Page 2 of 2

Re: Should the Son of Mortis have been the Big Bad of the Sequel Trilogy?

Posted: 2020-07-15 09:23am
by ray245
Vendetta wrote: 2020-07-15 06:24am I think you're confusing what makes stakes "big". Stakes are big when they are decisive to the outcome of a wider established conflict. In Return of the Jedi the stakes aren't bigger because the second Death Star was bigger and boomier and there were loads of ships there for a big battle.

The stakes were bigger because The Emperor was there, win there and win it all and you only get to try once.

That's what big stakes mean, they mean decisiveness in the conflict, not bigness in the presentation of the conflict.
The stakes are also there because there's no one else to bail them out. If the Rebel fleet is destroyed, there is no magic fleet coming from nowhere to save them.

Re: Should the Son of Mortis have been the Big Bad of the Sequel Trilogy?

Posted: 2020-07-15 03:01pm
by Darth Yan
Fair enough. I’m more open because I’ve seen the idea done well (the fan version I read was really well executed).

Re: Should the Son of Mortis have been the Big Bad of the Sequel Trilogy?

Posted: 2020-07-17 03:31am
by Vendetta
Another thing which this falls into, which admittedly is common in rising villain stories*, is the lack of an answer to "and then what?"

Rising villains who want to conquer the world/galaxy/whatever generally don't have a plan for what they're going to do with it when they've got it. Like sure, "rule the galaxy" or whatever but that's a lot of work for frankly not much more reward, if any, than you could already get by being staggeringly rich.

A good rising villain story needs them to have a plan for what they want to do with the galaxy when they've got it, beyond shout at it.

It matters a lot less when the villain is part of the status quo, like the Empire in the OT, because then they aren't in motion in the plot and their motivations matter less. (The PT mostly gets away with it because of the focus on the fall of Anakin with the rise of the Emperor being tied implicitly to that).


* See: Roughly 3/4 of Final Fantasy stories, which really should have stopped using it as a plot device after 6 where they examined the consequences of a being attaining godlike power and world domination without a plan for what to do next, Kefka sits at the top of his tower and essentially pulls the wings off of flies, torturing things because he can and he's bored now.

Re: Should the Son of Mortis have been the Big Bad of the Sequel Trilogy?

Posted: 2020-07-17 03:53am
by Darth Yan
Kefka is a psychopath so it’s natural he’d get bored.

Some people just like power (Palpatine would probably like throwing his weight around and making others miserable). Hell Sauron’s like that.

Re: Should the Son of Mortis have been the Big Bad of the Sequel Trilogy?

Posted: 2020-07-17 10:24am
by Vendetta
Darth Yan wrote: 2020-07-17 03:53am Kefka is a psychopath so it’s natural he’d get bored.

Some people just like power (Palpatine would probably like throwing his weight around and making others miserable). Hell Sauron’s like that.
Again though it's a commentary on a character who achieves ultimate godlike power and takes over the world without having a clear idea what to do with it.

Which is roughly every villain who ever wanted that, really.

They need some grand and terrible project they're going to enact when they have taken over.

It doesn't matter if they're already in charge from the start, because then they're context not moving the plot. Plot movers need character based motivation.

Re: Should the Son of Mortis have been the Big Bad of the Sequel Trilogy?

Posted: 2020-07-23 04:44pm
by Darth Yan
Part of what makes it work in my opinion is that if the Son succeeds it's basically game over. The Galaxy burns and he lords over the remains as a god emperor. For a grand finale to the Skywalker saga it's perfect.