I didn't hate them. I thought that they were funny at times, but they've had a good run and probably won't come back until some sort of credit reel in the finale. I wouldn't mind to see them again though.
I giggled like a school girl while I was photoshopping it so you could see the tip of his finger in/through his nose.. My wife asked "Justin what the heck are you doing?" She told me I was a dork.
Like General Grievous, who spends the vast majority of the film wheezing through his inhaler and coughing as though he has some sort of illness.
That shows that he's been through a lot, he's had a lot of damage inflicted upon him but he's fought on. It sort of shows experience in a way. Sort of in the same ways as Darth Vader. And what's wrong with wheezing and coughing? There's an extra threat of the protagonists catching a nasty cold off of him .
He may be cool enough in the cartoon series, but the film? Right.
I've only seen one episode of the 2D Star Wars series, it featured Grievous, and I agree, he was cool there and he was threatening. But that's how I find him in the film anyway, the voice and the coughing has never worried me (I think that, in some strange way, it adds to the character), and fleeing isn't always cowardice, sometimes it's just the right decision - all characters, protagonists and antagonists alike, flee at stages.
But you're not talking about that guy. You're talking about the movie version. You're talking about the character who is meant to resemble not the intelligence and cunning of Darth Vader(Count Dooku), or the brutality of Darth Vader (Darth Maul). You are talking about the character that encompasses the ASTHMA aspect of Vader.
Well, I'm referring to the character in General, the Grievous from the 2D series, the movie, and the CGI series and whatever else he may be in (comics, books, games, etc.). I think that all versions should be counted as one character.
Antagonists don't need to be anything, other than ANTAGONISTIC. They need a motive to stop the heroes, check, and the means to do so, check. Your criteria allow villains to be evil just because they're evil, as long as they do bad things that's OK. Well, I don't know, I prefer my villains to have a point. The Soda Poppers worked well because in the end the revelation actually made sense and it was amusing. The Soda Poppers reveal worked BECAUSE they were such unconventional heroes, THAT WAS THE JOKE.
I just think that villains need to be at least likable in some way, the Soda Poppers aren't. I think that in order to be an effective villain you need to be intimidating to some degree, the Soda Poppers aren't. Yes, of course the revelation was unexpected, and yes that's because they weren't constructed that way or portrayed that way during the season. Having the Soda Poppers as the main villains is like having the main villains of Star Wars as R2-D2, Jabba the Hutt's little ratty monkey-ish pet thing, and a Jawa. If I want a revelation of a villain, I would want it to at least be a likable character, but to also be a character that is capable of being a villain, a character where you could think "Yeah, wow, I didn't expect them to be the villain, but I do see how they could've been all along" - perhaps a character like Flint Paper. Whereas for me, when the Soda Poppers were revealed as being the villains, I was just thinking "What... the hell?".
...And I don't care for the whole joke aspect, I say don't make your main story twist a joke, don't make your ending a joke. If anything, make it the one near-serious part of the whole series.
While I agree that Grievous was an absurdly cool villain in the Clone Wars, in Episode 3 he kind of was too, but he wasn't NEARLY as cool. The big problem was that Lucas decided to unveil the character in the Clone Wars series in his badass form, and show how he became how he was in Episode 3 in that series. The problem with this is that not everyone watched the Clone Wars, therefore a lot of people missed that and the Grievous they know ended up being Mr. Inhaler Addict. I remember watching the Clone Wars, seeing Grievous kick some serious ass, and being extremely excited to see a fight with him in the third episode. And what I got, much as what live action tends to do to beloved characters from cartoon series, was a massive disappointment. A MASSIVE DISAPPOINTMENT. I spent a lot of my first time watching Episode 3 completely disgruntled that they took one of my new favorite villains and completely rendered the terror right out of him.
That shows that he's been through a lot, he's had a lot of damage inflicted upon him but he's fought on. It sort of shows experience in a way. Sort of in the same ways as Darth Vader. And what's wrong with wheezing and coughing? There's an extra threat of the protagonists catching a nasty cold off of him .
Actually, it shows that Obi-Wan Kenobi crushed his windpipe at the end of the 2D series. This led to the character becoming slower, weezinger, and far less adept than he was in the miniseries.
Hey, he knew the right times to do so, didn't he? Plus, name a villain that hasn't run away at least once? Think about it.
The Emperor.
Darth Vader.
Byu the way, there is a difference between escaping an explosion in a fighter and running away from Jedi. One has a satisfying conclusion, the other goes "Dammit we have to chase him to the next room!". He killed, what, four Jedi Masters in his first appearance? And yet he spends the majority of the movie running from Obi-Wan and Luke, and then running from Obi-Wan. Escaping when it's relevant isn't a huge problem, but he isn't regrouping, he isn't plotting or planning. He's JUST RUNNING.
Oh, and The Soda Poppers. They didn't run.
I've only seen one episode of the 2D Star Wars series, it featured Grievous, and I agree, he was cool there and he was threatening.
See, not watching that series is a big mistake, because it's one of the few things that makes the crap trilogy era feel at all palpable.
But that's how I find him in the film anyway, the voice and the coughing has never worried me (I think that, in some strange way, it adds to the character), and fleeing isn't always cowardice, sometimes it's just the right decision - all characters, protagonists and antagonists alike, flee at stages.
When? Let's look at the trilogy that isn't a gigantic turd for a minute. Darth Vader didn't flee. Obi-Wan didn't flee. Darth Sidious didn't flee. Han even charges headfirst into a stronger opposing force because he's badass and that was the only option.
Well, I'm referring to the character in General, the Grievous from the 2D series, the movie, and the CGI series and whatever else he may be in (comics, books, games, etc.). I think that all versions should be counted as one character.
Except he's dull in the novels, he's predictable in the 3D series, and he's only redeemable at all in the 2D miniseries.
Brutality
...isn't that, um, a deleted scene? That's a deleted scene.
Also, hey! That one episode of the CGI series. Didn't he spend the majority of that episode holed up in a room, crying, hoping that nobody would find him as he got fixed up? Also, isn't that the episode that he spent without legs for the vast majority of it? Also I was constantly annoyed by Nadar's name. It's so...lame.
Cunning
Seen best in the episode "Lair of Grievous" from the CGI Clone Wars series.
You're using the same example again. That's cheating. I don't feel bad saying "See Above" in this case.
Peh, there's plenty more points where those came from.
Really? That's good, because I was beginning to think one deleted scene and one episode of the CGI series was all you had.
I just think that villains need to be at least likable in some way, the Soda Poppers aren't. I think that in order to be an effective villain you need to be intimidating to some degree, the Soda Poppers aren't.
What? They were an obvious threat. They had those demon powers. They took control of Hell itself. They had throttled the mantle of Prince of Darkness from Satan. They were going to initiate the apocalypse and destroy the world. They were hardly harmless pushovers.
Yes, of course the revelation was unexpected, and yes that's because they weren't constructed that way or portrayed that way during the season. Having the Soda Poppers as the main villains is like having the main villains of Star Wars as R2-D2, Jabba the Hutt's little ratty monkey-ish pet thing, and a Jawa. If I want a revelation of a villain, I would want it to at least be a likable character, but to also be a character that is capable of being a villain, a character where you could think "Yeah, wow, I didn't expect them to be the villain, but I do see how they could've been all along"
That's what I got, actually. I hadn't thought of the Soda Poppers as villains. At all. But the explanation worked, and I could see the escalation throughout Season One.
Your examples come from a dramatic work, not a comedic one. Its main qualities are humor, it was still being written as a sitcom. We're not talking about Monkey Island, where humor is a major aspect along with a dramatic story. Read the comics, after all: There is no drama. The revelation is so unexpected that it's humorous. And you know, no, I don't think it's terrible when a comedy game indulges in absurd humor, especially when that is the cornerstone of the entire franchise.
- perhaps a character like Flint Paper.
...why?
Whereas for me, when the Soda Poppers were revealed as being the villains, I was just thinking "What... the hell?".
I laughed my ass off. "Who could possibly be more horrible and universally reviled than Satan?"
...And I don't care for the whole joke aspect, I say don't make your main story twist a joke, don't make your ending a joke. If anything, make it the one near-serious part of the whole series.
That's where we're different.
Obviously. You must hate Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Actually, it shows that Obi-Wan Kenobi crushed his windpipe at the end of the 2D series. This led to the character becoming slower, weezinger, and far less adept than he was in the miniseries.
Mace was actually the one who did the damage, Obi-wan doesn't meet Grievous until Ep3... hence their seeming to never have met on his ship during the palpatine rescue
Mace was actually the one who did the damage, Obi-wan doesn't meet Grievous until Ep3... hence their seeming to never have met on his ship during the palpatine rescue
The Emperor.
Darth Vader.
Byu the way, there is a difference between escaping an explosion in a fighter and running away from Jedi. One has a satisfying conclusion, the other goes "Dammit we have to chase him to the next room!". He killed, what, four Jedi Masters in his first appearance? And yet he spends the majority of the movie running from Obi-Wan and Luke, and then running from Obi-Wan. Escaping when it's relevant isn't a huge problem, but he isn't regrouping, he isn't plotting or planning. He's JUST RUNNING.
