1/6 Hot Toys - MMS 320 - Star Wars Ep.VII - Kylo Ren

[paramoremcr88]

 

[KerotanFrog]

I actually prefer that the villains are more dimensional in that you can understand their reason for doing something. Villains who just want to kill people or take over the world are really lazy and evoke Saturday morning cartoon writing level. To me, looking badass isn't enough for a villain. All of the characters in TFA are relatable on some level and that is a victory for the writers. Rey wants to know the feeling of family, Finn doesn't want to be a monster and is ashamed of what he was, Kylo is drawn to the power of his grandfather and believes in what he stood for, etc. if anything, antagonists are usually more interesting than protagonists because of their reasoning and rationalization for their actions. Their life up to that moment helped shape the way they think, and really places them in more of a morally grey area, rather than just white or black. They usually don't view themselves as evil, but instead see people who can't understand them as being evil.

And yes Vader appeared one dimensional in the OT, but the PT helped establish him as a person behind the mask. He was an orphan who craved the love of others to supplant what he lost when he left his mother. He was loyal to a fault and became enraged when he was "betrayed" by the Jedi and their code. He wa also terrified of losing his loved ones, which helped manipulate him into his fall. Seeing his tragedy evolve over time makes him a better character in the OT because you know his plight and why he feels the way he does. Despite what he always said in the OT, he never fully committed himself to the dark side, and represented both light and dark, similar to Kylo. The parallels to Vader are one of the reasons I liked Kylo's character so much. The difference is that Vader didn't create circumstances to make himself choose the dark side, whereas Kylo does. It was a very conscious decision to kill his father and cut ties to the light. Anakin had his mother taken from him by the Tusken Raiders and his unconscious emotional response seemingly thrusts him on the path to the dark side.

I hope this doesn't turn into a crazy argument like 15-20 pages ago, but I just really like the discussion about the characters.
Sorry for the long lost, it's the figure hype and that I've seen TFA twice in the past day.


And great pics once again Para! Can't wait to pose Kylo with Old Han.

 

[mao86]

GOOD LORD paramoremcr88...all of your pics are outstanding. Great job brother!!!

 

[DarthBakura]

Villains with depth and dimension are just as good as those typical evil-doers hellbent on world domination.

I mean, after all, villains have often started out as the good guy. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

 

[Angry Kal-El]

Awesome pics! Especially Kylo and Han. Where's my old Han figure Hot Toys???

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

 

[KerotanFrog]

Villains with depth and dimension are just as good as those typical evil-doers hellbent on world domination.

I mean, after all, villains have often started out as the good guy. "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain."

Very true. The fall of a hero is usually a good story.

 

[wadeit0ut]

Maybe its just the idea that he's conflicted is what bugs me about him. I dont need that from my villains. I typically like them to be pretty one dimensional, like Vader was.

Typically if a villain is one dimensional it means the writer wasn't good at writing villains. If you look at the greatest villains in film history Vader is probably the only one like that (excluding horror films) and a lot of that is just nostalgia.

But like I've said before, some people like Jason, and some people like Freddy. I prefer Freddy.

 

[SilverStar17]

I actually prefer that the villains are more dimensional in that you can understand their reason for doing something. Villains who just want to kill people or take over the world are really lazy and evoke Saturday morning cartoon writing level. To me, looking badass isn't enough for a villain. All of the characters in TFA are relatable on some level and that is a victory for the writers. Rey wants to know the feeling of family, Finn doesn't want to be a monster and is ashamed of what he was, Kylo is drawn to the power of his grandfather and believes in what he stood for, etc. if anything, antagonists are usually more interesting than protagonists because of their reasoning and rationalization for their actions. Their life up to that moment helped shape the way they think, and really places them in more of a morally grey area, rather than just white or black. They usually don't view themselves as evil, but instead see people who can't understand them as being evil.

And yes Vader appeared one dimensional in the OT, but the PT helped establish him as a person behind the mask. He was an orphan who craved the love of others to supplant what he lost when he left his mother. He was loyal to a fault and became enraged when he was "betrayed" by the Jedi and their code. He wa also terrified of losing his loved ones, which helped manipulate him into his fall. Seeing his tragedy evolve over time makes him a better character in the OT because you know his plight and why he feels the way he does. Despite what he always said in the OT, he never fully committed himself to the dark side, and represented both light and dark, similar to Kylo. The parallels to Vader are one of the reasons I liked Kylo's character so much. The difference is that Vader didn't create circumstances to make himself choose the dark side, whereas Kylo does. It was a very conscious decision to kill his father and cut ties to the light. Anakin had his mother taken from him by the Tusken Raiders and his unconscious emotional response seemingly thrusts him on the path to the dark side.

I hope this doesn't turn into a crazy argument like 15-20 pages ago, but I just really like the discussion about the characters.
Sorry for the long lost, it's the figure hype and that I've seen TFA twice in the past day.


