22 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Kylo is not the main bad guy. He may be the one the audience sees the most of. But he is not the main one. Just Like Palps is the main bad guy in the Prequels and OT. And Vader is the one the Protagonists mostly deal with and who they redeem.

That is like saying Mon Mothma and Yoda are the main heroes of the original trilogy.

3 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

That is like saying Mon Mothma and Yoda are the main heroes of the original trilogy.

Beat ya to that one. 😁

Devon Miles was the primary protagonist of Knight Rider.

Hey...this is fun. 😜

3 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

That is like saying Mon Mothma and Yoda are the main heroes of the original trilogy.

I get it you dont get my point.
In Buffy the big bad was always the main guy pulling the strings that they had to deal with at the end of the season. But is not who the necessarily had to deal with in individual episodes. So while you think vader is the main villain. I do not. Because Vader is not the one causing the problems. Vader is a symptom. And like with Darth Maul and Count Dooku killing Vadaer would not solve the problem as Palps would just replace Vader. So no Vader is not the main bad guy in the OT. Palps is. Vader is just the one the heros face the most. Problem is killing Vader wouldnt accomplish anything.

Much like Killing Kylo with out killing Snoke likely wouldnt change much.

That is why I do not consider Kylo and Vader the main bad guy. They are the antagonist. but they are not the main bad guy.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I get it you dont get my point.

No, we get it. You don't understand how these roles have worked over centuries of storytelling.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

n Buffy the big bad was always the main guy pulling the strings that they had to deal with at the end of the season. But is not who the necessarily had to deal with in individual episodes.

Oh, man. In my wildest dreams, I couldn't have hoped for you to go to Buffy. I've had a few Buffy (and Angel) examples come to mind today, but didn't want to use them because of the different storytelling structures. And we're still a few months away from my birthday. 😁 So, here we go.

First, we have to acknowledge the differences in storytelling structure. A tv series like Buffy is episodic, with some serialized elements. One of those serialized elements is the "Big Bad." (Simultaneously thank and curse you for popularizing the term, Joss Whedon.) As long-form storytelling, with the luxury of 22 hours (well, less, thanks to commercials, but we'll round) per year (only 12 in its first season) to tell the story, as opposed to 2-3 hours every couple of years for movies. This allows for "arc" episodes dealing with the season's overall antagonist arc and "monster of the week" standalone episodes that don't (but might have some subplots tied to the arc). For the sake of our discussion, we'll eliminate those standalones and only look at the arc episodes. With multiple, relatively contained, stories (episodes) per arc, and the Big Bad being the season's endgame, it absolutely becomes necessary to have "Little Bads" to give the characters episodic victories without removing the Big Bad from the board too soon. However, that same episodic nature makes the identity of even a given season's Big Bad fluid. Take season two, for example. For the first half of the season, the Big Bad(s) are Spike and Drusilla. Until "Becoming," when Angelus usurps the role. If you look at the season as a whole, who do you say is the "main bad guy?" Because until episode 14, Angel was fully on the side of good. But Spike and Dru take a back seat to him from that point on.

But then we get to season 3, and Mayor Wilkins. Wilkins has been there for hundreds of years. He was first mentioned (as just "The Mayor") with some degree of foreboding in season 2. In season 2, he was clearly at least aware of the supernatural goings-on in Sunnydale and covering it up for his own purposes, as evidenced by Principal Snyder's side of conversations with or about him. So, since Wilkins was manipulating events, even before he was seen, by your logic, he was the Big Bad of the first three seasons.

Who's the Big Bad of season 4? Is it Professor Walsh, since she runs the Initiative (and will eventually create Adam) even though we don't know it at first? Since Walsh is Adam's creator, part of your parameters would say she's the Big Bad. But since Adam kills her, and he's who they have to fight in the penultimate episode, another part of your parameters require him to be the Big Bad. Or, since they didn't fight him in the finale, would the spirit of the First Slayer be the Big Bad? Maybe it's the Cheese Man?

Not to mention, if we apply this same standard to the "good guys" - if someone is calling the shots or another character on their side reports to them, they're the "main good/bad guy" - then that would make Giles the "main good guy" of Buffy the Vampire Slayer despite the presence of, y'know,' Buffy...the Vampire Slayer.

Hmmm...maybe we'll have better luck if we look over at Angel...

