Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-4851935-20170228181546/@comment-30861466-20171001161920

Love Robin wrote: Not "movie". FRANCHISE. Characters are rated by their over-arcing franchise appearances. Not meaning to but in but why? If a character didn't appear in the first film of a series but his henchman was and caused the most conflict in that specific story that makes the henchman the main antagonist of that story. It's pointless and confusing to do it by franchise because then people would be aruging that a character who's not even in the first installment is the main antagonist soley becuase he's the main antagonist in the franchise.

Ths shoud be how it would go for them:

​Insert name here is the secondary antagonist of the Instert Franchise name here​ series. He/She first appeared as the main antagonist in the first story, etc. Why should the puppet master be seen as the main antagonist in a story where his henchman causes the most conflict or in a story when they don't even appear? Isn't that what Bigger Bads/Greater Scope Villains are for?

Just like how in some stories a henchman despite not being the main antagonist is the central villain/the heavy in that story since he causes the most problems and does all the heavy work most likely to bring back his master?