First of all, it's Obi-Wan and Anakin - Luke doesn't exist yet. He is running, yes, but can't it be argued that Obi-Wan and Anakin are stronger Jedi than those killed by Grievous? Running, in Grievous' case can also be a smart move, make your enemies chase you and put your dozens of droids in the way. Why endanger yourself, a valuable general, when you can just sacrifice your endless supply of brainless, soulless droids?
When? Let's look at the trilogy that isn't a gigantic turd for a minute. Darth Vader didn't flee. Obi-Wan didn't flee. Darth Sidious didn't flee. Han even charges headfirst into a stronger opposing force because he's badass and that was the only option.
It was Obi-Wan's time anyway, didn't he just allow Vader to kill him? If not, it sure looked like it. Han did flee at one stage that I do remember, it was in A New Hope when he ran into that room filled with dozens of Stormtroopers, yes I know it's a lot bigger force than Grievous had, but it's still fleeing and it was a smart decision as well. As for Vader and Sidious, they never had any real threats, there was no need to run.
...isn't that, um, a deleted scene? That's a deleted scene.
Yes, it is. But it still shows his brutality. I know it was deleted, so in theory, it didn't happen. But Grievous did plenty of other killing just like this (seen in the 2D series and the CGI series, yes, but it's still the same character as the one seen in Revenge of the Sith).
Edit... Brutality
It's not from the movie, of course, but this is still General Grievous we're talking about.
Also, hey! That one episode of the CGI series. Didn't he spend the majority of that episode holed up in a room, crying, hoping that nobody would find him as he got fixed up? Also, isn't that the episode that he spent without legs for the vast majority of it?
Why not stay couped up in there? He's got loads of forces at his disposal, why not use the? Weaken the enemy and then pounce, it's strategic.
That's what I got, actually. I hadn't thought of the Soda Poppers as villains. At all. But the explanation worked, and I could see the escalation throughout Season One.
The explanation worked, yes. But I just think it would have been more fitting to have a slightly tougher character. Even Brady Culture, even Leonard, even Jimmy Two-teeth, even the female Stinky. Anyone but the Soda Poppers. I used Flint Paper as an example because it would have been unexpected, it could have been made plausible and believable if the story were to have been shaped slightly differently, the guy is a tough guy and could easily be a villain and not just a tough protagonist, and he's likable and cool.
Your examples come from a dramatic work, not a comedic one. Its main qualities are humor, it was still being written as a sitcom. We're not talking about Monkey Island, where humor is a major aspect along with a dramatic story. Read the comics, after all: There is no drama. The revelation is so unexpected that it's humorous. And you know, no, I don't think it's terrible when a comedy game indulges in absurd humor, especially when that is the cornerstone of the entire franchise.
Okay then, even Jimmy Two-teeth then. That would have been unexpected, it would have been funny, it could've worked. He's also far less annoying that the Soda Poppers. I just hate the fact that my least favourite characters played such a major role in the story. Such awful, uncharismatic, irritating little punks should not have filled such a major role - mainly because they have so little charisma.
Obviously. You must hate Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I actually love that film, as well as Life of Brian. They're slightly less serious and more frivolous than S&M; they have less of a story. Sam & Max had quite a good story going there, but the end left a - not a bitter - but a sickly-sweet taste in my mouth. Whereas, I don't care what happens in Monty Python because it's entirely comedy orientated while Sam & Max is about 85% comedy orientated.
Far out, Rather Dashing, you're wearing me out here .
First of all, it's Obi-Wan and Anakin - Luke doesn't exist yet.
Right right. I was defaulting to the movie series that doesn't give me a massive aneurysm whenever I attempt to watch it.
He is running, yes, but can't it be argued that Obi-Wan and Anakin are stronger Jedi than those killed by Grievous? Running, in Grievous' case can also be a smart move, make your enemies chase you and put your dozens of droids in the way. Why endanger yourself, a valuable general, when you can just sacrifice your endless supply of brainless, soulless droids?
Because it's boring? Because the droids pose as only a small deterrent as best? Because nobody has yet made a movie about a spawn camper for a reason?
Maybe they should have, they died due to stupidity and ignorance of the situation and the goings-on around them.
Isn't that how EVERY villain loses in Sam and Max? The pacing is hardly, um, intense. The villain generally has fair warning if they just look at what Sam is doing.
It was Obi-Wan's time anyway, didn't he just allow Vader to kill him? If not, it sure looked like it. Han did flee at one stage that I do remember, it was in A New Hope when he ran into that room filled with dozens of Stormtroopers, yes I know it's a lot bigger force than Grievous had, but it's still fleeing and it was a smart decision as well. As for Vader and Sidious, they never had any real threats, there was no need to run.
Luke was as equal a threat to Vader as Obi Wan and Anakin were to Grievous. And running is ALL Grievous does. He actually DOES almost nothing but sit in rooms saying "DROIDS GET THEM I'MA SCARED". It doesn't come off as cunning when you hide in a room and hope the scary men go away.
It's not from the movie, of course, but this is still General Grievous we're talking about.
Except this is, again, a lower-level canon source. The character is on the top level obscenely poorly written and executed, only slightly better on the secondary T-Canon level, and it's only when you get into easily overwritten C-Canon that he has any appearance that is anything but pathetic.
Why not stay couped up in there? He's got loads of forces at his disposal, why not use the? Weaken the enemy and then pounce, it's strategic.
It's boring, because the droids are about as dramatic as antagonists as loaves of bread. When has it ever been "Oh no! An army of hundreds of rank and file battle droids! These two Jedi are totally in trouble now!" It's a tough sell, at least.
What does that have to do with anything?
Side comment. Naming your fish Jedi after the Spanish infinitive "to swim" just felt horribly tacky.
I thought it was relevant to both points.
And in both, he was sitting in a room. With no legs. Hiding again, hoping that the mean men would just go away without having to do anything. Again. Yes, he spends a lot of his EU appearances killing Jedi. But that reputation is somewhat sabotaged by higher-canon elements such as the film and the TV series, which paint him as a coward.
...and failed to use them effectively.
They produced a difficult final puzzle with it. Sounds effective enough to me for villains that absolutely have to be defeated in the end.
...and lost them soon afterwards.
Yeah, of course. They're the bad guys, it's the last episode. You kind of have to stop their evil plan. No matter who it was, they'd get knocked down pretty quickly.
"Exactly, 'going to' - they failed.
See above. I doubt we'll have a Sam and Max season ending with the villain proclaiming victory over the mangled bodies of Sam and Max.
They sort of we're. In their stupidity, they were fooled by a birthday cake into destroying themselves.
And? The birthday thing was kind of their motivation. They just wanted to be recognized. Maybe when you want something badly enough, you're a little delusional. And besides: It was funny. And the puzzle was difficult, so I was happy.
They were pathetic; not worthy of their demonic powers. They just didn't fit the role of villains, in my opinion.
Apparently they were more worthy than Satan.
The explanation worked, yes. But I just think it would have been more fitting to have a slightly tougher character. Even Brady Culture, even Leonard, even Jimmy Two-teeth, even the female Stinky. Anyone but the Soda Poppers. I used Flint Paper as an example because it would have been unexpected, it could have been made plausible and believable if the story were to have been shaped slightly differently, the guy is a tough guy and could easily be a villain and not just a tough protagonist, and he's likable and cool.
It's possible. It could have worked. But it's not what they went for, and I was never horribly annoyed by the characters in the first place. I just knew that Sam and Max found them to be annoying.
Okay then, even Jimmy Two-teeth then. That would have been unexpected, it would have been funny, it could've worked. He's also far less annoying that the Soda Poppers. I just hate the fact that my least favourite characters played such a major role in the story. Such awful, non-charismatic, irritating little punks should not have filled such a major role - mainly because they have so little charisma.
Honestly, I don't think Jimmy Two-Teeth would have worked quite as well. Would you have wanted to take him down? I mean, we push him around all the time as minor quest objectives, but we feel bad about it. At least with the Soda Poppers, we're messing up the lives of former child stars, politicians, reality TV show hosts...people for whom we have no sympathy. Episode 201 kind of made me feel bad for Jimmy. I would have felt like a major ass striking him down.
Well, yeah, you've got that right.
It's a direct quote from the episode, from right before the reveal.
I actually love that film, as well as Life of Brian. They're slightly less serious and more frivolous than S&M; they have less of a story. Sam & Max had quite a good story going there, but the end left a - not a bitter - but a sickly-sweet taste in my mouth. Whereas, I don't care what happens in Monty Python because it's entirely comedy orientated while Sam & Max is about 85% comedy orientated.
...I have no idea where you get this idea that Sam and Max has little enough comedy that it needs some sort of dramatic crescendo. Have you read the comics? Or even, I don't know, seen the animated series?
This isn't an empty argument, either. I will gladly comb through the comics and the animated series for examples. They will not be difficult to find. At all.
Irishmile's ghost poppers image was really nice. Kudos for that. :cool:
Grievous shouldn't try to highjack this thread. He isn't cool main baddie like the Soda Poppers or Emperor Palpatine are. He's just a henchman and he isn't even top tier henchman like Darth Vader is, but he is second rate henchman like Jurgen.
He killed, what, four Jedi Masters in his first appearance? And yet he spends the majority of the movie running from Obi-Wan and Luke, and then running from Obi-Wan.
Don't you mean Anakin? Or are we not talking about Grievous anymore?
