Why were the enemies in Bionicle so boring

[CeeCee]

Before the Piraka the enemies had no actual personalities. In fact they were all swarms. Like the Rahkshi, Bohrok, Rahi, Bohrok Va, Vahki and Visorak. They had names but that was just they name of their "race". Why did Lego not do this at first. Were they to afraid to kill of main enemies so they created cannon fodder for the toa to kill?There was no "dsgjigjjpojsofjsfj" when you saw an enemy, just "Oh no, ANOTHER RAHKSHI". Would you have preferred the enemies to have personalities and be able to speak, to actually make a proper rival group to the Toa? I think the Rahkshi would have made a good team. All of them would be male except the white one(or whatever). They would be clever and cunning, and in some strange sort of way, you would feel bad if one died because you would have come to love know and love them as well. They would have had real personalities and problems just like the Toa, with good and bad traits. Im I tho only one who would have wanted that?But you know, we were left with cannon fodder, even the Piraka were kind of generic. The Barraki were okay and the Makuta were even better. Who wanted to see adaptive armored FLYING Rahkshi to fight the Toa Nuva? Me, thats who. It was a shame because when we saw the Makuta for the first time, we knew we were meant to feel something (and we did) but it wasnt like whay were felt when the Toa Nuva were back.Disclaimer: When I say "we" I dint mean to speak for you BTW, it just makes my speach sound better IMO

Edited July 11, 2012 by SamH1995

[Toa Smoke Monster]

The Rahi, Rahkshi, and Vahki were all controlled by Teridax, who was the main threat to the Toa Mata and Toa Metru at their respective times. (Well, the Vahki weren't at first, but he took control of them later on.) They were all basically minions to the Makuta, who was the real threat to the Toa. The story could've gotten repetitive if he had personally fought the Toa mutiple times himself. That is why he had others (Rahi, Bohrok, Rahkshi, etc.) to do it for him. (And keep the story exciting too.)Not to say that the Rahskhi having their own personalities wouldn't have been cool. But I doubt their would've been time for them to be turned into fully developed characters. They were only in the story for half of 03 after all. (I'm only talking about the 03 Rahkshi here, not the others that appeared in story later on.) Same goes for the Rahi and others in their respective storylines.The Bohrok-Kal, however, did have personalities of their own. Even though they all kind of had the same personality, IMO. The same most likely would've happen to the Rahkshi if they were given their own personalities in 03. And Rahkshi do have the power of flight.

Edited July 12, 2012 by The Smoke Monster

[CeeCee]

The Rahi, Rahkshi, and Vahki were all controlled by Teridax, who was the main threat to the Toa Mata and Toa Metru at their respective times. (Well, the Vahki weren't at first, but he took control of them later on.) They were all basically minions to the Makuta, who was the real threat to the Toa. The story could've gotten repetitive if he had personally fought the Toa mutiple times himself. That is why he had others (Rahi, Bohrok, Rahkshi, etc.) to do it for him. (And keep the story exciting too.)Not to say that the Rahskhi having their own personalities wouldn't have been cool. But I doubt their would've been time for them to be turned into fully developed characters. They were only in the story for half of 03 after all. (I'm only talking about the 03 Rahkshi here, not the others that appeared in story later on.) Same goes for the Rahi and others in their respective storylines.The Bohrok-Kal, however, did have personalities of their own. Even though they all kind of had the same personality, IMO. The same most likely would've happen to the Rahkshi if they were given their own personalities in 03. And Rahkshi do have the power of flight.

Im talking about introducing the Rahkshi in 2001. Maybe even have Cameos in the other years as well. And a full come back in 2008. Also there could be minions, like the small sets or one in set wave. The Toa Nuva only had 2 versions and there is enough time for 6 main group sets there. 4 excluding the Toa.

[The Iron Toa]

Those 'swarms' were pretty much that -- the Visorak, Rahkshi, Bohrok, and Vahki were not one of a kind, but one of many. Some of them did have personalities that seemed to depend on their 'breed' -- for example, Oohnorak are especially subservient, Guurahk are observant hunters, Tahnok are the most easily-provoked Bohrok, and Vorzakh are notorious for smashing right through obstacles when chasing criminals. But these traits didn't seem as pronounced in the story as they could have been. I can think of two reasons villains like the Piraka had more personality: 1, they actually were unique, colorful individuals rather than hordes of minions, and 2, we got to see the story from their point of view, while we rarely if ever followed the adventures of say, a Vahki.

