“Sequels are for villains; origin stories are for heroes. Heroes determine structure.”
…So say Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, writers of the new Star Trek film. At a Writers Guild Foundation event they talked about how most of the scenes involving the villain were cut from the film because they slowed down the story. The end result was a movie about the rise of a group of heroes–the crew of the Enterprise–unfettered by the villain’s backstory.
Now in my opinion, the movie’s only significant flaw arises from the lack of explanation for the villain’s actions. But I honestly didn’t mind–I only wanted to hear about how the heroes got their start. It’s hard to want to spend screen time (or page time) with a villain before you’ve invested your interest in the hero.
What do you think–how does the hero determine structure at the start of a series? What other series forgo the villain’s story until the sequel?
Parker Peevyhouse loves sequels
Parker Peevyhouse
lindajoysingleton
Joni Sensel
Chris Eboch
Nick
Greg R. Fishbone
What a really interesting question, Parker. I love how they explain it with the example of Star Trek and how the villain scenes slowed it down.
I have to admit, many times when sequels have the same bad guy, I’m a bit skeptical. That said, for one of my WIPs, I’m thinking about doing just that.
Interested in what people come up with!
{{SPOILER ALERT}}
I think the recent Star Trek movie is a special case for a lot of reasons.
First, these are heroes we already know (or think we know) so well that they have become part of our collective culture. Second, this isn’t the origin story of those heroes exactly–it’s an alternate version set in an alternate timeline. Third, the film represents a possible reboot for the entire franchise with new actors, new rules, new relationships, and new backstory–and suddenly everything we “knew” could now be “wrong.” And fourth, the point of divergence between the new and classic timelines is the appearance of the film’s villain.
In this situation, the villain is more of an editing tool than anything else–he allows the writers to clear the board and start over from scratch. This aspect is more important than the guy’s personality or motivations.
A lot of comic book based movies seem to follow this line–they introduce heroes that people already know and clue in audiences to the changes writers have made in the stories.
Ah, I could talk Star Trek ad nausaeum. Shall we go in depth about the timeline change, if we think they’ll get it back and if so, how, and the potential for a huge new audience to love the show?
Okay, I agree with Greg. You put this very well. He is a tool, and thus not important. That said, I bet there was a significant amount of backstory which went into his character and could have been used but when put into the story, made the story just not feel right.
Totally agree with Greg, plus, although I loved their movie, I’m not convinced the Star Trek guys know what they’re talking about (and/or they maybe work too much from comic books and not enough from other kinds of literature). All of the really good sequels I can think of aren’t the villain’s story; they’re examples of further developing either the MC or secondary characters. Case in point #1: the second movie of the (original) Star Wars trilology. FAR better than #1, mostly because of Hans Solo, not the Empire or Darth. Case in point #2: LOTR, as a sequel to the Hobbit. Again, it’s the development of additional heros, not villain-interest. Case in point #3: Basically every book that followed King’s The Gunslinger. And I’m not sure the hero determines the structure of any of those — I’m not even sure what that statement is supposed to mean; hmm, I’ll need to give it more thought…
Darth Vader does take a much larger role in the second Star Wars film, though. The whole “I am your father” thing. But it also does develop the heroes’ story further.
True, it’s not called “The Empire Strikes Back” for nothing. Luke loses a hand, Han loses his freedom, Leia’s still dealing with the destruction of her homeworld, Cloud City falls to the Empire, the rebels lose their base on Hoth… It’s actually a disaster for the heroes.
Sure, but that doesn’t make it the villain’s story in any way — or certainly not in any way that makes the sequel center around or focus on the villain more than around the hero(s) & his arc. Maybe I just am not understanding what they meant by their statement. /shrug
In a movie series we usually get a pretty good idea who the hero is from the first series, so the hook for subsequent movies will either be the introduction of a new villain or developments in the hero’s relationship with an existing villain. I think that’s what they’re getting at–a very general rule of thumb with lots of exceptions.
Usually, the villains are more active than heroes. They are the ones who come up with schemes and plans that have the heroes scrambling to react. In Empire Strikes Back, the villains choose the time and manner for the battle on Hoth, they chase Han and Leia across the galaxy, they cause Lando to betray his friendship, and they reveal their ultimate bad-ass plan to bring Luke over to the Dark Side. Even Luke’s decision to go through Yoda Bootcamp on Dagobah plays into the Empire’s hands, because they get him to leave before his training is complete, when he is at the greatest risk of being turned into a tool for evil.
Okay, another thought. Heros determine structure from the standpoint that a majority of stories tell some version of the hero’s journey. So from that standpoint, the hero definitely determines structure – it’s “his” story. But any decent villain is the hero of his OWN story… just one that turns out to be a tragedy. So whether hero or villain determines structure is mostly a matter of perspective. It’s on my shelf, though I haven’t read it — is “Wicked” an example of the villain’s story told from the other perspective?
The Wicked Witch of the West was the antagonist to Dorothy’s heroics in The Wizard of Oz, but in Wicked I think Elphaba’s rivalry with Glinda defined most of the book and Dorothy only appears toward the end. I haven’t read the sequel to Wicked.