When? Let's look at the trilogy that isn't a gigantic turd for a minute. Darth Vader didn't flee. Obi-Wan didn't flee. Darth Sidious didn't flee. Han even charges headfirst into a stronger opposing force because he's badass and that was the only option.
Lemme see... Hoth?
EDIT: Oh darn, there was a page 4...
EDIT2:
Because it's boring? Because the droids pose as only a small deterrent as best? Because nobody has yet made a movie about a spawn camper for a reason?
I guess you never watched the movie "Phone Booth"?
It's quite good!
It's boring, because the droids are about as dramatic as antagonists as loaves of bread. When has it ever been "Oh no! An army of hundreds of rank and file battle droids! These two Jedi are totally in trouble now!" It's a tough sell, at least.
Haha, I liked the loaf of bread comment. I don't find it too boring, but I see where you're coming from. However, I find that these lesser enemies help build up to an eventual climax (in this case, being when Grievous comes out to fight). I also find that sometimes it is essential to have more boring battles and weaker enemies instead of always having Jedi duels. If there are just constant Jedi battles and no one-sided fights and push-over enemies, the the Jedi duels will no longer be a novelty and they could become stale and repetitive. Plus, I find the Magna Droids to actually be reasonably challenging for the Jedi, they're at least a little easier than your regular Separatist Droid (which can be brought down by even R2-D2).
Isn't that how EVERY villain loses in Sam and Max? The pacing is hardly, um, intense. The villain generally has fair warning if they just look at what Sam is doing.
Fair point, but at least Hugh Bliss (who I also dislike) had some sort of clue as to what Sam & Max were doing and what a little more aware of what was going on around him. And Jurgen was aware enough to even kill Sam & Max. And when Jurgen was toppled, it wasn't due to ignorance, it was due to being up against a greater force in his monster.
Luke was as equal a threat to Vader as Obi Wan and Anakin were to Grievous. And running is ALL Grievous does. He actually DOES almost nothing but sit in rooms saying "DROIDS GET THEM I'MA SCARED". It doesn't come off as cunning when you hide in a room and hope the scary men go away.
I know he spent most of his time hiding, sending his droids to fight, but (I could be wrong here) isn't it a General's job to direct their troops? Plus, Grievous is valuable for other things than just going off and hunting his enemies, so why risk himself? Perhaps he was ordered by higher ranks to avoid getting himself into dangerous situations (just some speculation).
Except this is, again, a lower-level canon source. The character is on the top level obscenely poorly written and executed, only slightly better on the secondary T-Canon level, and it's only when you get into easily overwritten C-Canon that he has any appearance that is anything but pathetic.
Fair point, but whether it's in a comic or a high grossing box office film, this is still the same character, and mercilessly slaughtering a Jedi by clutching their head and stabbing them in the stomach is still brutal in my books.
And in both, he was sitting in a room. With no legs. Hiding again, hoping that the mean men would just go away without having to do anything. Again. Yes, he spends a lot of his EU appearances killing Jedi. But that reputation is somewhat sabotaged by higher-canon elements such as the film and the TV series, which paint him as a coward.
Well, you can hardly expect him to come out and fight if he is missing his legs. But the thing is that he eventually does come out and fight eventually. He obviously originally thought that Nadaar and Kit Fisto were weak; no match for him; unworthy adversaries that he felt he didn't need to waste his time on. He instead sent his droids and after seeing that he they didn't do their job, he then decided to come out and tackle the problem himself, and he almost killed them both.
Yeah, of course. They're the bad guys, it's the last episode. You kind of have to stop their evil plan. No matter who it was, they'd get knocked down pretty quickly.
Fair points again, but it didn't exactly go for very long, did it? They were toppled fairly quickly, whereas with Jurgen and Hugh Bliss, they were episode-long campaigns.
And? The birthday thing was kind of their motivation. They just wanted to be recognized. Maybe when you want something badly enough, you're a little delusional. And besides: It was funny. And the puzzle was difficult, so I was happy.
It was, but I would have preferred a slightly longer process, like the one seen in The Penal Zone where it takes the entire episode to investigate whether or not Skun-ka'pe is evil, find him, defeat him and rid the world of him. Similar to what was seen in both "Bright Side of the Moon" and "Night of the Raving Dead".
No, what I meant was that they weren't worthy of being given the role or the demonic powers by the writers. And I think you'll agree that the Devil wasn't really portrayed as threatening or fierce in the episode.
Honestly, I don't think Jimmy Two-Teeth would have worked quite as well.
No, I never said that I wanted it, I just used it as an example. However, I still think that it would've been better. It wouldn't have been goof though.
Would you have wanted to take him down? I mean, we push him around all the time as minor quest objectives, but we feel bad about it. At least with the Soda Poppers, we're messing up the lives of former child stars, politicians, reality TV show hosts...people for whom we have no sympathy. Episode 201 kind of made me feel bad for Jimmy. I would have felt like a major ass striking him down.
Yes, but they could have shaped the rest of the story differently so that we wouldn't feel bad about it. We don't feel bad about taking down the Soda Poppers because the writers shaped them to be the characters that you don't care about bringing down.
...I have no idea where you get this idea that Sam and Max has little enough comedy that it needs some sort of dramatic crescendo.
I wouldn't want it to be overly dramatic, I just wish that it was a more climactic, shocking and satisfying end than finding out it was the Soda Poppers who were behind everything.
Have you read the comics? Or even, I don't know, seen the animated series?
Bits and pieces of the online comics, haven't seen the series. I guess you've got the upper hand there. So it can be argued that you know better than I, but I just think that we have different opinions. Disliking the Soda Poppers and thinking that they are rubbish villains has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge you have on the series (well, it does actually, but I believe I have enough to make my own judgments of character. After all, playing all of the games is quite good enough).
All I'm saying is that the Soda Poppers were unsatisfactory villains. They weren't sufficient for that role and, quite frankly, it was a bitter (no, sickly-sweet) ending to such a wonderful series. I just with that there was a different villain or different villains other than a trio of annoying, irritating, uncharismatic little punks who are offensive to look at and to listen to. They were poor characters even when playing minor roles, but to have them play such a major role was even worse.
I referred to General Grievous because he is one of my all-time favourite villains - no matter what anyone says and no matter how inconsistent he is as a character. I know that a character such as him would be far too serious for Sam & Max, but I think that any villain (even for comedy) should have at least some of the traits that we see in Grievous. I don't think that the Soda Poppers are threatening at all visually while Grievous is (like when Grievous is swiveling his lightsabers in front of himself and inching slowly towards Obi-Wan, that is threatening, that is intimidating).
Of course this debate was never going to reach an agreement between the two of us, that is why it is so extensive - we have conflicting opinions. You don't mind the Soda Poppers while I absolutely despise them. I like Grievous and find him to be both strategic and threatening, you find him to be cowardly and inconsistent. You look at the newer Star Wars movies with disgust while I find them every bit as good as the original 3.
Edit (just had to set another one up for you) : Well, that was long and hard.
So you were a little biased towards Grievous from the beginning, yes?
Actually, he was one of the few things I wasn't biased against. Going into episode 3, I was excited to see the awesome Jedi-killing machine that I'd watched in the animated series. I was disappointed on every level. Rather than being the thing that was hiding in the shadows, Grievous was now the thing that was hiding in the room while hoping his pet robots will get rid of the scary Jedi. There is a difference. Not once did Grievous strike unexpectedly from a shadow, or the ceiling, or from above. When he did the 360-degree lightsaber rotary saw thing, it was so much slower and less impressive than in the cartoon. I was led to believe that the character no longer could do those things he did in the series. I got the impression that he was now weak, incapable, and just trying to stave off death one more day out of fear.
Haha, I liked the loaf of bread comment. I don't find it too boring, but I see where you're coming from. However, I find that these lesser enemies help build up to an eventual climax (in this case, being when Grievous comes out to fight). I also find that sometimes it is essential to have more boring battles and weaker enemies instead of always having Jedi duels. If there are just constant Jedi battles and no one-sided fights and push-over enemies, the the Jedi duels will no longer be a novelty and they could become stale and repetitive. Plus, I find the Magna Droids to actually be reasonably challenging for the Jedi, they're at least a little easier than your regular Separatist Droid (which can be brought down by even R2-D2).
The problem is that the music, the character dialog, and the cinematography keep saying "Hey! Big threat! A bunch of droids!" I feel like the film is trying to sell these droids as powerful antagonists for the vast majority of the film, while giving them "wacky sidekick" humor now and then. The droids are not a real threat, they are not an ingenious strategic move, but the movie wants us to think that it is. Again, tough sell.
Fair point, but at least Hugh Bliss (who I also dislike) had some sort of clue as to what Sam & Max were doing and what a little more aware of what was going on around him. And Jurgen was aware enough to even kill Sam & Max. And when Jurgen was toppled, it wasn't due to ignorance, it was due to being up against a greater force in his monster.
Except that's not the way it goes for most villains. It's not like this is an anooly, and there's only so many times you can play the "the villains are toying with Sam and Max" card before it gets repetitive. Look through the history of boss puzzles. A lot of the time, due to the pacing, if the antagonist was paying attention they could just move slightly to the left to avoid defeat.