[CeeCee]

Those 'swarms' were pretty much that -- the Visorak, Rahkshi, Bohrok, and Vahki were not one of a kind, but one of many. Some of them did have personalities that seemed to depend on their 'breed' -- for example, Oohnorak are especially subservient, Guurahk are observant hunters, Tahnok are the most easily-provoked Bohrok, and Vorzakh are notorious for smashing right through obstacles when chasing criminals. But these traits didn't seem as pronounced in the story as they could have been. I can think of two reasons villains like the Piraka had more personality: 1, they actually were unique, colorful individuals rather than hordes of minions, and 2, we got to see the story from their point of view, while we rarely if ever followed the adventures of say, a Vahki.

I mean like really warming to characters. I know that might me a bit of a no go for a young audience for "the bad team" but it would have made the story better. I want to be like on the edge of my seat in a fight scene praying(NRI) no one dies. But then, they are supposed to be the bad guys I guess. What about if one of the Rahkshi kills a matoran or something, and one of the story lines in him coping through that. Just because their baddies doesn't mean they are killing machines. Sorry, Im really a big fan of chacracter development. It makes stories a lot more intriguing

[The Iron Toa]

You mean, if a villain cared if, for example, he killed a Matoran? Well, we could have used more in the way of anti-heroes/anti-villains. We had some sympathetic Dark Hunters, and Krika (probably still evil, but less than his brothers), and on the flip side the nastier of the Order of Mata Nui agents. But they got a tiny fraction of the story focus that the really evil villains and the good (though still flawed) heroes got.

Edited July 12, 2012 by The Iron Toa

[CeeCee]

You mean, if a villain cared if, for example, he killed a Matoran? Well, we could have used more in the way of anti-heroes/anti-villains. We had some sympathetic Dark Hunters, and Krika (probably still evil, but less than his brothers), and on the flip side the nastier of the Order of Mata Nui agents. But they got a tiny fraction of the story focus that the really evil villains and the good (though still flawed) heroes got.

Yeh, truly evil villians can be done good, but you dont feel anything to them. You always need a motive and and response

[bonesiii]

Well, Greg agreed with you, Sam, which is why he pushed for talking bad guys like the Piraka and got it. Ironically to others this just introduced cheesy bad guy lines a lot more. I can understand both perspectives, to some extent. I loved the Rahi and the Bohrok. I do think it got a little old with the Rahkshi, Vahki, and Visorak. Of course, the Kal could and did talk, and I tended to like what they said.With the Piraka what they said got a little too cheesy for my tastes sometimes, but not that often, and it was very fun to see the psychology of sapient bad guys playing out freely on the Bionicle stage. After that I kinda felt the canister bad guys' ability to talk was not often all that interesting, although I'm not sure what else could have been done. At that point Bionicle had begun to run its course anyways, plus the biggest antagonist of them all was really taking center stage in a great way.Not that the post-Piraka canister bad guys were bad, but I would have liked to see some truly frighteningly brilliant minds among them as with Makuta. That may simply be asking too much, though, lest they water down the awesomeness of TerryMack.

Edited July 12, 2012 by bonesiii

[fishers64]

Bad guys look more impressive if they have an army. The armies always had a leader, and that's what the story focused on between 2001-2005, with the minor exception of 2002 (scratch that, it's the Bahrag!). As for the changing face of the army, well, they had to sell sets. This put more emphasis on the army than the leader of the army, which leads to the confusion about who the real bad guys are. The bad guys of Bionicle were not the Rahi, the Bohrok, the Vahki, or the Visorak. They were Makuta, Bahrag, Makuta, and Roodaka. They just employed armies of the aforementioned beings. I think that Makuta and Roodaka were descent characters at least - hardly boring. 2006-07 villains were okay.

