I get that a vast majority of stories mainly operate with main and secondary antagonist scale. But the OT simply doesn’t (even it’s not as obvious as with the sequels). Vader is WAAAY more involved in the plot than Palpatine. He carries out most of the evil deeds in A New Hope (even though Tarkin was technically in charge of that operation), and then straight-up takes over the Big Bad role in Empire, and then reveals his connection to Luke, solidifying him as the Heavy. In even in Return of the Jedi, when the Emperor finally becomes the main antagonist, he mainly just sits in his little chair and cackles like a 12-year-old watching Cyanide and Happiness, while Vader does most of the work. Overall, Palpatine, despite being the true main antagonist, is barely in the OT (he has little over 7 minutes of screentime), while Darth Vader drives the plot much more.
Also, you deciding to change this does seem extremely sudden, considering it’s been like that since last November. If you truly felt this way the whole time, then why didn’t you change it a long time ago?
No, the OT does have that. There is no "central antagonist" in that story, there is clearly a primary and secondary antagonist; that being Palpatine and Vader.
Driving the plot is something fulfilled by the Heavy, which in turn is one of the main antagonists of the story, be it the primary or secondary antagonist. This also leads to this character potentially being the Big Bad at that too, but that's besides the point. You seem to be under the impression that the secondary antagonist is somehow some kind of lesser antagonist when all the secondary antagonist is is the most important antagonist, just right below the primary antagonist (aka THE main antagonist).
The "central antagonist" is really a term some users coined up on this wiki because some seem to dislike the idea that an important antagonist in the story is just referred as something like "major antagonist" or when people just can't agree who is the main/secondary when there's more than two important antagonists. And I don't mind it (which is why I left it on some articles like Obito's), but in the case with the OT Star Wars, it's not needed.
And no, this isn't a sudden change of viewpoint for me since that article's been locked multiple times over antagonist fussing and category abuse.
I don't see how that means David brought tradegy upon himself. Jesse willingly chose to back up his son and when he got pinned by the torpedo, Aquaman chose not to save him. This was the result of Aquaman refusing to help those in need, not David's doing. Aquaman even blames himself for not saving Jesse that day.
Good evening Mr ShockwaveDude120. I understand you think Westcott is a psychopath. Then please comment on this text. I found it on Westcott's page.
"In later volumes, it was revealed that Westcott genuinely loved his family and friends, which is why he deliberately made them survive only to back-stab them later so he could feel "happiness" and "sadness" from betraying his friends as they watched him destroying their world. The more he loves someone, the more he wants to treasure and revel in their despair, which is why he set up his own friends to experience despair by his own hand. Following the reveal of his genius nature, it can be inferred that Westcott's obsessions are ironically fueled by his great intelligent nature, predict and empathize with people around him. By a degree, his intellectual nature made him above morals and senses of ethic. He most likely understands the consequences of his actions and the exact level of suffering his plans will inflict (in his enemies and even in himself) but this only encourages him by filling his with pain over his own monstrous acts that took the lives of millions and attempted BILLIONS. As a result of this, Westcott actually manages to escape classification as a true sociopath, since they are defined by a complete inability to form emotional connections with others. As such, Westcott is not a psychopath as he is capable of love and form friendly relationships with other people. And despite his twisted sense of emotional masochism and inverted point of view of life and death, he is not a mentally ill person, but, an ordinary person with a mentality superior to normal humans".
It explicitly states that Westcott is not a psychopath (but twisted person) and that he genuinely loved his family. If he is a psychopath, why does this passage postulate the exact opposite? If he's not a psychopath, why put him in this category?
If it contains incorrect information, then this part should be deleted and written that Westcott is a psychopath. A person can't be a psychopath and not be one at the same time. This is really strange.
This seems to be a recurring thing with his page, so let me just ask.
Endeavor is yet to make full amends with his family despite becoming a better person and hero. So he’s not Redeemed? (or at least not fully)
(Also apologies if you’ve already been asked this.)
This is the first time someone's asked me this actually, but it's not the first time I'm dealing with this topic. Nonetheless, I don't mind.
Regarding your question, the point of Endeavor's arc is that he's ultimately striving to just be a better person to his family. He initially wanted their forgiveness but it becomes clear to him (or at least what he believes) that the family would be better if he wasn't in their lives anymore and decided to accept this by putting himself in solitude.
His family forgiving him is something that's very important to his arc, because that's where the story says he's truly redeemed. Because again, all Endeavor cares now his family's well being and happiness. But right now, that hasn't happened yet, so no, he's not redeemed.
Hi. Listen, I don't want to start again a debate about Sentinel Prime since he was rejected which I accept but I only have one question. If this guy is truly an extremist, why he shooted Ironhide in the back without trying to explain him his idea and make him join his cause before attacking him?
That wouldn't make him the main antagonist of the whole series, that would just mean he's played antagonist roles throughout the series, major ones at that. Ultimately, he's simply one of the main characters.
To be honest, South Park is one of those shows where there isn't really a character that's set as the main antagonist, somewhat like Family Guy. But the closest to a main antagonist would probably be Satan, Saddam or just both really.
Hi there. I apologise if I've been doing something wrong. I thought that, looking at other images on the wiki, particularly on other villains from manga/anime series, that it was better to have a clearer, full body or half-body picture of the villain on their front page. With Rize's page, I wanted to have her iconic look on there, which is why I put in a "Manga" and "Anime" picture together. Once again, this was my intention and I'm sorry if this was wrong.
I was in a discussion with some admins and users about this and the majority of them have agreed that changing the infobox just to show the “full body” or because it’s “png” is an unnecessary edit, especially when the character looks exactly the same. Not trying sound mean about it but it’s better off just sticking to one image.