Well, frak. If we look at Angel, season 4 reveals that Jasmine was responsible for allowing Cordy to take Doyle's visions all the way back in season 1, to start transforming her into a suitable vessel. She'd been pulling strings and manipulating events to pave the way for her birth into the Earth dimension. So...I guess Jasmine was the Big Bad for the first 4 seasons of Angel despite not appearing until episode 17 (of 22) in season 4?

Since Angel received missions from The Powers That Be, would that make them the "main good guys" of Angel?

Would the various Starfleet Admirals giving Kirk, Picard, Sisko, Janeway, and Archer be the "main good guys" of their respective Star Trek series?

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

So while you think vader is the main villain. I do not. Because Vader is not the one causing the problems. Vader is a symptom.

Yes, Vader is the one causing the problems, from a story perspective. That's how this concept works. Vader is the one who is the impediment to (and catalyst for) Luke's progression, he's what causes Luke to learn, grow, and change.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

And like with Darth Maul and Count Dooku killing Vadaer would not solve the problem as Palps would just replace Vader. So no Vader is not the main bad guy in the OT. Palps is. Vader is just the one the heros face the most.

You...realize that you just contradicted yourself. Vader is the one the heroes face the most, which, by definition, makes him the "main bad guy."

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Much like Killing Kylo with out killing Snoke likely wouldnt change much.

When would he be killed? I mean, regardless of when, it changes a lot. But what it changes depends on when.

Is he killed in the fight with Rey on Starkiller? Bleeding out from the bowcaster shot, Rey running on instinct, mainlining the Force...I can see it. So, let's work forward from there. Without him, Hux is completely unchained...their back-and-forth rivalry and one-upsmanship is gone, so the "wild cur" doesn't have a direct check on his actions. The first few minutes of TLJ probably proceed as normal, but as the First Order attacks the Resistance fleet, there's no one to hesitate firing on the Raddus' bridge. Without Ren's presence, Leia doesn't sense the impending attack, and is killed when the bridge is destroyed. If we assume the fleet survives, they've lost their leader permanently. Leia's not there to stun Poe during his mutiny attempt, and to advocate for him to Holdo. Let's go ahead and say that the Resistance makes it to Crait. With Leia dead in space, how does Rey know where to find either the Supremacy or the Resistance? (The tracker was still on Leia at that point. Finn didn't pick it up until she came back to the ship and was rushed to sick bay.) Either the Falcon's timely arrival doesn't draw off the First Order TIEs, and the Resistance is destroyed then, or there's no way for them to escape the cave or the planet without Rey and the Falcon. The trilogy ends with part 2.

Does Snoke sense his betrayal before Ren kills him? Snoke isn't killed, Rey isn't released. Then (going with what we know from IX), she's taken to Exegol without having a year to study the ancient Jedi texts, can't resist Palpatine, doesn't have Ben as backup, and is either consumed or killed. Meanwhile, without Rey to move the boulders, the Resistance dies on Crait. The trilogy ends with part 2.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

That is why I do not consider Kylo and Vader the main bad guy. They are the antagonist. but they are not the main bad guy.

And that is why, if I have a problem, if no one else can help, and if I can find them...maybe I can hire...The A-Team. And be the main good guy, because I'm their boss.

As an aside: The prevalence of season-long arc storytelling has become so ingrained in genre tv in particular since Buffy, that it's actually become a detriment. (I love ya, Arrowverse, but I'm lookin' at you.) So many of the shows have latched on to having an arc fighting a Big Bad for the whole season, that it's led to more and more padded seasons and installments in the arc to keep the Big Bad at bay until the season finale. Arrow's Diaz (even stretching out into the following season) and Flash's Thinker and Cicada are three prime examples that easily come to mind. Flash, at least, seems to have taken some of that criticism to heart, splitting this season into two smaller arcs, one leading up to the annual crossover (and mid-season break) and another now in the back half of the season, each with its own Big Bad. What was once a novel approach has become a hindrance to storytelling.

Anyway...back to a few more examples of how the "main bad guy" must not have been--

Loki, apparently, was not the main bad guy of Avengers. Since he was working for Thanos, Thanos was.

Because of Loki, because of Thanos, the Mind Stone was on Earth. Analyzing its AI led to Ultron. So Thanos was the main bad guy of Avengers: Age of Ultron instead of (looks at title) Ultron.

