3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Oops. When I responded to this earlier, I totally misread it as “I can tell you haven’t watched them in ages,” thinking you were referring to the Marvel movies. On rereading just now, I realized you were saying you hadn’t sent the Bomd movies in a while.

Mea culpa.

Given your definitions of the “main bad guy,” I’d think it would be easy to say. Blofeld is revealed as the mastermind behind Le Chiffre, Greene, and Silva. Here’s the exchange:

Oberhauser: You came across me so many times and yet you never saw me. Le Chiffre, Greene, Silva...
James Bond: All dead.
Oberhauser: That's right. A nice pattern developed. You interfered in my world, I destroyed yours. Or did you think it was coincidence that all the women in your life ended up dead?

If the Emperor is the “main bad guy,” because he’s the proverbial man behind the curtain, wouldn’t that make Blofeld (here under his born name of Oberhauser) the “main bad guy” of three movies that didn’t even suggest he existed?

yes it would. My thinking is there is the antagonist the protagonist deals with. but that does not mean the protagonist even sees the guy pulling the strings. Or is even aware they exist. But they are there and they are a significant factor. I call them the main bad guy because they are the ones pulling the strings and making bad stuff happen. I dont necessarily call them a mastermind because they may not necessarily be on. They could be of average intelligence trying to accomplish something that happens to put them in conflict with the protagonist...

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

yes it would. My thinking is there is the antagonist the protagonist deals with. but that does not mean the protagonist even sees the guy pulling the strings. Or is even aware they exist. But they are there and they are a significant factor. I call them the main bad guy because they are the ones pulling the strings and making bad stuff happen. I dont necessarily call them a mastermind because they may not necessarily be on. They could be of average intelligence trying to accomplish something that happens to put them in conflict with the protagonist...

So...a character that even the audience doesn’t even know exists is the “main bad guy” of three movies because of retcon?

If you saw Casino Royale for the first time, you’d say, “Man, if papa Oberhouser was just nicer to his kid when he and Bond were young, this movie wouldn’t happen?”

I mean, if that’s how you prefer to see stories, knock yourself out. Just know that it’s not how most of the world understands these terms, and that your personal term is going to be effectively meaningless to them, as demonstrated by the (hopefully) humorous examples we’ve been posting.

Peace.

10 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

So...a character that even the audience doesn’t even know exists is the “main bad guy” of three movies because of retcon?

If you saw Casino Royale for the first time, you’d say, “Man, if papa Oberhouser was just nicer to his kid when he and Bond were young, this movie wouldn’t happen?”

I mean, if that’s how you prefer to see stories, knock yourself out. Just know that it’s not how most of the world understands these terms, and that your personal term is going to be effectively meaningless to them, as demonstrated by the (hopefully) humorous examples we’ve been posting.

Peace.

story wise yes in universe. You keep looking at it from outside the story. I am saying in side the story.

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

story wise yes in universe. You keep looking at it from outside the story. I am saying in side the story.

Yeah, but now that we got here it still doesn’t make you being upset about Snoke being any more reasonable.

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

story wise yes in universe. You keep looking at it from outside the story. I am saying in side the story.

Looking from outside the story is how these roles are determined.and the only way to do so with any degree of consistency. If we try to do it from inside the story, we become subject to every character’s Certain Point of View (TM).

For example, The Walking Dead’s Negan becomes both the “main bad guy” (opposes and kills “our” character, and is an obstacle to overcome) and the “main good guy” (providing for his people and protecting them from this other group that came from out of nowhere and murdered some of the Saviors in their sleep). At the same time, Rick becomes the “main good guy” (continuing to protect his group) and the “main bad guy” (leading them in the cold blooded murder of sleeping strangers because another group of strangers said they were bad news).

If we take Casino Royale on its own, there’s no hint that ale Chiffre has anyone pulling his strings. He has superiors/clients that he owes money to, which drives most of the story. But there’s not even the barest hint that there’s someone behind him specifically targeting Bond. Nor is there any such indication in Quantum of Solace. In Skyfall, Silva is quite clearly after M, Bond is just in his way. Even if we look from inside the story, there’s no Blofeld until the retcon of Spectre.

Anyway, like I said, I’m not trying to tell you how to enjoy (or try to enjoy) stories. I’m just saying that these terms - protagonist and antagonist - have recognized meanings and applications. “Main bad guy” doesn’t, so it’s not unexpected that others don’t grasp its application, because it’s a personally defined and applied term.

13 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Yeah, but now that we got here it still doesn’t make you being upset about Snoke being any more reasonable.

It made Kylo Irredemable when he chose of his own free will to be the supreme leader.

I don’t know man... taking up a higher management function was the least of his sins.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Looking from outside the story is how these roles are determined.and the only way to do so with any degree of consistency. If we try to do it from inside the story, we become subject to every character’s Certain Point of View (TM).

For example, The Walking Dead’s Negan becomes both the “main bad guy” (opposes and kills “our” character, and is an obstacle to overcome) and the “main good guy” (providing for his people and protecting them from this other group that came from out of nowhere and murdered some of the Saviors in their sleep). At the same time, Rick becomes the “main good guy” (continuing to protect his group) and the “main bad guy” (leading them in the cold blooded murder of sleeping strangers because another group of strangers said they were bad news).

If we take Casino Royale on its own, there’s no hint that ale Chiffre has anyone pulling his strings. He has superiors/clients that he owes money to, which drives most of the story. But there’s not even the barest hint that there’s someone behind him specifically targeting Bond. Nor is there any such indication in Quantum of Solace. In Skyfall, Silva is quite clearly after M, Bond is just in his way. Even if we look from inside the story, there’s no Blofeld until the retcon of Spectre.

