Discussion in 'Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Spoilers Allowed' started by fishtailsam, Oct 31, 2012.
That. Is. So Cool!
To echo Comedian, it would be interesting to have the following sequnce play out:
Ep. VII: War is fomented. It is discovered at the end that the Sith have returned (one, two, many, horde, it doesnt matter) and they are behind it.
Ep. VIII: The Heroes™ run all over the place trying to figure out trying to discern the Sith's true goal.
Ep. IX: They find and confront the Master and learn that there is no "true goal." War, death, and destruction was the desired outcome. The Sith Master can even give a Hannibal Lecture* about how easily and often the galaxy slips into conflict. They could also work in a wink to the fandom as well.**
*Look it up on tvtropes. I can't direct link from this device.
**A response I often hear from fans about the nigh-constant conflict is "well, its Star Wars, not Star Peace."
The really great thing about this approach (IMO anyway) is that it's a way to up the stakes without making some kind of uber-dark side threat. I mean, Palpatine was ruthless, sure, but he wanted the galaxy intact so that he had something to rule. A truly nihilistic Sith, on the other hand, wouldn't care about any of that. Their goal would literally be to "wipe them out... all of them".
Darth Entropy - let chaos comence!!
Actually, the character I play in a dark-side RPG set in the Ruusan era is a Sith Lord named Darth Entropos....
I don't find that kind of thing very interesting. Usually villains without motivation are flat villains. The Joker for instance has a motivation, without it he would be pretty boring.
If we go with the Chaos angle, the EU gives some examples.
Lord Odion ... Because he has a special connection to the force, life itself causes him great pain, therefore his goal is to cause as much death as possible.
Lord Nihilus ... He gorges on the life energy of others, is basically a "life vampire" who hungers for the essence of other beings.
Well, as you say, there could be countless motivations for such a character. Maybe they believe that the galaxy needs to be wiped out in order to start again. Or that causing death and destruction is the only way to truly know the dark side, the (as they see it) ultimate power in the galaxy.
I'm just spitballing here, but to me it feels like one way to have a villain that isn't just a repeat of the OT or the PT.
I agree with you there and "crazy motivations" are fine if done well.
Just not a villain with "no motivation" please. Villains with no motivation are what you sometimes see in kids cartoons or bad comic books.
I think it's fair to say that getting the villain right is one of the most critical things for a good ST.
Goes without saying. I bet this very question has been deliberated over endlessly by the writers etc. Get the nemesis of the saga right. It's pivotal.
So why wouldn't we have them in Star Wars?
I don't think there will be a true main antagonist as such in the first of the new films. I'm thinking there will have been a power vaccum caused by the Emporer and Vader's death, this film could show the various parties trying to fill that void. The New Republic will not have a strong hold in such a small time frame and there will be gangsters (Hutts, etc), War lords (there's more than enough EU examples), staunch imperial groups, etc all vying for some of the empire's power.
If you could imagine Jabba, Grevious, a collection of Bounty Hunters all trying to conspire to bring down a fledgling republic. I know 2 of these are dead but characters of a similar nature. Perhapsa rougue programme which means all droids and technology are unusable and "The Force" has to be used, keeping a view that "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
Bear in mind that the ST is likely to be set 30 or 40 years after RotJ. The power vacuum would most likely already be resolved.
Besides, I really feel like we need a single threatening, charismatic villain who can appear throughout the ST. The PT has been widely criticised for not including such a figure (Palpatine is brilliant of course, but he spends most of his time pretending to be good).
I think what you're describing would be much better as the premise of a new animated series, set between RotJ and Episode VII.
To establish a peaceful existance after an imperial rule of almost 30 years will take a long time (Look at the Middle East and Iraq, toppled their leader and it's still no settled). If we go for a singular "baddie" over 3 films, it's the original trilogy without a redemption twist.
The Hutts and bounty hunters have always been about their own personal gain though, not about ultimate power. Sure they could fit in somewhere with the story as villains but not as THE villain.
Well, there's only 23 years in universe between the establishment of the Empire in RotS and the death of the Emperor in RotJ. And while I get your point about the Middle East, it's only been 10 years since Saddam Hussein was captured. I'm sure in another 20 or 30 years things will be different, for better or worse. I think it is fair to say that any vacuum created by Saddam's removal will be over.
I like to think there's a lot more to Star Wars than the number of villains.
Not every story needs a Big Bad but at this point it is a SW tradition to have one big important (usually Sith) villain acting as the center point of the action.
Agreed also. I just didnt have time to elaborate on this point...
D'oh! Double post
If Plageuis is to be, I highly doubt that Ralph Fiennes would even be considered BECAUSE he was Voldemort and the characters apparently look kinda similar.
Great actor and I'm sure he would be great though.......
The Darth Plagueis novel was very good and worthy of being filmed.
I've never read the novel, but going with the reviews it sounds good. But isn't he supposed to be dead? Didnt Sidious kill him?
I'm a bit torn on who I would cast as plagueis *Actor wise not CGI...CGI villains suck outside of Andy Serkis and maybe Davy Jones*. Part of me wants an unknown so we can see him as that character more but another side wants to play safe and go for a more well known actor. Episode 7 is like destroying my mind when it comes to its cast. Somebody help me
Well going with the idea he's ACTUALLY in it, I'd say for casting. Gary Oldman? Tim Roth? Daniel Day Lewis (unlikely) Rufus Sewell? Tom Wilkinson?
They look alike, but it's not a very big deal.
What about Mother Talzin?