And great pics once again Para! Can't wait to pose Kylo with Old Han.

Good post.

Regardless if you enjoyed the film or not, this is the majority of the reason why I liked General Zod in MoS.

 

[Hologram AI]

Anyone pull this look off on this figure?

 

[TaliBane]

I actually prefer that the villains are more dimensional in that you can understand their reason for doing something. Villains who just want to kill people or take over the world are really lazy and evoke Saturday morning cartoon writing level. To me, looking badass isn't enough for a villain. All of the characters in TFA are relatable on some level and that is a victory for the writers. Rey wants to know the feeling of family, Finn doesn't want to be a monster and is ashamed of what he was, Kylo is drawn to the power of his grandfather and believes in what he stood for, etc. if anything, antagonists are usually more interesting than protagonists because of their reasoning and rationalization for their actions. Their life up to that moment helped shape the way they think, and really places them in more of a morally grey area, rather than just white or black. They usually don't view themselves as evil, but instead see people who can't understand them as being evil.

And yes Vader appeared one dimensional in the OT, but the PT helped establish him as a person behind the mask. He was an orphan who craved the love of others to supplant what he lost when he left his mother. He was loyal to a fault and became enraged when he was "betrayed" by the Jedi and their code. He wa also terrified of losing his loved ones, which helped manipulate him into his fall. Seeing his tragedy evolve over time makes him a better character in the OT because you know his plight and why he feels the way he does. Despite what he always said in the OT, he never fully committed himself to the dark side, and represented both light and dark, similar to Kylo. The parallels to Vader are one of the reasons I liked Kylo's character so much. The difference is that Vader didn't create circumstances to make himself choose the dark side, whereas Kylo does. It was a very conscious decision to kill his father and cut ties to the light. Anakin had his mother taken from him by the Tusken Raiders and his unconscious emotional response seemingly thrusts him on the path to the dark side.

I hope this doesn't turn into a crazy argument like 15-20 pages ago, but I just really like the discussion about the characters.
Sorry for the long lost, it's the figure hype and that I've seen TFA twice in the past day.


And great pics once again Para! Can't wait to pose Kylo with Old Han.

Yeah, but... "one dimensional" OT Vader is the most iconic and memorable movie villain in movie history. Dimensional "person behind the mask" PT Anakin/Vader was mocked at the time of the releases and has become a largely forgotten character to all but harder core fans.

And Finn's history as a stormtrooper is very brief (complete with a "no innocents harmed" and "quits on first mission" record.) He's like the kid that went through basic training, took one look at the battlefield and said "nope." Not even close to being a monster, and really not much to be ashamed of either, given he appears to have been raised from birth and didn't even have a real name (a little odd he only has a number but isn't a clone - was he a donated fetus or baby?)

And... what did Vader "stand for" exactly, that grandkid kid Kylo now "believes in"? Vader was certainly power hungry and willing to use the force to get it, but I'm not sure he "stood for" much.

 

[Wor-Gar]

And... what did Vader "stand for" exactly, that grandkid kid Kylo now "believes in"? Vader was certainly power hungry and willing to use the force to get it, but I'm not sure he "stood for" much.

He wanted to.... bring Order to the galaxy!

 

[Futurion]

Oh no, Vader did commit himself to the dark side (glowing eyes in EP III, so much hatred). Look at him, he is not acting like a Mother Theresa, he kills from the first moment of his appearance on the screen in TNH. His weakness were his children. He loved them. And that's why nor Jedi or Sith should love anybody, it's downfall for both sides.

Finn's story is kind of meh. It's kind of EU Kyle Katarn, but ... yeah, Kyle is different level of hero, not a coward and force sensitive (and for some of us even The Emperor ).

 

[TaliBane]

He wanted to.... bring Order to the galaxy!

And I'm sure it would have been an equal Father/Son partnership too.

 

[KerotanFrog]

Yeah, but... "one dimensional" OT Vader is the most iconic and memorable movie villain in movie history. Dimensional "person behind the mask" PT Anakin/Vader was mocked at the time of the releases and has become a largely forgotten character to all but harder core fans.

And Finn's history as a stormtrooper is very brief (complete with a "no innocents harmed" and "quits on first mission" record.) He's like the kid that went through basic training, took one look at the battlefield and said "nope." Not even close to being a monster, and really not much to be ashamed of either, given he appears to have been raised from birth and didn't even have a real name (a little odd he only has a number but isn't a clone - was he a donated fetus or baby?)

And... what did Vader "stand for" exactly, that grandkid kid Kylo now "believes in"? Vader was certainly power hungry and willing to use the force to get it, but I'm not sure he "stood for" much.