Despite going rogue partway through, Ronan the Accuser started out working for Thanos. So despite Ronan being the threat to Xandar (and only working for Thanos to have the power to do so), being the one Drax had a vendetta against, and being the one the Guardians had to stop at the climax of the movie, Thanos was the main bad guy of Guardians of the Galaxy. (Say...maybe I'm on to something here...at the end of GotG, Drax decided that it was really Thanos he needed to kill. @Daeglan, if you move slowly enough, do you become invisible? Sorry...just trying to have a little fun here.)

Heck, since six of the McGuffins turned out to be Infinity Stones, and the fabled "plan" of Kevin Feige was *ahem* always (wink wink nudge nudge) leading to Infinity War/Endgame, I guess that makes Thanos the main bad guy of Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor: The Dark World and Doctor Strange, too. (Does Thanos' ship showing up to attack the Asgardians at the end of Thor: Ragnarok make him the main bad guy of that one, too?)

My mind is blown. I never knew that the main villains in so many movies and TV shows weren't really the main villains, because they had a superior at one time or another.

10 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

As an aside: The prevalence of season-long arc storytelling has become so ingrained in genre tv in particular since Buffy, that it's actually become a detriment. (I love ya, Arrowverse, but I'm lookin' at you.) So many of the shows have latched on to having an arc fighting a Big Bad for the whole season, that it's led to more and more padded seasons and installments in the arc to keep the Big Bad at bay until the season finale. Arrow's Diaz (even stretching out into the following season) and Flash's Thinker and Cicada are three prime examples that easily come to mind. Flash, at least, seems to have taken some of that criticism to heart, splitting this season into two smaller arcs, one leading up to the annual crossover (and mid-season break) and another now in the back half of the season, each with its own Big Bad. What was once a novel approach has become a hindrance to storytelling.

Anyway...back to a few more examples of how the "main bad guy" must not have been--

Loki, apparently, was not the main bad guy of Avengers. Since he was working for Thanos, Thanos was.

Because of Loki, because of Thanos, the Mind Stone was on Earth. Analyzing its AI led to Ultron. So Thanos was the main bad guy of Avengers: Age of Ultron instead of (looks at title) Ultron.

Despite going rogue partway through, Ronan the Accuser started out working for Thanos. So despite Ronan being the threat to Xandar (and only working for Thanos to have the power to do so), being the one Drax had a vendetta against, and being the one the Guardians had to stop at the climax of the movie, Thanos was the main bad guy of Guardians of the Galaxy. (Say...maybe I'm on to something here...at the end of GotG, Drax decided that it was really Thanos he needed to kill. @Daeglan, if you move slowly enough, do you become invisible? Sorry...just trying to have a little fun here.)

Heck, since six of the McGuffins turned out to be Infinity Stones, and the fabled "plan" of Kevin Feige was *ahem* always (wink wink nudge nudge) leading to Infinity War/Endgame, I guess that makes Thanos the main bad guy of Captain America: The First Avenger, Thor: The Dark World and Doctor Strange, too. (Does Thanos' ship showing up to attack the Asgardians at the end of Thor: Ragnarok make him the main bad guy of that one, too?)

My mind is blown. I never knew that the main villains in so many movies and TV shows weren't really the main villains, because they had a superior at one time or another.

It is amazing how you cant recognize the difference between the main antagonist and the main bad guy.

35 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

It is amazing how you cant recognize the difference between the main antagonist and the main bad guy.

I certainly can. You're the one who seems to have difficulty with the concept. According to you, if the main antagonist has a superior - even if that superior does absolutely nothing in the story...they don't even have to appear...they may not even have to be mentioned...they just have to exist - then that superior is the "main bad guy."

Since you say I can't recognize it, am I correct in concluding that you do believe, in fact, that Thanos was the "main bad guy" of all of the movies I named in that post (if not all of Phases 1-3 of the MCU, whether he had any sort of presence or not)?