I know he spent most of his time hiding, sending his droids to fight, but (I could be wrong here) isn't it a General's job to direct their troops? Plus, Grievous is valuable for other things than just going off and hunting his enemies, so why risk himself? Perhaps he was ordered by higher ranks to avoid getting himself into dangerous situations (just some speculation).
The problem is that it's Jedi. And he kills Jedi. Oh, sure, he should direct the troops in formation against clone troopers, but the droids are not going to defeat the Jedi. And if the droids did defeat the Jedi, it would feel dramatically cheap. And yet, something like five times throughout the movie, he hides in a room and hopes the Jedi are defeated by rank-and-file droids(or his admittedly slightly better personal guard).
Fair point, but whether it's in a comic or a high grossing box office film, this is still the same character, and mercilessly slaughtering a Jedi by clutching their head and stabbing them in the stomach is still brutal in my books.
The problem is that this is on the level that is constantly being overwritten by the Clone Wars series. The very existence of Ahsoka changes a lot of canon material. The Mandalorians' entire culture is changed in the T-level canon. It can heavily be argued that the Grievous in the comics is not Grievous at all, but a character that in a broad sense is only a barely-canon interpretation of the character.
Well, you can hardly expect him to come out and fight if he is missing his legs. But the thing is that he eventually does come out and fight eventually. He obviously originally thought that Nadaar and Kit Fisto were weak; no match for him; unworthy adversaries that he felt he didn't need to waste his time on. He instead sent his droids and after seeing that he they didn't do their job, he then decided to come out and tackle the problem himself, and he almost killed them both.
I'm just saying that an episode in which the majority of the runtime is spent hiding in a room as a cripple is hardly a good example of how badass a character is. It may make sense, but it's not exactly as inspiring as it would be if Grievous(for example) had then proceeded to fight back without legs, using one or two of his arms to swing from pipes, tubes, etc.
Fair points again, but it didn't exactly go for very long, did it? They were toppled fairly quickly, whereas with Jurgen and Hugh Bliss, they were episode-long campaigns.
Jurgen managed to kill them, Sam and Max looked sort of mangled as zombies. They weren't looking too good anyway.]
You know what I meant, and that wasn't the end of the episode. He was thwarted by stumbling backwards into his own trap, and I can't remember exactly what happened at the end but: Wasn't he "mesmerized" by something? The walkthrough says Jurgen was, but I don't remember by what.
It was, but I would have preferred a slightly longer process, like the one seen in The Penal Zone where it takes the entire episode to investigate whether or not Skun-ka'pe is evil, find him, defeat him and rid the world of him. Similar to what was seen in both "Bright Side of the Moon" and "Night of the Raving Dead".
Wait, didn't we know that Skun-ka'pe is evil? You know, from the start? Thanks to future vision? Didn't we know the rainbow man was evil from the start? And Jurgen, um, also did that whole "let's look at what will happen HEY JURGEN IS A JERK" thing. I don't think there was ever any investigation into whether or not they were evil. In Skun-ka'pe's case, we were just looking for the guy.
No, what I meant was that they weren't worthy of being given the role or the demonic powers by the writers. And I think you'll agree that the Devil wasn't really portrayed as threatening or fierce in the episode.
I think he was portrayed as being just about as threatening as any other Sam and Max villain. He was able to trap Sam in his own personal Hell, after all, while also capturing the souls of just about everyone on Straight Street.
No, I never said that I wanted it, I just used it as an example. However, I still think that it would've been better. It wouldn't have been goof though.
Yes, but they could have shaped the rest of the story differently so that we wouldn't feel bad about it. We don't feel bad about taking down the Soda Poppers because the writers shaped them to be the characters that you don't care about bringing down.
Sure, but that's like saying "They could have shaped the entire story around Sybil being the main villain and it would have worked". The statement that "If they changed everything about the make-up of the story, it could work" doesn't hold much weight.
I wouldn't want it to be overly dramatic, I just wish that it was a more climactic, shocking and satisfying end than finding out it was the Soda Poppers who were behind everything.
Bits and pieces of the online comics, haven't seen the series. I guess you've got the upper hand there. So it can be argued that you know better than I, but I just think that we have different opinions. Disliking the Soda Poppers and thinking that they are rubbish villains has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge you have on the series (well, it does actually, but I believe I have enough to make my own judgments of character. After all, playing all of the games is quite good enough).
You have enough knowledge to say that you don't like it, but do you have enough to say it won't fit in the universe? I don't know. Maybe Seasons One and Two establish enough, I have no idea, personally.
All I'm saying is that the Soda Poppers were unsatisfactory villains. They weren't sufficient for that role and, quite frankly, it was a bitter (no, sickly-sweet) ending to such a wonderful series. I just with that there was a different villain or different villains other than a trio of annoying, irritating, uncharismatic little punks who are offensive to look at and to listen to. They were poor characters even when playing minor roles, but to have them play such a major role was even worse.
I referred to General Grievous because he is one of my all-time favourite villains - no matter what anyone says and no matter how inconsistent he is as a character. I know that a character such as him would be far too serious for Sam & Max, but I think that any villain (even for comedy) should have at least some of the traits that we see in Grievous. I don't think that the Soda Poppers are threatening at all visually while Grievous is (like when Grievous is swiveling his lightsabers in front of himself and inching slowly towards Obi-Wan, that is threatening, that is intimidating).
But almost NONE of Sam and Max's enemies are threatening visually. Myra, Toy Mafia, Hugh Bliss, Santa Clause, and Space Mariachis were hardly visually frightening.
You look at the newer Star Wars movies with disgust while I find them every bit as good as the original 3.
You're a monster that likely doesn't understand any of the qualities that made Star Wars films something special to begin with.
I honestly cannot understand the opinion that the prequel trilogy are even good movies, or watchable movies, let alone just as good as some of my favorite films of all time. I don't even own them on DVD, despite owning the original trilogy on betamax, VHS(twice), CED, Laserdisc, DVD(twice), and I'll likely own it on Blu-Ray, especially if they finally give the trilogy as it was seen in theaters a proper release(NOT as an "extra", with proper handling rather than being a rip of the non-anamorphic laserdiscs). The Star Wars films are something special, the original trilogy is burned irrevocably in the fabric of our culture. Will the prequel trilogy ever be that? I highly doubt it. In 20-30 years' time, who is going to look back at Star Wars episodes 1-3 and say "Wow. That was a milestone in film?"
Edit (just had to set another one up for you) : Well, that was long and hard.
is the clone wars series worth anythig? i started watching but soon gave up because the "evil" droids were so horribly annoying.
that said ... i want a new republic commando game... it was so awesome
The 2D series, or the 3D one?
The 2D miniseries is brilliant. The release format for it was not. They split up a continuous flow into 5 minute "episodes" that didn't work as well on their own. Watching them all seemlessly flow back to back on the DVD is incredible though, and totally worth it.
The 3D show? Eeeeh. It has its good episodes here and there. It gets really annoying how childish it can be, and it can also be preachy while also contradicting itself. I wouldn't suggest actively watching the whole thing, honestly.
Actually, he was one of the few things I wasn't biased against. Going into episode 3, I was excited to see the awesome Jedi-killing machine that I'd watched in the animated series. I was disappointed on every level. Rather than being the thing that was hiding in the shadows, Grievous was now the thing that was hiding in the room while hoping his pet robots will get rid of the scary Jedi. There is a difference. Not once did Grievous strike unexpectedly from a shadow, or the ceiling, or from above. When he did the 360-degree lightsaber rotary saw thing, it was so much slower and less impressive than in the cartoon. I was led to believe that the character no longer could do those things he did in the series. I got the impression that he was now weak, incapable, and just trying to stave off death one more day out of fear.
Strong argument there. Okay, maybe he isn't portrayed as well in the film as I originally thought, but he's badass is the 2D series, the comics, the books and there's moments of badass-ness in the CGI series as well. Hopefully we'll see him redeem himself by killing a load of Jedi in the CGI series sometime soon.
The problem is that the music, the character dialog, and the cinematography keep saying "Hey! Big threat! A bunch of droids!" I feel like the film is trying to sell these droids as powerful antagonists for the vast majority of the film, while giving them "wacky sidekick" humor now and then. The droids are not a real threat, they are not an ingenious strategic move, but the movie wants us to think that it is. Again, tough sell.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But at this stage of the series, the show was aimed a little more towards the younger audience; a more gullible audience, whereas now the target audience has shifted a little. The show is slightly more adult and, as a result, more enjoyable.
Except that's not the way it goes for most villains. It's not like this is an anooly, and there's only so many times you can play the "the villains are toying with Sam and Max" card before it gets repetitive. Look through the history of boss puzzles. A lot of the time, due to the pacing, if the antagonist was paying attention they could just move slightly to the left to avoid defeat.
True, true. Like how the Soda Poppers could have avoided falling into the pit by walking forward a few steps. What's an anooly, by the way?
The problem is that it's Jedi. And he kills Jedi. Oh, sure, he should direct the troops in formation against clone troopers, but the droids are not going to defeat the Jedi. And if the droids did defeat the Jedi, it would feel dramatically cheap. And yet, something like five times throughout the movie, he hides in a room and hopes the Jedi are defeated by rank-and-file droids(or his admittedly slightly better personal guard).