Yes OT Vader was iconic, but they're the same person. It's the evolution of the character that is most important about the six films. Nobody is born powerful and imposing, it comes through experience. Yes, Anakin displayed moments of immaturity during the PT, but he was only 18-20 years old. He was still a kid, yet he could wield a great power that he sometimes couldn't control. This power made him arrogant and he had not yet learned to control his emotions. He would have this control and understanding as OT Vader, where he was over 20 years older.

Well yes it was Finn's first mission, but he was deployed with his unit and he saw how easily they massacred the village. All of his conditioning couldn't wipe away his conscience and he didn't want to be a murderer for the First Order. He had also been fed First Order propaganda his entire life. The village massacre was the first time he saw the order as being morally reprehensible. He was a Stormtrooper and he was ashamed because stormtroopers are murderers, so he would be seen in that light by association.

Vader stood for his own sense of justice and his ideal of freedom for the galaxy from the corruption in the Republic and the "oppression" of the Jedi. From his personal experiences he began to see the Jedi as hypocrites who cannot even follow their code, often at the expense of people he cares for (Padme and Palpatine). Because of this, he sees the Galaxy as being a better place without the Jedi, and acquired a strong power in the Dark Side to destroy the Jedi. The desire for this great power and ambition manifested itself in Kylo during his training as Snoke began speaking to him through the force about the dark side and the legacy of his grandfather. He saw Vader as a role model, and believed that through the dark side he could attain a power like his, so he followed Snoke and destroyed Luke's Jedi Academy.

And Vader believed in the dark side, but never committed himself to it like Sidious did. Sure he had instances where the dark side would manifest strongly in him (Sith Eyes on Mistafar), but he did not always maintain this level. He chose the dark side as a means to an end to save his wife and believed that following the Jedi ideals would not help him. It didn't help that he became disillusioned with the Jedi Council at the time of his fall. And if Vader had given himself over completely, he wouldn't have been redeemable by Luke. Despite how strong the dark side was in him, he still had Remants of the light side and always recognized the conflict within himself. This conflict was magnified when he learned of the survival of his children. While at first he wanted to destroy them as they signified a potential weakness for his dark side power, he still loves them as you said and seeing Luke being hurt was enough to make him turn back to the light that has remained in him for 24 years. As Luke said, the Emperor wasn't able to drive out all of the good in him.

 

[wadeit0ut]

Yeah, but... "one dimensional" OT Vader is the most iconic and memorable movie villain in movie history. Dimensional "person behind the mask" PT Anakin/Vader was mocked at the time of the releases and has become a largely forgotten character to all but harder core fans.

Movies were incredibly different in the 70s. Vader's success as a villain was largely because up until that point you didn't really have villains like that outside of horror films. You almost always had some eccentric over the top guy. But that type of villain doesn't really play anymore. It would come across as rather cheesy or poorly written. And the issue with Anakin in the prequels was the absolute **** tier dialogue and directing choices.

And keep in mind initially they never really expected a followup film to ANH to be made so in the span of a single film you can write a villain like that. After the success of ANH and they knew they would be going forward with two more films they started to try and flesh the character out more. Kylo Ren from the get go was planned to be a character with an arc spanning three films. I doubt most people after seeing ANH in theaters expected they would be seeing him as an old man turned to the light side to save his son who also had a twin sister. So these are two very different situations.

Of course a large portion of the human population is borderline retarded so a one dimensional villain would still play better with them because it requires less thinking on their part to understand the character. But no respecting director wants to do something like that which is why even Kirshner started to try and humanize Vader a bit.

 

[TaliBane]

Movies were incredibly different in the 70s. Vader's success as a villain was largely because up until that point you didn't really have villains like that outside of horror films. You almost always had some eccentric over the top guy. But that type of villain doesn't really play anymore. It would come across as rather cheesy or poorly written. And the issue with Anakin in the prequels was the absolute **** tier dialogue and directing choices.

And keep in mind initially they never really expected a followup film to ANH to be made so in the span of a single film you can write a villain like that. After the success of ANH and they knew they would be going forward with two more films they started to try and flesh the character out more. Kylo Ren from the get go was planned to be a character with an arc spanning three films. I doubt most people after seeing ANH in theaters expected they would be seeing him as an old man turned to the light side to save his son who also had a twin sister. So these are two very different situations.

Of course a large portion of the human population is borderline retarded so a one dimensional villain would still play better with them because it requires less thinking on their part to understand the character. But no respecting director wants to do something like that which is why even Kirshner started to try and humanize Vader a bit.

Yeah, I agree with some of this (and I honestly love how you guys see something of value - and canon - in the prequels) and what Kerotan's said too, though in my mind I don't need any "Good Will Hunting" therapy sessions with the T-1000, Bane, Hannibal Lecter or Amon Goeth (Schindler's) weepily chanting "It's not my fault."