Anyway, like I said, I’m not trying to tell you how to enjoy (or try to enjoy) stories. I’m just saying that these terms - protagonist and antagonist - have recognized meanings and applications. “Main bad guy” doesn’t, so it’s not unexpected that others don’t grasp its application, because it’s a personally defined and applied term.

well i am not talking about the protaganist or antagonist. so those terms do not fit what i am trying to talk about. hence why i wasnt using them.

Also, wouldn’t that mean you have a problem with TRoS and not TLJ?

Just now, DanteRotterdam said:

Also, wouldn’t that mean you have a problem with TRoS and not TLJ?

I have a problem with TLJ because it made a mess of things. TRoS had to deal with the mess left by killing Snoke too early. and shows how poorly this trilogy was planned. TRoS tries to fix things but doesnt do a very good job. but that happens when you have piss poor trilogy planning.

I don’t know man... if you find Kylo irredeemable after giving himself a promotion then not redeeming him would have fixed that part of your problems with the st it seems.

1 minute ago, DanteRotterdam said:

I don’t know man... if you find Kylo irredeemable after giving himself a promotion then not redeeming him would have fixed that part of your problems with the st it seems.

my problem woul only be fixed by thinking things all the way through before righting. sooo not gonna happen.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

well i am not talking about the protaganist or antagonist. so those terms do not fit what i am trying to talk about. hence why i wasnt using them.

I know you’re not. But as I said in that very post, your personal term of “main bad guy” is meaningless to most, of not all, of the rest of the world. It has no common base that is universally taught, and by your own examples, its definition is malleable and inconsistently applied. Which, for a personal term, is fine enough. But when discussing story matters with others, it’s a, frankly, useless term, that, in quite a few instances, is assigning import and influence within the story to characters who aren’t involved in the story.

Which leads to the disconnect we’ve seen here where you, for example, assign the term to a character for a 1977 film that he was mentioned in, a 1980 film that he was briefly seen in, and a 1983 film that he took part in, all because of actions retroactively established in films from 1999, 2002, and 2005.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

have a problem with TLJ because it made a mess of things. TRoS had to deal with the mess left by killing Snoke too early.

What mess? (Predicting the same complaints/questions that have already been addressed.)

Define “too early.” Abrams claims that Palapatine proper was always meant for IX. So, his proxy would need to be taken off the board.

11 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

TRoS tries to fix things but doesnt do a very good job. but that happens when you have piss poor trilogy planning.

So you must really hate the original trilogy too, then. Right? There was negligible - if any - “trilogy planning.”

18 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

It made Kylo Irredemable when he chose of his own free will to be the supreme leader.

How does that make him irredeemable? What do you think the word "redemption" means?

6 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I know you’re not. But as I said in that very post, your personal term of “main bad guy” is meaningless to most, of not all, of the rest of the world. It has no common base that is universally taught, and by your own examples, its definition is malleable and inconsistently applied. Which, for a personal term, is fine enough. But when discussing story matters with others, it’s a, frankly, useless term, that, in quite a few instances, is assigning import and influence within the story to characters who aren’t involved in the story.

Which leads to the disconnect we’ve seen here where you, for example, assign the term to a character for a 1977 film that he was mentioned in, a 1980 film that he was briefly seen in, and a 1983 film that he took part in, all because of actions retroactively established in films from 1999, 2002, and 2005.

i dont have a better term for what i am talking about. so i had to make one up. because i specifically am not talking about the protagonist and antagonist.

5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

What mess? (Predicting the same complaints/questions that have already been addressed.)

Well, it clearly established part 3 would have to deviate from the established Return Of The Jedi story structure. Can't be doing original things in a Star Wars film, can we?

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

i dont have a better term for what i am talking about. so i had to make one up. because i specifically am not talking about the protagonist and antagonist.

And because what you’re talking about isn’t a thing typically discussed in story analysis.

Not only is the term something you made up, but so is the definition, and you’ve demonstrated that neither is applied consistently. Which leads people to not follow when you try to use it, and to ignore it in favor of the more universally used and understood terms.

49 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Well, it clearly established part 3 would have to deviate from the established Return Of The Jedi story structure. Can't be doing original things in a Star Wars film, can we?

Yep, so we got what one one friend calls the JJ Abrams Apology Tour and another calls Star Wars, Episode IX: You Remember Star Wars Right? Have Some Things That Remind You Of Star Wars. STAR WARS!

36 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

my problem woul only be fixed by thinking things all the way through before righting. sooo not gonna happen.

Weird set of principles.

9 minutes ago, DanteRotterdam said:

Weird set of principles.

Would make for a weird alternate Star Wars, too. Vader wouldn't be Luke's father. Leia wouldn't be his sister & wouldn't be strong with the Force.

10 minutes ago, Stan Fresh said:

Would make for a weird alternate Star Wars, too. Vader wouldn't be Luke's father. Leia wouldn't be his sister & wouldn't be strong with the Force.

And Vader wouldn’t survive the first movie.

Can I just say that one man's plot hole is another man's story hook? 😉

And most plot holes...aren’t.

But, the term has become so commonly used (and misused) that it’s come to mean, “Anything I didn’t like about a movie.”

Ah well. Whattaya want for nothing? Rrrrrrrubber BIScuit!

9 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

And most plot holes...aren’t.

But, the term has become so commonly used (and misused) that it’s come to mean, “Anything I didn’t like about a movie.”

**** youtube rage-bait videos masquerading as movie criticism