So, tell me...I mentioned it earlier. Le Chiffre had superiors in Casino Royale. In that same film, Vesper Lynd was extorted by them. In Quantum of Solace, Bond follows the trail to Dominic Greene of Quantum for revenge. In Skyfall, former MI6 agent Raoul Silva attacks the spy organization, seeking to kill M and, naturally, runs afoul of Bond. In Spectre, Ernst Stavro Blofeld is revealed to have been behind all of the villains in the previous three movies in an attempt to kill Bond because of childhood jealousy.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Your stance is that, because Blofeld was their superior and put all of the events in motion, despite neither appearing nor even being referenced in any of them, he is the "main bad guy" of all four of the Daniel Craig Bond films, not Le Chiffre, Greene, or Silva, in their respective films. They're just the "main antagonists." (Despite the fact that, when it comes to literary/storytelling terms "bad guy" isn't really used...it's common parlance for antagonist. Saying a character is the "main antagonist" but not the "main bad guy" is a lot like saying that you don't drive an automobile...you drive a car.)

Oh...and last season on Flash, Joe West was promoted to Captain. So, he's Barry's superior officer now. I guess that means that Barry/Flash is just the "main protagonist," but Joe is the "main good guy?"

This thread is so ******* funny.

3 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

This thread is so ******* funny.

I'm tryin' to keep it light. 😀

While we're at it

Captain Ed Murphy - the guy in the back/middle - is the main good guy of the Lethal Weapon movies. After all, he's Riggs and Murtaugh's superior, and tells them what to do. Even if Riggs ignores him and Murtaugh is getting too old for this $#!t.

18 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I certainly can. You're the one who seems to have difficulty with the concept. According to you, if the main antagonist has a superior - even if that superior does absolutely nothing in the story...they don't even have to appear...they may not even have to be mentioned...they just have to exist - then that superior is the "main bad guy."

Since you say I can't recognize it, am I correct in concluding that you do believe, in fact, that Thanos was the "main bad guy" of all of the movies I named in that post (if not all of Phases 1-3 of the MCU, whether he had any sort of presence or not)?

So, tell me...I mentioned it earlier. Le Chiffre had superiors in Casino Royale. In that same film, Vesper Lynd was extorted by them. In Quantum of Solace, Bond follows the trail to Dominic Greene of Quantum for revenge. In Skyfall, former MI6 agent Raoul Silva attacks the spy organization, seeking to kill M and, naturally, runs afoul of Bond. In Spectre, Ernst Stavro Blofeld is revealed to have been behind all of the villains in the previous three movies in an attempt to kill Bond because of childhood jealousy.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Your stance is that, because Blofeld was their superior and put all of the events in motion, despite neither appearing nor even being referenced in any of them, he is the "main bad guy" of all four of the Daniel Craig Bond films, not Le Chiffre, Greene, or Silva, in their respective films. They're just the "main antagonists." (Despite the fact that, when it comes to literary/storytelling terms "bad guy" isn't really used...it's common parlance for antagonist. Saying a character is the "main antagonist" but not the "main bad guy" is a lot like saying that you don't drive an automobile...you drive a car.)

Oh...and last season on Flash, Joe West was promoted to Captain. So, he's Barry's superior officer now. I guess that means that Barry/Flash is just the "main protagonist," but Joe is the "main good guy?"

No. I said main bad guy. That is not necessarily the main antagonist.

You cant seem to wrap your head around the protagonist is not necessary the main good guy. The general or police chief would be the main good guy. That does not make him the protagonist. Just like the main bad guy is Thanos. But thanos is not the antagonist until infinity war where he steps into that roll.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

No. I said main bad guy. That is not necessarily the main antagonist.

Then I need clarification to understand your definition, that seems to shift with the wind and the examples you're given. Help a brother out with the examples. Who are the "main bad guys" of--

• Casino Royale
• Quantum of Solace
• Skyfall
• Captain America: The First Avenger
• Avengers
• Thor: The Dark World
• Guardians of the Galaxy
• Avengers: Age of Ultron
• Doctor Strange

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You cant seem to wrap your head around the protagonist is not necessary the main good guy. The general or police chief would be the main good guy. That does not make him the protagonist. Just like the main bad guy is Thanos. But thanos is not the antagonist until infinity war where he steps into that roll.

That's exactly what I said: Joe West is the "main good guy" of The Flash, because he's Barry's boss. Barry/Flash (only the title character) is "just" the main protagonist.

Captain Murphy is the "main good guy" of the Lethal Weapon series.

And Rupert Giles, by virtue of being Buffy's Watcher, is the "main good guy" of (checks title) Buffy the Vampire Slayer. (At least through season 5...iffy in 6 and 7.)

I'm still fuzzy on The Simpsons, though. Since Homer works for Burns, does that make Homer a secondary bad guy, or Burns the "main good guy?"

