PT Was Grievous a good villain?

I Are The Internets why did you find him terrible? My main gripe was the way he was used in the movie.

 

So is Grievous.

He already is. Fandom and pop culture prove it. It's not a matter of opinion.

I'm trying to find an argument on your side, but I see none. Yes, those characters are iconic, so are many others (some more, some less, but still iconic).

For a fictional character to be iconic it has to be as known as Bruce Lee? When was that determined? By whom? And how do you measure that?

 

First I disagree with the idea that if we have a primary villain then the secondary villain doesn't have to be any good as they are not important. To me that is settling for mediocrity.

To me, a good film can have BOTH a good primary villain AND a good secondary villain.
And having a good secondary villain doesn't have to weaken the primary villain.

Ex The first X-Men film had two villains, Senator Kelley and Magneto. Sure the latter did a lot more but the former was still important as a representative of the hostile, antagonistic human world.
X-Men 2 also had two villains, Magneto and Stryker and both were developed and given lots to do.
Batman Begins had three villains, Falcone, who represents the mob in Gotham, the Scarecrow and finally R'as Al Ghul. (sp)

Comparing Boba with Griev is not very accurate as Griev was far more important to the plot and the characters in RotS. All Boba does is allow the empire to track Han and co to Bespin and he takes Han to Jabba.
He does have one important advantage over Griev in that he is shown as someone quite competent. The only Griev knew how to do was run away. When he stood his ground, Obi-Wan "disarmed" him quickly.

As for Dooku, he could have been a very good addition to TPM. First we meet him outside the council and he and Qui-Gon greet each other warmly. Dooku says that he feels the senate is too corrupt and that the jedi should no longer dishonor themselves by serving such a corrupt body. He fails to convince the council of this however.

At films end, Dooku talks to Obi-Wan, quite sad over Qui-Gons death and he asks Obi-Wan to join him. That he is leaving the order and he wants to track down the other Sith and help the systems in the republic that are not getting any help from the Senate. Obi-Wan thanks him for the offer but as he has Anakin to train and he still has faith in the Jedi Order, so turns the offer down.
This way, when we get to AotC, we know Dooku and from what we saw, he seemed like a good guy. So the seps would not be such obvious bad guys as they are in the film. And Dooku's part in the attempt on Padme would be less obvious. This would make the fact that he turned to the dark side as much more of a chock and surprise.
The film tried to make Dooku ambiguous but in my view, it failed. The crawl made him sound like a bad guy and the first we hear of him is Padme accusing him of attempted murder and no surprise, it was him.

This would also play with audience expectations in TPM. Having Sir Lee in the film, many would assume that he is the bad guy but he isn't.

Griev could also have been introduced in AotC, he could be shown killing Jedi in the fight and we could see his tactical brilliance when he turns the republic getting a surprise attack on the seps into more of a fight.
So we see that he is capable and deadly and then this raises the tension in RotS when the good guys face him. Since we know what he can do.

In closing, as I said before, a "good" villain is someone that challenges the heroes in some way, Griev didn't, he ran away most of the time.
And why bother with a heart and lungs? Given how little is left of his body, why not simply have his brain in a complete robot body? And if does breathe, why didn't he suffocate when he was outside the ship?
I also knew people that thought he was just a robot and wondered why you would make a coughing robot.
But the SW galaxy have cowardly robots so why not one who smokes too much.

Alexrd

I would disagree somewhat with this.
Just being known inside a fandom is not enough to make a character iconic to me. The character would have to be known and recognized outside that fandom as well.
Inside superhero fandom people know who Batman is but the character is quite well know outside that fandom. Even people that haven't read a single Batman comic or seen any film could know who the character is.

If you asked non-SW people who General Grievus was, I am not sure that everyone or even a majority would know who that was. And I haven't seen all that much pop-culture references to Griev outside of SW. Jar Jar gets referenced quite a lot, Anakin, Padme but him? Not so much in my experience.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Alexrd Grievous is not as popular as Gollum or any of the other Icons I mentioned. Since you and I have been posting not one other post has said Grievous is iconic, only yours. I don't mind your opinion but how come you don't explain your opinion? You can disagree with mine but where is your proof? I have explained my opinion, I have read the whole thread and you were the only person who referred to Grievous as iconic that's my proof. If there is anyone else who thinks he is iconic I would like to read why you think so. At this point we need a poll. Is Grievous an iconic villain? That will provide the proof that Alexrd asking me for.

