a million ways to tell a story, and if done artfully enough, the concept of Nightsisters certainly could be introduced effectively. So could Plagueis. Never underestimate the power of storytelling.

 

Although I never said the word "cheap" myself,

*looks over previous posts*

I still think it's a very bad idea, unoriginal and clichéd,

All of which are definition of "bad storytelling"

 

I don't know. You can take an unoriginal idea, even a cliche, and redeem it with artful storytelling. Basically, we would have to reserve judgment until we see the product.

 

I think you probably could but it would be a big risk and you'd need to be a very talented script writer to pull it off.

 

Maybe by showing 'em.

 

That's what they'd have to do. Start from scratch & introduce them to a new audience. If it would work well within the ST then why not.

 

Yes I like that approach as well.

 

I get the sense that they're probably going to start all-new in terms of villains. It's sounding like they may want to distance themselves a bit from the PT. How much so is anyone's guess (if this is even true).

I must say, I love the idea of Leia as Supreme Chancellor. With Leia heading the Senate and Luke one of, if not the top Jedi, they'd probably feel quite cozy by this stage in the game. I can see how a sudden disruption of that order could cause all hell to break loose.

 

"Dantooine, what's Dantooine?" "Bogden, what's Bogden?"

They don't even have to establish within the movies that the abilities this character has come from the Nightsisters. It could just be trivia for the fans.

 

The argument that Palpatine will be undermined by Plagueis presupposes that the actions or qualities of Plagueis will somehow outshine Palpatine's previous actions and qualities. But doesn't any new villain pose this risk? Let's say we get a Palp apprentice or an alien invader -- if they succeed in anyway that Palpatine didn't (like killing Luke), then that undermines Palpatine.

To which I ask: who cares?

You raise an important point that should be made absolutely clear. I agree that an action of some sort is also required -- but what I was pointing out is that the action doesn't need to be successful but kicking action.

Vader might not have killed Palpatine, but his change would have led to some act that would allow Luke to achieve victory or escape. But whatever external act Vader takes, the key position change (action) is internal.

For example, instead of throwing Palpatine down the shaft, Vader might have simple stepped in front of Luke in order to shield him. Luke could have either escaped at this point, allowing the Rebellion to continue, or he might have been able to kill Palpatine himself. But Vader could have simply sacrificed his life without killing Palpatine himself and his redemption would be just as great as what we saw in ROTJ.

In fact, if GL had known an ST was coming, I think this might have been a better ending. Even if Palpatine escapes and the Empire survives, Vader's redemption is a huge blow to them. A huge victory for the Jedi, the Rebellion, and Anakin.

The key point is that individual redemption is an internal action. External action may demonstrate redemption to the audience, but the action is only necessary insofar as that redemption is successfully conveyed. For example, Vader might have just went down on his knees and removed his helmet, declaring he was no longer a Sith, and that would suffice as a redeeming act. He shows in this peaceful action that he's changed and resisting Palpatine. Palpatine would likely be angered by this resistance and turn his attack on Vader -- or he might have ignored Vader and killed Luke. Killing Luke would be a huge setback for the Rebellion, but Vader's internal victory would still be whole. It wouldn't be "pretty useless" even in this scenario where Luke dies. Palpatine would lose his power over the Chosen One and lose his apprentice. One of the great villains of the Republic would be no more. Useless? I don't think so.

Then there's the symbolic power of Vader's change. That a Sith would choose the light over darkness would be a great symbol for the Rebellion, even if the martyr's only act was to die for their beliefs. Like Christ and other peaceful resistors prove, sometimes the most powerful act is non-violence.

So the penny dropping in Vader's mind is much more like a spiritual explosion. Before any external action can take place at all, it's necessary for that penny to burst.

 

I was referring to Downunder who loves to mess with Plagueis fans. I find it amusing

 

It's so obvious an answer, I don't know why people need to hear it. RobShanti summed it up best when he said "Never underestimate the power of storytelling." Too many arguments in this thread are based on the assumption that storytelling is impossible. "How can the audience know such and such?" If you know anything about narrative or have a strong imagination, these answers should be obvious.

Anyway, RobShanti has some really interesting ideas for the E7 villain. "Jedi Code fundamentalist" is something that would work great as a way of showing us how Luke is trying to remake the Order.

It seems like your ideas suggest two antagonistic forces, with Luke and the new heroes caught in the middle. One antagonist would be the dogmatic Jedi and the other another kind of culture with fundamentalist beliefs. Sort of what you're thinking? If so, I like it a lot.

Darth_Pevra:

I've been wondering about this argument lately. Would this goal be enough for the war aspect of SW? Most people don't fight wars simply to destroy, but because they want or need something. I can imagine one individual like the Joker who wants to destroy everything, but why would a whole army back such a nihilistic urge? An army large enough for a star war? Not saying it's impossible, but interested in what you imagine here.

JediStarMoonstruck: That was an interesting post. Love to see more in the plot synopsis thread.

 

The first thought that occurs to me is akin to Hitler when he realized Nazi Germany was going to lose WW2 and he made the decision to let all of Germany go down with him. In other words, if he couldn't have it and he couldn't take it with him, then nobody could. But I'm not sure what the set-up to all-or-nothing premise would be. It's something I could conceivably have seen Palpatine doing, but if he's dead and not coming back, then I don't know.

 

If you know a lot about narrative you have a keen sense of what should go into the garbage bin.

I'm still entertaining the idea of a villain duo where one villain, the Sith, desires revenge, destruction upon the republic and maybe the Jedi and maybe the Skywalker family and the other main villain desiring something different, like a mandalorian utopia. The Sith here would be part of the alliance because he knows the mandalorians would create destruction and topple the republic that he hates. On the other hand the mandalorian would be disgusted by the Sith's insanity but still profit from his dark magics.

I don't know why, but the idea of two philosophically conflicting main villains is really appealing to me.

 

I like this, but I would have the Mandalorians playing the Sith and Jedi against one another. I can see them not liking the Jedi, but at the same time not fully trusting the Sith as both sides would present opportunities and obstacles to creating their Madalorian Utopia.

 

Thanks. I'll try to do that tonight. They're not very complete, through. I've been reluctant to post there, too, but I guess since I posted here, I might as well post my plot ideas.

 

So Palpy believes anyway.
It very well might not be a fact he is dead.
And unlike Fett or Maul we haven't seen him before on screen. No comparison.

 

I would have thought you'd know if someone was dead if you killed them in their sleep, it's not like fighting on the edge of a cliff.

Anyway, my opinion, sorry if it's so unpopular

 

Well going off of the book, we have Palpatine's perspective, not Plagueis'. And besides killing a being that has the Force? And one that can create life? I doubt its that simple. Still completely different from Fett and Maul.
Believe whatever you want, just pointing some things out.

 

By that logic, all Jedi and Sith should be able to survive anything.

 

A Sith Lord where Treachery is the way of things?
And one that can create life?
Not buying him dead.

 

That's an awful lot of certainty for something that's merely possible.

Naga Sadow, Freedon Nadd, Exar Kun, Malak, Vitiate, Ruin, Bane, Tenebrous, Sidious, etc.