8 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Then I need clarification to understand your definition, that seems to shift with the wind and the examples you're given. Help a brother out with the examples. Who are the "main bad guys" of--

• Casino Royale
• Quantum of Solace
• Skyfall
• Captain America: The First Avenger
• Avengers
• Thor: The Dark World
• Guardians of the Galaxy
• Avengers: Age of Ultron
• Doctor Strange

Captain america would Hitler while the Antagonist is Red Skull.

Avengers is Thanos with Loki as the Antagonist.

Guardians of the Galaxy is thanos with Ronan the Accuser as the Antagonist.

Avengers Age of Ultron is Thanos with Ultron as the Antagonist.

Dr Strange has Domamu as the mani bad guy with the fallen Sorceror that i cant remember the Name of as the Antagonist.

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Then maybe you should look into how the toy sales literally cratered after TLJ. And the Star Wars toy section in stores went from a full aisle to a few feet. Why might that be?

LITERALLY cratered? As in, there's now a hole caused by the impact of the toy sales?

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Captain america would Hitler while the Antagonist is Red Skull.

A person/character not even in the movie (that the antagonist quits working for during the story) is its "main bad guy?" Really? Tell me...what literary tradition does that spring from?

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Avengers is Thanos with Loki as the Antagonist.

A character who does absolutely nothing is the "main bad guy?"

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Guardians of the Galaxy is thanos with Ronan the Accuser as the Antagonist.

But...earlier, when referencing Buffy, you said that the "main bad guy" is the character the heroes have to defeat at the end. That was Ronan. (See also: Avengers, re: Loki, and Captain America: The First Avenger, re: Red Skull)

See what I mean? Your definition of what makes for a "main bad guy" seems to shift, based upon what helps hold onto the illusion that Vader and Ren were just stooges in their respective trilogies in response to any given example.

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Avengers Age of Ultron is Thanos with Ultron as the Antagonist.

How? Was my crazy, convoluted illogic about a character who has absolutely no bearing on the story actually on target? Also gonna have to go back to your Buffy definition that the "main bad guy" is who the heroes have to fight at the climax. Hint: That character's name is in the title of this movie. Let's check the title again for "Thanos," but I bet we don't find it.

Well, frak. I guess I was wrong, eh?

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Dr Strange has Domamu as the mani bad guy with the fallen Sorceror that i cant remember the Name of as the Antagonist.

So, Dormammu, who Kaecilius wasn't even working for, but trying to impress, is the "main bad guy" for Doctor Strange. But, in Age of Ultron, because the Mind Stone is involved, Thanos is the "main bad guy?" Why isn't he for Doctor Strange, since Strange has the Time Stone? Is it because Dormammu is who Strange has to fight at the end? (Back to the Buffy rule, this time.) Then why aren't Loki, Red Skull, Ronan, and Ultron the "main bad guys" in their respective movies?

What about Thor: The Dark World, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall?

Can you please point me to the literary/storytelling theory where you were taught the concepts of the "main good/bad guy" as opposed to the main protagonist/antagonist? None of my writing courses ever used the term.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

A person/character not even in the movie is its "main bad guy?" Really? Tell me...what literary tradition does that spring from?

A character who does absolutely nothing is the "main bad guy?"

But...earlier, when referencing Buffy, you said that the "main bad guy" is the character the heroes have to defeat at the end. That was Ronan. (See also: Avengers, re: Loki, and Captain America: The First Avenger, re: Red Skull)

See what I mean? Your definition of what makes for a "main bad guy" seems to shift, based upon what helps hold onto the illusion that Vader and Ren were just stooges in their respective trilogies in response to any given example.

How? Was my crazy, convoluted illogic about a character who has absolutely no bearing on the story actually on target? Also gonna have to go back to your Buffy definition that the "main bad guy" is who the heroes have to fight at the climax. Hint: That character's name is in the title of this movie. Let's check the title again for "Thanos," but I bet we don't find it.

Well, frak. I guess I was wrong, eh?

So, Dormammu, who Kaecilius wasn't even working for, but trying to impress, is the "main bad guy" for Doctor Strange. But, in Age of Ultron, because the Mind Stone is involved, Thanos is the "main bad guy?" Why isn't he for Doctor Strange, since Strange has the Time Stone? Is it because Dormammu is who Strange has to fight at the end? (Back to the Buffy rule, this time.) Then why aren't Loki, Red Skull, Ronan, and Ultron the "main bad guys" in their respective movies?