 

i just didnt like him coughing up a lung every 5 minutes. made him look really stupid

 

Kanan Katarn when you watched ROTS with people that did not see clone wars did they question why Grievous was coughing?

 

Wow. Coughing. if that bugs you so much a thicker skin is needed. Or perhaps the realization that constant cynicism over such a non-thing does not make you smarter.

 

Just because someone doesn't like Grievous cough doesn't mean they need thicker skin. You appear to be upset over another person opinion. That means you are the one in need of thicker skin. Why are some of the Grievous defenders not saying why they like Grievous? It seems some of the Grievous defenders only comeback is you are wrong and that's it. If Kanan thinks the cough is silly so what, that's his opinion. But please stop with the you think you are smarts and stop the cynicism over a non thing. It may be a non thing to you but another person might be big. So please refrain from personal attacks just because people disagree with you.

 

I don't see a reason for "Grievous Defenders" to come back and "defend" Grievous. This thread, by the looks of it, was originally made to find out someone's own opinion on Grievous. Not to prove someone wrong about Grievous being good or bad at his job of destroying the Republic. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to start a flame war, but this thread is clearly based off of one's opinion of Grievous. I don't exactly agree with VadersLaMent post either, but don't discriminate them about it.

 

I never discriminated against anybody I even agreed with a couple of points that people made. Alexrd and VadersLaMent did not do that. I never called their opinion stupid and I never called them any names. I never said people can not defend or explain why they think Grievous was a good villain. Every point I made I explained why? I have read people outright call Grievous terrible and a waste. They have not received the venom I am getting. I never said I hate Grievous . My issue was the way he was portrayed and said if he was written better he would have been a better villain. Then Alexrd accused me of speaking on others behalf then VadersLaMent made a statement saying that if you dislike Grievous's cough you need thicker skin. Those sound like personal attacks, not opinions about Grievous. So please stop using the word discriminate or accuse me of speaking on others behalf especially if I did not do that. If I said almost everyone in this thread would agree the Grievous was not a good villain, then that would be generalizing or speaking for other people. My persistence has nothing to do with being right. Alexrd called Grievous ICONIC and I asked why? His response WELL HE JUST IS. I asked someone about Grievous's cough then here comes VaderLaMent's comments on thicker skin. Neither of those guys provided an opinion in there post about the thread subject, just insults and accusations.

 

A very persuading post. I can see the points you have made, and perhaps the word "discriminate" was not of correct use. I apologize for any mistakes I have made in my post, just going back to review even more previous posts, you are indeed correct. I acknowledged what has been said and compared. Once again, I apologize for any mistakes.

 

Thank you, no offense taken. I accept your apology.

 

Because he wouldn't eat his vegetables.

 

I do not find him an engaging, memorable villain. Another missed opportunity in the PT. He comes off as cowardly and not very smart. Grevious just keeps his lightsabers in his cloak, knowing any Jedi can move them with his mind. He runs off when there's danger. To me, he is never much of a real threat to the Jedi. He was originally presented in the Clone Wars cartoon (the one that was hand drawn, before ROTS came out) as a real threat and powerful adversary. Now, I understand the argument that the cartoon was not Lucas' total vision of the character, etc. But, if you are going to have a cartoon come out as a prequel to your next movie (and to generate interest as well as a lot of money), you just have to take responsibility for it and continue in that vein. Plus he had no pants lol. Kidding.

I would rather have seen him destroyed in the beginning instead of Dooku. Then have Dooku in more of ROTS, filling that role. Just my two cents

 

If Grievous was to be your main General of a Galactic Army, then he should have been more competent. The stuff on him in the ROTS novel was amazing.

 

Grievous was the Vader of the clone wars era before they made him a wimpy coward in ROTS and beyond. I remember thinking he was invincible after seeing him in the original cone wars miniseries.

 

In melee combat, and sword fighting yes he seemed invincible!



Although, Mace Windu during the battle of Coruscant, when Chancellor Palapatine was captured and taken to a transport ship, Grievous turned to engage Mace, and Mace simply crushed Grievous's organs with the force. So Grievous can definitely be a formidable foe, IF you're fighting him with melee or sword combat. Otherwise, he won't be so lucky. I can agree, I wish Grievous was a bit more devastating than what he showed to be in ROTS.

 

My friends who saw Grevious in the cartoons before the film, were in awe of him.

One explained to me, as I was seeing him for the first time in ROTS, about Mace Windu's organ crush being the reason he was coughing in the film.