Yeah, but the droids (Magna Guards, tougher than you're average droid) did pretty well here against a strong Jedi in Eeth Koth. Grievous almost didn't have to intervene. Grievous actually went on to torture Eeth Koth (from what I've read, I've only seen pieces of this episode), which is pretty brutal. He didn't actually kill him because the guy escaped, but still - a slow torture and a probable murder (if not for the rescue), that's pretty evil.
The problem is that this is on the level that is constantly being overwritten by the Clone Wars series. The very existence of Ahsoka changes a lot of canon material. The Mandalorians' entire culture is changed in the T-level canon. It can heavily be argued that the Grievous in the comics is not Grievous at all, but a character that in a broad sense is only a barely-canon interpretation of the character.
Good point. I know this is unrelated, but this is sort of the reason why I don't want there to be a Gilbert MI3 with an alternate timeline, because it'll conflict with the existing one.
I'm just saying that an episode in which the majority of the runtime is spent hiding in a room as a cripple is hardly a good example of how badass a character is. It may make sense, but it's not exactly as inspiring as it would be if Grievous(for example) had then proceeded to fight back without legs, using one or two of his arms to swing from pipes, tubes, etc.
Fair call. I can't help but agree. But at least he did get back out there and at least kill someone. It makes up a little for his poorer performance earlier in the episode.
You know what I meant, and that wasn't the end of the episode. He was thwarted by stumbling backwards into his own trap, and I can't remember exactly what happened at the end but: Wasn't he "mesmerized" by something? The walkthrough says Jurgen was, but I don't remember by what.
He walked back into the Soul Sucker after he was stabbed in the hear by his monster which had the spirits of Sam and Max inside of it. He was dying before he walked back into the machine anyway.
Wait, didn't we know that Skun-ka'pe is evil? You know, from the start? Thanks to future vision?
Sam said that they were 98% sure or something like that. True, there wasn't all that much investigation, but there was investigation into what his ultimate plans were; what the guy (or gorilla) was up to.
Didn't we know the rainbow man was evil from the start? And Jurgen, um, also did that whole "let's look at what will happen HEY JURGEN IS A JERK" thing. I don't think there was ever any investigation into whether or not they were evil.
I said 'similar to', not 'exactly like'. There were similarities between the episodes.
I think he was portrayed as being just about as threatening as any other Sam and Max villain. He was able to trap Sam in his own personal Hell, after all, while also capturing the souls of just about everyone on Straight Street.
Yes, but he was the least intimidating and evil Satan that I've seen for a very long time. Compared to other portrayals of Satan, this one's pretty tame.
Sure, but that's like saying "They could have shaped the entire story around Sybil being the main villain and it would have worked". The statement that "If they changed everything about the make-up of the story, it could work" doesn't hold much weight.
...But the writers shaped the story around the Soda Poppers. It would only take minor tweaks and changes to have a different major villain and have it fit perfectly in with the story.
But almost NONE of Sam and Max's enemies are threatening visually. Myra, Toy Mafia, Hugh Bliss, Santa Clause, and Space Mariachis were hardly visually frightening.
Yes, but none of those characters made me want to headbutt my monitor.
You're a monster that likely doesn't understand any of the qualities that made Star Wars films something special to begin with.
I honestly cannot understand the opinion that the prequel trilogy are even good movies, or watchable movies, let alone just as good as some of my favorite films of all time. I don't even own them on DVD, despite owning the original trilogy on betamax, VHS(twice), CED, Laserdisc, DVD(twice), and I'll likely own it on Blu-Ray, especially if they finally give the trilogy as it was seen in theaters a proper release(NOT as an "extra", with proper handling rather than being a rip of the non-anamorphic laserdiscs). The Star Wars films are something special, the original trilogy is burned irrevocably in the fabric of our culture. Will the prequel trilogy ever be that? I highly doubt it. In 20-30 years' time, who is going to look back at Star Wars episodes 1-3 and say "Wow. That was a milestone in film?"
I do understand what made the original three special and I know why many people prefer the original three. I even understand why people despise the newer episodes. But there are qualities of the newer films that I love; qualities that go unnoticed by so many. I think that the original saga and the prequels are both brilliant for very different reasons. I personally view them all as classics (yes, even Attack of the Clones - the weakest of all the movies).
I love the prequels because I was still a kid when they were released (well, Phantom Menace anyway, not so much the later two). I remember watching them with various family members and friends, they're basically a part of me and each time I watch them it's like taking a trip down memory lane and there's a certain nostalgic value to them. I especially hold the Phantom Menace in a special place because it's the one that I watched the most as a young person and it's one that I still love today and every time I watch it every line sounds like a classic line, every moment feels like an iconic movie moment, every actor feels like an oscar winner, every scene brings something back to me.
Not only do I love the Phantom Menace (and the other two films) for this reason, but I genuinely think that they are good movies with great characters and wonderful stories. I think that they are well made and are certainly classics in my opinion.
I'm sure you grew up with the original trilogy, yes? You'd definitely feel something similar to what I feel for the prequels (and what I also feel for the original trilogy, because I also grew up with those).
Strong argument there. Okay, maybe he isn't portrayed as well in the film as I originally thought, but he's badass is the 2D series, the comics, the books and there's moments of badass-ness in the CGI series as well. Hopefully we'll see him redeem himself by killing a load of Jedi in the CGI series sometime soon.
I'd love to see that, but the CGI series seems to be unclear as to when it wants to fight that battle. Murder, while not unheard of in the series, tends to be either somehow watered down or avoided.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But at this stage of the series, the show was aimed a little more towards the younger audience; a more gullible audience, whereas now the target audience has shifted a little. The show is slightly more adult and, as a result, more enjoyable.
...I don't know where you're getting this impression.
True, true. Like how the Soda Poppers could have avoided falling into the pit by walking forward a few steps. What's an anooly, by the way?
Exactly. The Soda Poppers' defeat is not all that dissimilar from the defeat of other villains in the games.
Also, anooly is a typo. I meant "anomaly".
Yeah, but the droids (Magna Guards, tougher than you're average droid) did pretty well here against a strong Jedi in Eeth Koth. Grievous almost didn't have to intervene. Grievous actually went on to torture Eeth Koth (from what I've read, I've only seen pieces of this episode), which is pretty brutal. He didn't actually kill him because the guy escaped, but still - a slow torture and a probable murder (if not for the rescue), that's pretty evil.
I'm not going to argue that he's not evil, just that the guy isn't exactly the best villain because he leaves major tasks to basic footsoldiers, even relies on the competence of what are essentially minor joke characters. He's a mean bastard, sure, but his redeeming qualities as a compelling villain are few and far between. I also don't like him because, well, he doesn't feel like he has motivation. He's just evil because the script says he is, there's no "humanity" to the character, or anything about the way he acts that is memorable(trademark cough?). Maybe his design, but not his actions and motivations.
Good point. I know this is unrelated, but this is sort of the reason why I don't want there to be a Gilbert MI3 with an alternate timeline, because it'll conflict with the existing one.
Completely different idea, as far as I'm concerned. Star Wars is a single, tiered continuity. Most suggestions for a Gilbert Monkey Island 3 either have it tie into Curse or occur in a different timeline than Curse. Most people just want ONE more game in the "Gilbert Line" to let the story finish out, and then let the Curse story continue with Telltale. With LeChuck's Revenge Special Edition coming out soon, I think it's a good time for a retro-styled sequel.
Also, I hate what Curse has done to the story and art style of the games. As far as I'm concerned, wiping it out would be a small loss, at most.
Fair call. I can't help but agree. But at least he did get back out there and at least kill someone. It makes up a little for his poorer performance earlier in the episode.
Eh. I just don't see it. Maybe for that last five minutes he was worth something, but that still leaves a good 20 during which he got his legs chopped off and hid in his room.
He walked back into the Soul Sucker after he was stabbed in the hear by his monster which had the spirits of Sam and Max inside of it. He was dying before he walked back into the machine anyway.
Can't you fail as Jurgen's monster, though? Don't you need to change something about him that makes the monster "mesmerizing"?
Sam said that they were 98% sure or something like that. True, there wasn't all that much investigation, but there was investigation into what his ultimate plans were; what the guy (or gorilla) was up to.
Eeeeh. I'm not seeing it, to be honest. We knew the guy was evil. We learned from the brain that he wanted to use the Toys of Power. The investigation was more "Where is that guy?"
Yes, but he was the least intimidating and evil Satan that I've seen for a very long time. Compared to other portrayals of Satan, this one's pretty tame.
Isn't that the point? He's supposed to be an antagonist, yes, but he also has to be the cartoon office boss to sell Hell as a corporation.
Yes, but none of those characters made me want to headbutt my monitor.
But that's not the argument you made. You said "They don't work as villains because they don't look intimidating", not "They don't work as villains because I don't personally like them".
I'm sure you grew up with the original trilogy, yes? You'd definitely feel something similar to what I feel for the prequels (and what I also feel for the original trilogy, because I also grew up with those).
Eh. I liked a lot of things as a kid, but I've noticed that they were crap later on in life. I enjoyed Disney's Flubber, for instance. That, um, was not a good movie.
Nostalgia goggles can only get me so far. Even if I do know that I only like something because I saw it as a kid, I'm always criticizing the the formal qualities of the movie/game/etc in the back of my mind, thinking "Ah well. It's nostalgic all the same."