What about Thor: The Dark World, Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, and Skyfall?

Can you please point me to the literary/storytelling theory where you were taught the concepts of the "main good/bad guy" as opposed to the main protagonist/antagonist? None of my writing courses ever used the term.

Wow. You are working really to intentianally not get my point. I cant help you if you actively choose not to get the poi t i am trying to make.

29 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Wow. You are working really to intentianally not get my point. I cant help you if you actively choose not to get the poi t i am trying to make.

Then explain it. If you feel like it, use what Malcolm Reynolds referred to as "Captain Dummy talk."

Where does this concept of "main good/bad guy" come from? I'm being sincere when I say that none of my film or writing courses ever even mentioned this concept. (Former RTVF major/English minor here.) They taught protagonist/antagonist but never "main good/bad guy" and so, as a natural result, never demonstrated how to differentiate between a protagonist and "main good guy" or antagonist and "main bad guy."

What I've gathered from your various definitions and examples is that the protagonist/antagonist is the character(s) in the action, while the "main good guys/main bad guys" are their ultimate superiors. Or the character the protagonist(s) must defeat at a story's climax. Or a character behind the scenes who puts events in motion on the side of either the protagonists or antagonists. Apparently, the "main good/bad guy" does not have to actually take part in the story...they may just be mentioned...or sometimes, not even be mentioned...the audience may not even know the "main good/bad guy" exists.

If I understand correctly, for example, in the rebooted Bond continuity that began with Casino Royale, by virtue of being revealed three movies later to be the mastermind behind Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva, Ernst Stavro Blofeld is the "main bad guy" of all four movies, despite not appearing, being mentioned, or even hinted to exist until the fourth film.

If I'm confused, then it's because some of your definitions and examples appear to be at odds with one another. (For example, the Red Skull is the active villain in Captain America: The First Avenger, - antagonist by your definition - and is also the villain that Captain America must defeat at the climax. By the definition/example you provided when discussing Buffy, this would make him the "main bad guy." However, because he has an organizational superior who doesn't appear in the movie, and only delivers orders - which are not only ignored, but blatantly defied with the Skull planning to strike at his erstwhile superior's city - through an intermediary, you say that this other, non-participatory character is the "main bad guy.")

So, I'm thinking that maybe I'm just not following how you're explaining it; that maybe you're frustrated and not being as clear as you might normally be. If you can point me to some sources on writing theory and practice that define "main good/bad guy" and how they differ from protagonist and antagonist, I might see the light.

Thanks.

38 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Then explain it. If you feel like it, use what Malcolm Reynolds referred to as "Captain Dummy talk."

Where does this concept of "main good/bad guy" come from? I'm being sincere when I say that none of my film or writing courses ever even mentioned this concept. (Former RTVF major/English minor here.) They taught protagonist/antagonist but never "main good/bad guy" and so, as a natural result, never demonstrated how to differentiate between a protagonist and "main good guy" or antagonist and "main bad guy."

What I've gathered from your various definitions and examples is that the protagonist/antagonist is the character(s) in the action, while the "main good guys/main bad guys" are their ultimate superiors. Or the character the protagonist(s) must defeat at a story's climax. Or a character behind the scenes who puts events in motion on the side of either the protagonists or antagonists. Apparently, the "main good/bad guy" does not have to actually take part in the story...they may just be mentioned...or sometimes, not even be mentioned...the audience may not even know the "main good/bad guy" exists.

If I understand correctly, for example, in the rebooted Bond continuity that began with Casino Royale, by virtue of being revealed three movies later to be the mastermind behind Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva, Ernst Stavro Blofeld is the "main bad guy" of all four movies, despite not appearing, being mentioned, or even hinted to exist until the fourth film.

If I'm confused, then it's because some of your definitions and examples appear to be at odds with one another. (For example, the Red Skull is the active villain in Captain America: The First Avenger, - antagonist by your definition - and is also the villain that Captain America must defeat at the climax. By the definition/example you provided when discussing Buffy, this would make him the "main bad guy." However, because he has an organizational superior who doesn't appear in the movie, and only delivers orders - which are not only ignored, but blatantly defied with the Skull planning to strike at his erstwhile superior's city - through an intermediary, you say that this other, non-participatory character is the "main bad guy.")