I, for one, am not going to make a ******* federal case out of it, if Alexrd finds the character iconic.

 

He doesn't have to be. Your point?

Your proof of what?

I asked you to explain why a fictional character has to be as known as Bruce Lee to be iconic, when was that determined, by whom, and how do you measure that.

Do what? Discriminate? Where did I discriminate anyone?

Because you did:

Most of us knew what Grievous was before we saw ROTS but the general public had no idea.

Your words, not mine.

 

I wouldn't think of GG as iconic either. When I hear the words Star Wars I think of Vader, Palpatine, Yoda, Luke, the Force and things like that. There are definitely many things iconic to Star Wars and for most GG doesn't come to mind. However, one of the definitions of iconic is being widely recognized and well established. In this sense GG is indeed iconic. Show his picture to people and most everyone will either know who he is or at least know that he was a character in Star Wars.

 

Rabs you don't have to show a person a picture for them to recognize an icon. If you mention an icons name you instantly recognize them. That's my point, if you ask who is General Grievous? most people will not know him. If I said Hey do you know who John McClain is? They would know, I would not have to show them a picture of John McClain. Alexrd Bruce Lee is a icon even though he is not a fictional character. If you ask 100 people do you know who Bruce Lee is? Most will say yes. Outside of the Star Wars fandom Grievous is not as well know or recognized as a GOOD VILLIAN or an ICON. You can be iconic for being TERRIBLE too but Grievous is not iconic either way positive or negative IMO. Grievous does not come close to none of the icons I mentioned. As far as villains go Darth Maul is probably the most well know villain of the PT. You can argue that Maul is iconic. Im not saying he is better than Grievous, just more popular. Alexrd why are you still not explaining Grievous greatness? I still have yet to read an opinion from you. You are the only person who said Grievous was an icon. Most of the post about Grievous have been negative or he's ok. That is the FACT. Just based of the thread your opinion is in the minority. Out of hundreds of post you are the only person who called him iconic. It does not make your opinion wrong, it just shows not many people agree that he is. So you can keep picking apart my post all you want. I will applaud you when you actually state your opinion and why you feel that way. Alexrd one question for you did as many people watch Clone Wars as ROTS? the answer is no. So more of the general public went in to watch ROTS without knowledge of Grievous. End of Debate. If most of the people on this board did not see clone wars, why do so many people reference it? My statement was made off observation not generalization.

 

The Jedi. To me, I'm pretty certain that the jedi are iconic. That a fair amount of the world's population outside the specific Star Wars fandom, have heard of jedi, and know what they are.

And to the generation of cartoon-watching children that watched The Clone Wars, the parents of those kids who either watched The Clone Wars with them, or purchased The Clone Wars dvds for them; and lastly general Star Wars fans of any age, adults included, who watched The Clone Wars because it bore the Star Wars logo, witnessed General Grevious kick jedi ass.

By association at least, I would say that is sufficient to make General Grevious an iconic character.

I add more value to a character the more times they appear. The General likely appeared enough times throughout the series for water-cooler talk for grown-ups, and playground talk for younglings, for his existence and actions to permeate from the SW-specific audience out to their peers.

Darth Dookacas Granted, it wasn't Alexrd who presented the opinion, as you have been demanding, but hopefully you will accept mine, since I suspect Alexrd just came here to have fun and have his say, and not to get badgered by you.

I'm sure he and I are still the minority vote, so what does it matter?

 

Where you're making your mistake is comparing GG with pop culture icons. I agree with you that GG does not have pop culture icon status. However, he is a Star Wars icon in the fact that Star Wars fans will know who he is. Not all characters from the OT even have that status of Vader or Bruce Lee. Nowhere in the definition of iconic does it say that in order to be an icon something must be known by the majority of the population. It just has to be widely recognized and well established. And among Star Wars fandom GG is widely recognized. There are millions of fans that will know who he is. GG is iconic in the most basic sense of the definition. I'll use boxing as an example. Mike Tyson is a boxer who has pop icon status. Everyone knows who he is. Emanuel Steward is also a boxing icon but I bet most non boxing fans don't know who he is. And he is considered a huge icon in the boxing world.

 

I think in the CW microseries, Grievous was awesome and it made me excited to see him in ROTS. But I think that in general (no pun), the microseries as a whole was exaggerated to suit the animation. In the canon TCW, Grievous' abilities were toned down to better suit what he was like in ROTS.