I just can't understand how a person can grow up, watch the movies, and not realize the major flaws in their production and writing. They're flimsy, poorly-constructed works that retroactively defile the originals. The pacing is abysmal, the dialog is at best poor, the story is full of holes and poorly defined motivations, the digital effects used for EVERYTHING don't help the actors' already generally poor performance, because there's no sense that they're interacting with anything "real"...
There's just so much to hate. Like the lightsaber duals. They're beautifully choreographed in the prequel trilogy, yes. There's no emotion behind it. There are people who say the original trilogy is worse because the lightsaber duals are less spectacular, which entirely misses the point. Notice in the original trilogy, when Luke is finally pushed to the edge by Vader, he completely loses it. Luke just wails on him. Contrast with Obi-Wan, when Maul kills Qui-Gon? You get maybe a second of emotion, followed by a dance-like lightsaber battle. It's showy, it's nice, but is it good filmmaking? Is it good dramatization?
I could go on for pages about the prequel trilogy, I could go minute by minute and explain my hatred in minute detail. They're not good movies, by any of the conventional standards.
Comments
That shows that he's been through a lot, he's had a lot of damage inflicted upon him but he's fought on. It sort of shows experience in a way. Sort of in the same ways as Darth Vader. And what's wrong with wheezing and coughing? There's an extra threat of the protagonists catching a nasty cold off of him
Hey, he knew the right times to do so, didn't he? Plus, name a villain that hasn't run away at least once? Think about it.
I've only seen one episode of the 2D Star Wars series, it featured Grievous, and I agree, he was cool there and he was threatening. But that's how I find him in the film anyway, the voice and the coughing has never worried me (I think that, in some strange way, it adds to the character), and fleeing isn't always cowardice, sometimes it's just the right decision - all characters, protagonists and antagonists alike, flee at stages.
Well, I'm referring to the character in General, the Grievous from the 2D series, the movie, and the CGI series and whatever else he may be in (comics, books, games, etc.). I think that all versions should be counted as one character.
Brutality
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb-twMa7lnc
Cunning
Seen best in the episode "Lair of Grievous" from the CGI Clone Wars series.
Peh, there's plenty more points where those came from.
I just think that villains need to be at least likable in some way, the Soda Poppers aren't. I think that in order to be an effective villain you need to be intimidating to some degree, the Soda Poppers aren't. Yes, of course the revelation was unexpected, and yes that's because they weren't constructed that way or portrayed that way during the season. Having the Soda Poppers as the main villains is like having the main villains of Star Wars as R2-D2, Jabba the Hutt's little ratty monkey-ish pet thing, and a Jawa. If I want a revelation of a villain, I would want it to at least be a likable character, but to also be a character that is capable of being a villain, a character where you could think "Yeah, wow, I didn't expect them to be the villain, but I do see how they could've been all along" - perhaps a character like Flint Paper. Whereas for me, when the Soda Poppers were revealed as being the villains, I was just thinking "What... the hell?".
...And I don't care for the whole joke aspect, I say don't make your main story twist a joke, don't make your ending a joke. If anything, make it the one near-serious part of the whole series.
That's where we're different.
EDIT oh hey look a reply to my post. I guess I should get on that.
Oh crap, I'm bracing myself
Haha, I don't know whether it was worth putting that in spoiler tags after all that we've posted earlier in the thread.
The Emperor.
Darth Vader.
Byu the way, there is a difference between escaping an explosion in a fighter and running away from Jedi. One has a satisfying conclusion, the other goes "Dammit we have to chase him to the next room!". He killed, what, four Jedi Masters in his first appearance? And yet he spends the majority of the movie running from Obi-Wan and Luke, and then running from Obi-Wan. Escaping when it's relevant isn't a huge problem, but he isn't regrouping, he isn't plotting or planning. He's JUST RUNNING.
Oh, and The Soda Poppers. They didn't run.
See, not watching that series is a big mistake, because it's one of the few things that makes the crap trilogy era feel at all palpable.
When? Let's look at the trilogy that isn't a gigantic turd for a minute. Darth Vader didn't flee. Obi-Wan didn't flee. Darth Sidious didn't flee. Han even charges headfirst into a stronger opposing force because he's badass and that was the only option.
Except he's dull in the novels, he's predictable in the 3D series, and he's only redeemable at all in the 2D miniseries.
...isn't that, um, a deleted scene? That's a deleted scene.
Also, hey! That one episode of the CGI series. Didn't he spend the majority of that episode holed up in a room, crying, hoping that nobody would find him as he got fixed up? Also, isn't that the episode that he spent without legs for the vast majority of it? Also I was constantly annoyed by Nadar's name. It's so...lame.
You're using the same example again. That's cheating. I don't feel bad saying "See Above" in this case.
Really? That's good, because I was beginning to think one deleted scene and one episode of the CGI series was all you had.
What? They were an obvious threat. They had those demon powers. They took control of Hell itself. They had throttled the mantle of Prince of Darkness from Satan. They were going to initiate the apocalypse and destroy the world. They were hardly harmless pushovers.
That's what I got, actually. I hadn't thought of the Soda Poppers as villains. At all. But the explanation worked, and I could see the escalation throughout Season One.
Your examples come from a dramatic work, not a comedic one. Its main qualities are humor, it was still being written as a sitcom. We're not talking about Monkey Island, where humor is a major aspect along with a dramatic story. Read the comics, after all: There is no drama. The revelation is so unexpected that it's humorous. And you know, no, I don't think it's terrible when a comedy game indulges in absurd humor, especially when that is the cornerstone of the entire franchise.
...why?
I laughed my ass off. "Who could possibly be more horrible and universally reviled than Satan?"
Obviously. You must hate Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I don't want never ever EVER start an actual discussion with Rather Dashing in person IN MY LIFE. That post is downright scary O.O.
Mace was actually the one who did the damage, Obi-wan doesn't meet Grievous until Ep3... hence their seeming to never have met on his ship during the palpatine rescue
I don't MEAN to be intimidating.
...or DO I?! :eek:
...Actually, "I never want to talk to that guy" , in reference to me, reminds me of grade school.
...and middle school.
....aaaand high school.
.......and college.
...........and work.
...
And, well, I suppose my life in general.
...
Well, look at it this way. At least you're popular here. On an internet gaming forum.
Oh...wait...
...
What?
That's something!
First of all, it's Obi-Wan and Anakin - Luke doesn't exist yet. He is running, yes, but can't it be argued that Obi-Wan and Anakin are stronger Jedi than those killed by Grievous? Running, in Grievous' case can also be a smart move, make your enemies chase you and put your dozens of droids in the way. Why endanger yourself, a valuable general, when you can just sacrifice your endless supply of brainless, soulless droids?
Maybe they should have, they died due to stupidity and ignorance of the situation and the goings-on around them.
Good point, it probably is a big mistake. I'll get around to watching it one day.
It was Obi-Wan's time anyway, didn't he just allow Vader to kill him? If not, it sure looked like it. Han did flee at one stage that I do remember, it was in A New Hope when he ran into that room filled with dozens of Stormtroopers, yes I know it's a lot bigger force than Grievous had, but it's still fleeing and it was a smart decision as well. As for Vader and Sidious, they never had any real threats, there was no need to run.
Yes, it is. But it still shows his brutality. I know it was deleted, so in theory, it didn't happen. But Grievous did plenty of other killing just like this (seen in the 2D series and the CGI series, yes, but it's still the same character as the one seen in Revenge of the Sith).
Edit...
Brutality
It's not from the movie, of course, but this is still General Grievous we're talking about.
Why not stay couped up in there? He's got loads of forces at his disposal, why not use the? Weaken the enemy and then pounce, it's strategic.
What does that have to do with anything?
I thought it was relevant to both points.
That was sort of a joke.
...and failed to use them effectively.
...and lost them soon afterwards.
Exactly, 'going to' - they failed.
They sort of we're. In their stupidity, they were fooled by a birthday cake into destroying themselves.
They were pathetic; not worthy of their demonic powers. They just didn't fit the role of villains, in my opinion.
The explanation worked, yes. But I just think it would have been more fitting to have a slightly tougher character. Even Brady Culture, even Leonard, even Jimmy Two-teeth, even the female Stinky. Anyone but the Soda Poppers. I used Flint Paper as an example because it would have been unexpected, it could have been made plausible and believable if the story were to have been shaped slightly differently, the guy is a tough guy and could easily be a villain and not just a tough protagonist, and he's likable and cool.
Okay then, even Jimmy Two-teeth then. That would have been unexpected, it would have been funny, it could've worked. He's also far less annoying that the Soda Poppers. I just hate the fact that my least favourite characters played such a major role in the story. Such awful, uncharismatic, irritating little punks should not have filled such a major role - mainly because they have so little charisma.
I explained above
Well, yeah, you've got that right.
I actually love that film, as well as Life of Brian. They're slightly less serious and more frivolous than S&M; they have less of a story. Sam & Max had quite a good story going there, but the end left a - not a bitter - but a sickly-sweet taste in my mouth. Whereas, I don't care what happens in Monty Python because it's entirely comedy orientated while Sam & Max is about 85% comedy orientated.
Far out, Rather Dashing, you're wearing me out here
Because it's boring? Because the droids pose as only a small deterrent as best? Because nobody has yet made a movie about a spawn camper for a reason?