We live in an era of the insanity defence (like anyone who murders is sane) where no one's to blame for anything. So in 1989, Burton's Joker murdered Wayne's father and mother in cold blood, but twenty years later, Nolan's Joker's abusive father was the reason for his evil-doing. But both work I guess - and "explaining" villains does work where they represent something socially (think Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction.")

BUt I would still argue that Vader achieved his legendary status not because the "fleshed out" parts of lame-o twins ("you have a... sister") and humpty-dumpty egg-head scenes - eyebrows or no eyebrows - but because of the simple, brutal, creepy and powerful presence he had in SW and ESB.

But yeah - maybe you are right - that it doesn't play anymore. For me, I didn't like seeing my villain having a lightsaber tantrum that's then used as a comedic moment. But yeah, maybe there is a plan to it - and I like Adam Driver in general, and like the Kylo outfit, so I'm there. I appreciate you guys' thoughts on this.

 

[Cixx]

Ok SS must have these now lets get some shipping emails

 

[ZE_501]

[...]Finn's story is kind of meh. It's kind of EU Kyle Katarn, but ... yeah, Kyle is different level of hero, not a coward and force sensitive [...]

I honestly don't get why people keep implying Finn's character is a coward. He's a very capable combatant. Wanting to flee from the Murderous Totalitarian Organization he just betrayed and deserted from isn't exactly "cowardice". It took time for him to build bonds and have something to fight for, given he was raised as an expendable grunt with a serial number for a name.

 

[KerotanFrog]

Yeah, I agree with some of this (and I honestly love how you guys see something of value - and canon - in the prequels) and what Kerotan's said too, though in my mind I don't need any "Good Will Hunting" therapy sessions with the T-1000, Bane, Hannibal Lecter or Amon Goeth (Schindler's) weepily chanting "It's not my fault."

We live in an era of the insanity defence (like anyone who murders is sane) where no one's to blame for anything. So in 1989, Burton's Joker murdered Wayne's father and mother in cold blood, but twenty years later, Nolan's Joker's abusive father was the reason for his evil-doing. But both work I guess - and "explaining" villains does work where they represent something socially (think Glenn Close in "Fatal Attraction.")

BUt I would still argue that Vader achieved his legendary status not because the "fleshed out" parts of lame-o twins ("you have a... sister") and humpty-dumpty egg-head scenes - eyebrows or no eyebrows - but because of the simple, brutal, creepy and powerful presence he had in SW and ESB.

But yeah - maybe you are right - that it doesn't play anymore. For me, I didn't like seeing my villain having a lightsaber tantrum that's then used as a comedic moment. But yeah, maybe there is a plan to it - and I like Adam Driver in general, and like the Kylo outfit, so I'm there. I appreciate you guys' thoughts on this.

What you said is definitely true about a terminator, Goeth, and Hannibal. Though I can imagine stories about Hannibal's past being interesting..
But Bane is a little different. Even in TDKR, there are attempts to humanize Bane. His back story was a really good twist too that highlighted his attachment to Talia and why he did things for her.

You made a good point about the Jokers too. Nicholson's Joker comes off as simply a psychotic. But Ledger's Joker seems a bit deeper than that. Yes he's insane and sadistic, but you're not sure to what degree. You could take his "stories" literally as little chunks of his past, but I always saw them as his attempt to appeal to whomever he was talking to. Old man at party - his father, Rachel - his wife. It kinda shows his ability to manipulate others, but it may also show a latent need for people's sympathy.

And yes, Kylo is a plan like wade said. He was surprisingly vulnerable in TFA, but that was only to show how far he'd go to remove that vulnerability. I think he'll be much colder, ruthless, and more Vader-esque in VIII and IX. Thanks for the discussion and perspective. It's nice to have a little friendly back and forth on this.

 

[Mad Old Lu]

I submit that Vader is actually a fairly well written villain just in SW alone. The movie gives you hints at a more complex history of the character, which gives the audience knowledge that there is more to Vader than meets the eye. Obviously we know that he’s powerful with the Force, and is therefore unique among the Empire and all the other bad guys. We know that he’s not entirely aligned with the Empire’s leaders—he only works directly with Tarkin and the Emperor—and would just as soon kill one of the Empire’s people (“I find your lack of faith disturbing”) as he would a rebel. He scoffs at the idea of the Death Star, and aligns himself as more of an agent of the Force. We know from Obi Wan that they were originally friends but eventually turned and “killed” Luke’s father. Just that alone—that he was once good but then turned to evil--makes him incredibly intriguing. They may not spell everything out, since they were leaving much of it for the sequels, but there is more than enough there to paint a strong character. And I’m not alone in thinking that Lucas ruined him by showing way too much of his background in the prequels. He worked much better with the audience filling in the blanks.

So I’d say that is a multi-faceted, layered, complex character right there, and the reason he has persisted as one of the best cinematic villains ever since.