[Kumata]

Great suggestion on the character development front but it's a bit too much to ask of BIONICLE. It had to be what appeals to 8-14 year olds (or more accurately, what the marketing team thinks appeals to 8-14 year olds). Greg fleshed out villains somewhat in the side stories, but in the mainstream story the villains had to be clear-cut villains with practically no chance of remorse or redemption.

[Nuparu1995]

Boring? Far from it! I loved the Bionicle villains, especially those who weren't totally evil, but like antiheroes. Like Teridax - he had so much deep background! And the Rahkshi! Vicious!

[CeeCee]

Bad guys look more impressive if they have an army. The armies always had a leader, and that's what the story focused on between 2001-2005, with the minor exception of 2002 (scratch that, it's the Bahrag!). As for the changing face of the army, well, they had to sell sets. This put more emphasis on the army than the leader of the army, which leads to the confusion about who the real bad guys are. The bad guys of Bionicle were not the Rahi, the Bohrok, the Vahki, or the Visorak. They were Makuta, Bahrag, Makuta, and Roodaka. They just employed armies of the aforementioned beings. I think that Makuta and Roodaka were descent characters at least - hardly boring.2006-07 villains were okay.

Im talking about the main sets of 2001 - 2005. Not the Titans of course

[Vandenreich]

Well after 2006 of least I thought the villians were some of Bionicle's best characters, heck even before in 2005 we had Rodooka or Nidhiki in 2004.

[CeeCee]

Well after 2006 of least I thought the villians were some of Bionicle's best characters, heck even before in 2005 we had Rodooka or Nidhiki in 2004.

Sorry. Im not talking about the Titans or after 2006 here.

[Lyichir]

Technically, the first canister-set-sized villains with actual personalities would have been the Bohrok-Kal in 2003. That could possibly be chalked up to the fact that the Bohrok-Kal arc was one of the first ones where Greg, who had mainly been in charge of the comics previously, was given a lot of creative control. Nonetheless, the Bohrok-Kal had less-distinct personalities than later villains like the Piraka, Barraki, or Makuta.However, I'd argue that by 2004 or 2005, titan-sized villains had begun to have a more driving role in the story, and thus should be considered. No longer were they only encountered as "end bosses" once the heroes had fought their way to their lair. In 2004, the Dark Hunters were a threat for at least the latter half of the year, and took matters into their own hands more often than just letting drones do all the hard work. And although Roodaka and Sidorak spent most of 2005 pulling the strings from the safety of their lairs, we were much more privy throughout the year to their machinations and state of mind than we had been in early years of BIONICLE, where Makuta was often a faceless, unknowable villain. And that's not mentioning the non-set villains and anti-villains of those two years: Mavrah, Krahka, the Energized Protodermis entity, and more. And of course, by Time Trap Makuta had become less of a faceless evil, and more of an intelligent, manipulative character in his own right.2006, of course, represented a turning point in the character development of its villains. The Piraka were the first canister-set-sized villains to be an even match for the heroes in terms of both their powers and their personalities. They each had their own backstories and motivations. Then in 2007 we encountered the Barraki, who were similar in this respect, and in 2008 the other Makuta were introduced, and proved to be as complex character-wise as the old Makuta (now Teridax) had been.Part of the attractiveness of swarm enemies is that they can be defeated without eliciting sympathy. Additionally, in those early years, the Toa Mata needed their own character development, which complex villains might have distracted from. But later in BIONICLE's lifespan, fans had voiced a desire for villains who were distinct in both form and character, and LEGO and Greg were more than happy to oblige. I think the voiceless villains of those early years were useful for fans as they spent more time learning about what Toa, Matoran, and Turaga were all about, and the conflict was more against the unknown: the mysteries of the island and the evils sealed beneath it. When fans became confident in their understanding of the concepts behind BIONICLE, the creators were free to introduce more character-vs.-character struggles.

[Toatapio Nuva]

It would've been great if the Ignition saga had not only had the same group of Toa for its duration, but also the same group of villains, the Piraka. For three years, Toa Inika and Piraka would've raced for the Mask of Life. In that time there could've been lots of character development on both sides.