Isn't that how EVERY villain loses in Sam and Max? The pacing is hardly, um, intense. The villain generally has fair warning if they just look at what Sam is doing.
Luke was as equal a threat to Vader as Obi Wan and Anakin were to Grievous. And running is ALL Grievous does. He actually DOES almost nothing but sit in rooms saying "DROIDS GET THEM I'MA SCARED". It doesn't come off as cunning when you hide in a room and hope the scary men go away.
Except this is, again, a lower-level canon source. The character is on the top level obscenely poorly written and executed, only slightly better on the secondary T-Canon level, and it's only when you get into easily overwritten C-Canon that he has any appearance that is anything but pathetic.
It's boring, because the droids are about as dramatic as antagonists as loaves of bread. When has it ever been "Oh no! An army of hundreds of rank and file battle droids! These two Jedi are totally in trouble now!" It's a tough sell, at least.
Side comment. Naming your fish Jedi after the Spanish infinitive "to swim" just felt horribly tacky.
And in both, he was sitting in a room. With no legs. Hiding again, hoping that the mean men would just go away without having to do anything. Again. Yes, he spends a lot of his EU appearances killing Jedi. But that reputation is somewhat sabotaged by higher-canon elements such as the film and the TV series, which paint him as a coward.
They produced a difficult final puzzle with it. Sounds effective enough to me for villains that absolutely have to be defeated in the end.
Yeah, of course. They're the bad guys, it's the last episode. You kind of have to stop their evil plan. No matter who it was, they'd get knocked down pretty quickly.
See above. I doubt we'll have a Sam and Max season ending with the villain proclaiming victory over the mangled bodies of Sam and Max.
And? The birthday thing was kind of their motivation. They just wanted to be recognized. Maybe when you want something badly enough, you're a little delusional. And besides: It was funny. And the puzzle was difficult, so I was happy.
Apparently they were more worthy than Satan.
It's possible. It could have worked. But it's not what they went for, and I was never horribly annoyed by the characters in the first place. I just knew that Sam and Max found them to be annoying.
Honestly, I don't think Jimmy Two-Teeth would have worked quite as well. Would you have wanted to take him down? I mean, we push him around all the time as minor quest objectives, but we feel bad about it. At least with the Soda Poppers, we're messing up the lives of former child stars, politicians, reality TV show hosts...people for whom we have no sympathy. Episode 201 kind of made me feel bad for Jimmy. I would have felt like a major ass striking him down.
It's a direct quote from the episode, from right before the reveal.
...I have no idea where you get this idea that Sam and Max has little enough comedy that it needs some sort of dramatic crescendo. Have you read the comics? Or even, I don't know, seen the animated series?
This isn't an empty argument, either. I will gladly comb through the comics and the animated series for examples. They will not be difficult to find. At all.
That's what SHE said!
You basically rail on and criticize everything under the sun...
...but like the Soda Poppers.
Really?
Grievous shouldn't try to highjack this thread. He isn't cool main baddie like the Soda Poppers or Emperor Palpatine are. He's just a henchman and he isn't even top tier henchman like Darth Vader is, but he is second rate henchman like Jurgen.
EDIT: Oh darn, there was a page 4...
EDIT2: I guess you never watched the movie "Phone Booth"?
It's quite good!
So you were a little biased towards Grievous from the beginning, yes?
Haha, I liked the loaf of bread comment. I don't find it too boring, but I see where you're coming from. However, I find that these lesser enemies help build up to an eventual climax (in this case, being when Grievous comes out to fight). I also find that sometimes it is essential to have more boring battles and weaker enemies instead of always having Jedi duels. If there are just constant Jedi battles and no one-sided fights and push-over enemies, the the Jedi duels will no longer be a novelty and they could become stale and repetitive. Plus, I find the Magna Droids to actually be reasonably challenging for the Jedi, they're at least a little easier than your regular Separatist Droid (which can be brought down by even R2-D2).
Fair point, but at least Hugh Bliss (who I also dislike) had some sort of clue as to what Sam & Max were doing and what a little more aware of what was going on around him. And Jurgen was aware enough to even kill Sam & Max. And when Jurgen was toppled, it wasn't due to ignorance, it was due to being up against a greater force in his monster.
I know he spent most of his time hiding, sending his droids to fight, but (I could be wrong here) isn't it a General's job to direct their troops? Plus, Grievous is valuable for other things than just going off and hunting his enemies, so why risk himself? Perhaps he was ordered by higher ranks to avoid getting himself into dangerous situations (just some speculation).
Fair point, but whether it's in a comic or a high grossing box office film, this is still the same character, and mercilessly slaughtering a Jedi by clutching their head and stabbing them in the stomach is still brutal in my books.
Well, you can hardly expect him to come out and fight if he is missing his legs. But the thing is that he eventually does come out and fight eventually. He obviously originally thought that Nadaar and Kit Fisto were weak; no match for him; unworthy adversaries that he felt he didn't need to waste his time on. He instead sent his droids and after seeing that he they didn't do their job, he then decided to come out and tackle the problem himself, and he almost killed them both.
Fair points again, but it didn't exactly go for very long, did it? They were toppled fairly quickly, whereas with Jurgen and Hugh Bliss, they were episode-long campaigns.
Jurgen managed to kill them, Sam and Max looked sort of mangled as zombies. They weren't looking too good anyway.
It was, but I would have preferred a slightly longer process, like the one seen in The Penal Zone where it takes the entire episode to investigate whether or not Skun-ka'pe is evil, find him, defeat him and rid the world of him. Similar to what was seen in both "Bright Side of the Moon" and "Night of the Raving Dead".
No, what I meant was that they weren't worthy of being given the role or the demonic powers by the writers. And I think you'll agree that the Devil wasn't really portrayed as threatening or fierce in the episode.
No, I never said that I wanted it, I just used it as an example. However, I still think that it would've been better. It wouldn't have been goof though.
Yes, but they could have shaped the rest of the story differently so that we wouldn't feel bad about it. We don't feel bad about taking down the Soda Poppers because the writers shaped them to be the characters that you don't care about bringing down.
I wouldn't want it to be overly dramatic, I just wish that it was a more climactic, shocking and satisfying end than finding out it was the Soda Poppers who were behind everything.
Bits and pieces of the online comics, haven't seen the series. I guess you've got the upper hand there. So it can be argued that you know better than I, but I just think that we have different opinions. Disliking the Soda Poppers and thinking that they are rubbish villains has nothing to do with the amount of knowledge you have on the series (well, it does actually, but I believe I have enough to make my own judgments of character. After all, playing all of the games is quite good enough).
Eh...
All I'm saying is that the Soda Poppers were unsatisfactory villains. They weren't sufficient for that role and, quite frankly, it was a bitter (no, sickly-sweet) ending to such a wonderful series. I just with that there was a different villain or different villains other than a trio of annoying, irritating, uncharismatic little punks who are offensive to look at and to listen to. They were poor characters even when playing minor roles, but to have them play such a major role was even worse.
I referred to General Grievous because he is one of my all-time favourite villains - no matter what anyone says and no matter how inconsistent he is as a character. I know that a character such as him would be far too serious for Sam & Max, but I think that any villain (even for comedy) should have at least some of the traits that we see in Grievous. I don't think that the Soda Poppers are threatening at all visually while Grievous is (like when Grievous is swiveling his lightsabers in front of himself and inching slowly towards Obi-Wan, that is threatening, that is intimidating).
Of course this debate was never going to reach an agreement between the two of us, that is why it is so extensive - we have conflicting opinions. You don't mind the Soda Poppers while I absolutely despise them. I like Grievous and find him to be both strategic and threatening, you find him to be cowardly and inconsistent. You look at the newer Star Wars movies with disgust while I find them every bit as good as the original 3.
Edit (just had to set another one up for you) : Well, that was long and hard.
The problem is that the music, the character dialog, and the cinematography keep saying "Hey! Big threat! A bunch of droids!" I feel like the film is trying to sell these droids as powerful antagonists for the vast majority of the film, while giving them "wacky sidekick" humor now and then. The droids are not a real threat, they are not an ingenious strategic move, but the movie wants us to think that it is. Again, tough sell.
Except that's not the way it goes for most villains. It's not like this is an anooly, and there's only so many times you can play the "the villains are toying with Sam and Max" card before it gets repetitive. Look through the history of boss puzzles. A lot of the time, due to the pacing, if the antagonist was paying attention they could just move slightly to the left to avoid defeat.
The problem is that it's Jedi. And he kills Jedi. Oh, sure, he should direct the troops in formation against clone troopers, but the droids are not going to defeat the Jedi. And if the droids did defeat the Jedi, it would feel dramatically cheap. And yet, something like five times throughout the movie, he hides in a room and hopes the Jedi are defeated by rank-and-file droids(or his admittedly slightly better personal guard).
The problem is that this is on the level that is constantly being overwritten by the Clone Wars series. The very existence of Ahsoka changes a lot of canon material. The Mandalorians' entire culture is changed in the T-level canon. It can heavily be argued that the Grievous in the comics is not Grievous at all, but a character that in a broad sense is only a barely-canon interpretation of the character.