So, I'm thinking that maybe I'm just not following how you're explaining it; that maybe you're frustrated and not being as clear as you might normally be. If you can point me to some sources on writing theory and practice that define "main good/bad guy" and how they differ from protagonist and antagonist, I might see the light.

Thanks.

It comes from looking at how characters interact in the movie. The one pulling the strings is inportant and often the story woryhy problem doesnt stop just because the antagonist is defeated. For example defeating Loki didnt solve the problem. Thanos was still working his goal.

In star wars defeating Vader wouldnt solve the problem. Because he is a symptom. Not the cause. So while the antagonist may be a different character that character may not be the source of the problem in universe.

14 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

I have run into more than one fan online that didn't understand that the entire point of the Naboo invasion was Palpatine replacing Valorum. And even some that didn't get that Palpatine was Sidious.

And how do you need extra books to understand the sequels? I understand them just fine and have never read any of the books.

Honestly, the point of the invasion of Naboo was never clearly established in the movie, so I think that one is fair. Really, Sidious/Palpatine's plan during the entire prequel era is really weird and requires the Jedi and senate to actively make stupid decisions in order for it to work.

14 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

It comes from looking at how characters interact in the movie. The one pulling the strings is inportant and often the story woryhy problem doesnt stop just because the antagonist is defeated. For example defeating Loki didnt solve the problem. Thanos was still working his goal.

In star wars defeating Vader wouldnt solve the problem. Because he is a symptom. Not the cause. So while the antagonist may be a different character that character may not be the source of the problem in universe.

I see.

So, just like the so-called "problems" with TLJ, it's not an objective thing that can be looked at and defined, but your personal perceptions and preferences that have nothing to do with actual definitions and terms used in the process and craft. "Main bad guy" is a term that you've coined yourself, and has a mercurial definition that can often be contradictory, depending on how you feel about a particular work and its characters. It has nothing to do with what the actual definitions and practices of using the terms protagonist and antagonist are. The terms can be molded and shifted to suit your whim.

Got it.

Thanks.

20 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

Honestly, the point of the invasion of Naboo was never clearly established in the movie, so I think that one is fair. Really, Sidious/Palpatine's plan during the entire prequel era is really weird and requires the Jedi and senate to actively make stupid decisions in order for it to work.

It was really a big Rube Goldberg contraption, wasn't it?

The biggest leap in it, to me, is counting on the Jedi/Republic to blindly accept a clone army, ready-made in secret, and grown from the template of a bounty hunter who tried to kill a Republic Senator and a Jedi, then was found sitting in a royal box on a world where Separatist battle droids are being manufactured, next to the Separatist leader, watching the attempted execution of that same Senator, Jedi, and another Jedi as a spectator sport, and fought against the Jedi who showed up to the rescue.

15 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I see.

So, just like the so-called "problems" with TLJ, it's not an objective thing that can be looked at and defined, but your personal perceptions and preferences that have nothing to do with actual definitions and terms used in the process and craft. "Main bad guy" is a term that you've coined yourself, and has a mercurial definition that can often be contradictory, depending on how you feel about a particular work and its characters. It has nothing to do with what the actual definitions and practices of using the terms protagonist and antagonist are. The terms can be molded and shifted to suit your whim.

Got it.

Thanks.

Nothing mercurial about what i said. Only your active resistance.

19 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Nothing mercurial about what i said. Only your active resistance.

Given that many of your examples are contradictory to each other and/or the definitions that you've given, I'm confident in sticking with mercurial.

But, then, that can happen when it's a personally defined and applied term like that. It's fine.

It's just next to impossible for anyone else to apply in the same manner you do.

For example, my wife and I use the term, "Nice truck." (A shortened version of the phrase, "Nice truck. Sorry to hear about your small...lightsaber." 😉). I'd be hard pressed to give you an adequate definition of a "nice truck" that covers all the variables. We've said, "Nice truck," about some elaborately modified pick ups, and about some much less so, and some other factors can play into it.

But we know a "nice truck" when we see it.

Just like you know your "main bad guy" when you see it.

(Honestly, though...I'm sincerely curious about the "main bad guy(s)" in the Craig Bond movies. Does each one have a separate "main bad guy," or is it Blofeld, despite the relative lateness of his introduction?)