I'm just saying that an episode in which the majority of the runtime is spent hiding in a room as a cripple is hardly a good example of how badass a character is. It may make sense, but it's not exactly as inspiring as it would be if Grievous(for example) had then proceeded to fight back without legs, using one or two of his arms to swing from pipes, tubes, etc.
You know what I meant, and that wasn't the end of the episode. He was thwarted by stumbling backwards into his own trap, and I can't remember exactly what happened at the end but: Wasn't he "mesmerized" by something? The walkthrough says Jurgen was, but I don't remember by what.
Wait, didn't we know that Skun-ka'pe is evil? You know, from the start? Thanks to future vision? Didn't we know the rainbow man was evil from the start? And Jurgen, um, also did that whole "let's look at what will happen HEY JURGEN IS A JERK" thing. I don't think there was ever any investigation into whether or not they were evil. In Skun-ka'pe's case, we were just looking for the guy.
I think he was portrayed as being just about as threatening as any other Sam and Max villain. He was able to trap Sam in his own personal Hell, after all, while also capturing the souls of just about everyone on Straight Street.
Sure, but that's like saying "They could have shaped the entire story around Sybil being the main villain and it would have worked". The statement that "If they changed everything about the make-up of the story, it could work" doesn't hold much weight.
You have enough knowledge to say that you don't like it, but do you have enough to say it won't fit in the universe? I don't know. Maybe Seasons One and Two establish enough, I have no idea, personally.
But almost NONE of Sam and Max's enemies are threatening visually. Myra, Toy Mafia, Hugh Bliss, Santa Clause, and Space Mariachis were hardly visually frightening.
You're a monster that likely doesn't understand any of the qualities that made Star Wars films something special to begin with.
I honestly cannot understand the opinion that the prequel trilogy are even good movies, or watchable movies, let alone just as good as some of my favorite films of all time. I don't even own them on DVD, despite owning the original trilogy on betamax, VHS(twice), CED, Laserdisc, DVD(twice), and I'll likely own it on Blu-Ray, especially if they finally give the trilogy as it was seen in theaters a proper release(NOT as an "extra", with proper handling rather than being a rip of the non-anamorphic laserdiscs). The Star Wars films are something special, the original trilogy is burned irrevocably in the fabric of our culture. Will the prequel trilogy ever be that? I highly doubt it. In 20-30 years' time, who is going to look back at Star Wars episodes 1-3 and say "Wow. That was a milestone in film?"
I'm sorry to have put any strain on you.
Haha, slightly better
that said ... i want a new republic commando game... it was so awesome
The 2D miniseries is brilliant. The release format for it was not. They split up a continuous flow into 5 minute "episodes" that didn't work as well on their own. Watching them all seemlessly flow back to back on the DVD is incredible though, and totally worth it.
The 3D show? Eeeeh. It has its good episodes here and there. It gets really annoying how childish it can be, and it can also be preachy while also contradicting itself. I wouldn't suggest actively watching the whole thing, honestly.
Strong argument there. Okay, maybe he isn't portrayed as well in the film as I originally thought, but he's badass is the 2D series, the comics, the books and there's moments of badass-ness in the CGI series as well. Hopefully we'll see him redeem himself by killing a load of Jedi in the CGI series sometime soon.
Yeah, I know what you mean. But at this stage of the series, the show was aimed a little more towards the younger audience; a more gullible audience, whereas now the target audience has shifted a little. The show is slightly more adult and, as a result, more enjoyable.
True, true. Like how the Soda Poppers could have avoided falling into the pit by walking forward a few steps. What's an anooly, by the way?
Yeah, but the droids (Magna Guards, tougher than you're average droid) did pretty well here against a strong Jedi in Eeth Koth. Grievous almost didn't have to intervene. Grievous actually went on to torture Eeth Koth (from what I've read, I've only seen pieces of this episode), which is pretty brutal. He didn't actually kill him because the guy escaped, but still - a slow torture and a probable murder (if not for the rescue), that's pretty evil.
Good point. I know this is unrelated, but this is sort of the reason why I don't want there to be a Gilbert MI3 with an alternate timeline, because it'll conflict with the existing one.
Fair call. I can't help but agree. But at least he did get back out there and at least kill someone. It makes up a little for his poorer performance earlier in the episode.
He walked back into the Soul Sucker after he was stabbed in the hear by his monster which had the spirits of Sam and Max inside of it. He was dying before he walked back into the machine anyway.
Sam said that they were 98% sure or something like that. True, there wasn't all that much investigation, but there was investigation into what his ultimate plans were; what the guy (or gorilla) was up to.
I said 'similar to', not 'exactly like'. There were similarities between the episodes.
Yes, but he was the least intimidating and evil Satan that I've seen for a very long time. Compared to other portrayals of Satan, this one's pretty tame.
...But the writers shaped the story around the Soda Poppers. It would only take minor tweaks and changes to have a different major villain and have it fit perfectly in with the story.
Yes, but none of those characters made me want to headbutt my monitor.
I do understand what made the original three special and I know why many people prefer the original three. I even understand why people despise the newer episodes. But there are qualities of the newer films that I love; qualities that go unnoticed by so many. I think that the original saga and the prequels are both brilliant for very different reasons. I personally view them all as classics (yes, even Attack of the Clones - the weakest of all the movies).
I love the prequels because I was still a kid when they were released (well, Phantom Menace anyway, not so much the later two). I remember watching them with various family members and friends, they're basically a part of me and each time I watch them it's like taking a trip down memory lane and there's a certain nostalgic value to them. I especially hold the Phantom Menace in a special place because it's the one that I watched the most as a young person and it's one that I still love today and every time I watch it every line sounds like a classic line, every moment feels like an iconic movie moment, every actor feels like an oscar winner, every scene brings something back to me.
Not only do I love the Phantom Menace (and the other two films) for this reason, but I genuinely think that they are good movies with great characters and wonderful stories. I think that they are well made and are certainly classics in my opinion.
I'm sure you grew up with the original trilogy, yes? You'd definitely feel something similar to what I feel for the prequels (and what I also feel for the original trilogy, because I also grew up with those).
...I don't know where you're getting this impression.
Exactly. The Soda Poppers' defeat is not all that dissimilar from the defeat of other villains in the games.
Also, anooly is a typo. I meant "anomaly".
I'm not going to argue that he's not evil, just that the guy isn't exactly the best villain because he leaves major tasks to basic footsoldiers, even relies on the competence of what are essentially minor joke characters. He's a mean bastard, sure, but his redeeming qualities as a compelling villain are few and far between. I also don't like him because, well, he doesn't feel like he has motivation. He's just evil because the script says he is, there's no "humanity" to the character, or anything about the way he acts that is memorable(trademark cough?). Maybe his design, but not his actions and motivations.
Completely different idea, as far as I'm concerned. Star Wars is a single, tiered continuity. Most suggestions for a Gilbert Monkey Island 3 either have it tie into Curse or occur in a different timeline than Curse. Most people just want ONE more game in the "Gilbert Line" to let the story finish out, and then let the Curse story continue with Telltale. With LeChuck's Revenge Special Edition coming out soon, I think it's a good time for a retro-styled sequel.
Also, I hate what Curse has done to the story and art style of the games. As far as I'm concerned, wiping it out would be a small loss, at most.
Eh. I just don't see it. Maybe for that last five minutes he was worth something, but that still leaves a good 20 during which he got his legs chopped off and hid in his room.
Can't you fail as Jurgen's monster, though? Don't you need to change something about him that makes the monster "mesmerizing"?
Eeeeh. I'm not seeing it, to be honest. We knew the guy was evil. We learned from the brain that he wanted to use the Toys of Power. The investigation was more "Where is that guy?"
Isn't that the point? He's supposed to be an antagonist, yes, but he also has to be the cartoon office boss to sell Hell as a corporation. But that's not the argument you made. You said "They don't work as villains because they don't look intimidating", not "They don't work as villains because I don't personally like them".
Eh. I liked a lot of things as a kid, but I've noticed that they were crap later on in life. I enjoyed Disney's Flubber, for instance. That, um, was not a good movie.
Nostalgia goggles can only get me so far. Even if I do know that I only like something because I saw it as a kid, I'm always criticizing the the formal qualities of the movie/game/etc in the back of my mind, thinking "Ah well. It's nostalgic all the same."
I just can't understand how a person can grow up, watch the movies, and not realize the major flaws in their production and writing. They're flimsy, poorly-constructed works that retroactively defile the originals. The pacing is abysmal, the dialog is at best poor, the story is full of holes and poorly defined motivations, the digital effects used for EVERYTHING don't help the actors' already generally poor performance, because there's no sense that they're interacting with anything "real"...
There's just so much to hate. Like the lightsaber duals. They're beautifully choreographed in the prequel trilogy, yes. There's no emotion behind it. There are people who say the original trilogy is worse because the lightsaber duals are less spectacular, which entirely misses the point. Notice in the original trilogy, when Luke is finally pushed to the edge by Vader, he completely loses it. Luke just wails on him. Contrast with Obi-Wan, when Maul kills Qui-Gon? You get maybe a second of emotion, followed by a dance-like lightsaber battle. It's showy, it's nice, but is it good filmmaking? Is it good dramatization?
I could go on for pages about the prequel trilogy, I could go minute by minute and explain my hatred in minute detail. They're not good movies, by any of the conventional standards.