[ALVIS]

^^ I feel some people would have gotten bored of the Piraka after at least two years. I myself love them to death as villains, but others might not be too pleased.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Angel Bob

[Fractual Forever]

The Piraka were comedic, backstabbing, ruthless, crazy, trigger happy and volatile. That's what made them unique, following with others later on. However, the 2005 villains also had some characteristics: Remember Sidorak and Roodaka? Not to mention that the Vahki are originally guards and the Bohrok-Kal are pretty cool as well. The Rahkshi thing... well, that could be considered. They were pretty tough.

[25K Now!]

The first few antagonists were boring because they weren't really that sapient. They were basically Makuta's Legion of Evil Mooks, with the original six Rahkshi being his Elite Mooks.The Bohrok were an exception of course, due to being the mooks of the Bahrag, but it was Teridax's fault that they emerged early. The Bohrok-Kal on the other hand had personalities, but we didn't see much development in their characters. They felt rather flat, but were rather good villains as well, managing to actually incapacitate the Toa Nuva. When I was younger, I was awed by their ability to take down the 'heroes'.The Vahki were Robot Mooks, carry on. The Dark Hunters were a pretty interesting duo though. Nidhiki had all the makings of a tragic backstory, and he obviously had some beef with with Lhikan. Krekka was the Pinky to Nidhiki's Brain, so pretty much served as a rather entertaining comic relief character. Ahkmou was fun too.Despite being Mooks, the Visorak were actually pretty interesting villains. They obviously had personalities, and we were shown their near-undying loyalty, their ability to think smarter than the other Mooks, and their self-preservation instincts. They were also pretty amusing too, with one line in the Adventures books mentioning one of them pushing another of its species off a web just to get a good spot to see the Metru mutated and crushed.Roodaka and Sidorak were pretty interesting villains, especially Roodaka. I think she got a bit worse over the years, but that's just my opinion.After 2005, most of the villains were developed much further, starting with the Piraka.

[Cytua]

I think at this point all of the enemies were such an important part of my childhood that I can't help but have a fondness for all of them, despite how uninteresting they were personality-wise up til the Piraka. Actually, the Bohrok-Kal were pretty decent. I thought like the early years were fine, as there was always a puppet-master who was suitably interesting.

[Flex Lord Splash]

Rahkshi don't really count as a swarm race. At first there was only six of them, and for a long time that's only that was the only amount of Rahkshi you ever thought existed, until the announced that there were more of them before. The Rahkshi did have more personality then the rest of the 'swarm' villains I think, they were more intelligent I think, but yeah I feel you, the villains who had minds of their own personalites cooler when it came to being enemies who didn't, though set-wise I still think the Rahkshi and Bohrok were some of the best, but maybe that's just nostalgia talking.

[bonesiii]

Rahkshi don't really count as a swarm race. At first there was only six of them, and for a long time that's only that was the only amount of Rahkshi you ever thought existed, until the announced that there were more of them before.

What do you mean by "a long time"? As I recall, the first half of 2003 was the Kal, so the Rahkshi were only introduced in the second half, and the Kraata collectibles along with the powers list for the full 42 possibilities was also sometime in 2003. So it wasn't like years later or anything.I'll grant that I don't recall them specifically stated as existing in large groups until 2005 in Time Trap, though...

[darkslizer]

Well, at this time the Toa were more novice, so they shouldn't really take on Makuta right off the bat. I see what you mean, though.

[Taipu1]

It could be something related to the non-violence policy. The moment a character has a personality, they become more of a living thing, and because of that killing them off was perhaps seen as less dark or serious. But the storyline naturally moved in a darker direction, so character development for characters to be killed seemed more reasonable.

[Master Inika]

I liked the swarm concept, since they did have individual attributes, if not personalities. Still, you had characters like Sidorak and the Bahrag to fill the personality gap.

[Fikou-Man]

The story team had to create a new series of villains each year, with at least six different colour schemes. So they decided to go with the cookie-cutter 'I am evil, I will destroy everything' design for the villains. But you can tell that GregF and some other writers had some definite potential to create some very complex villains. There was Teridax's 'I am nothing' speech in 2001, and GregF really expanded on the villain's characters in his serials, like TSO, Vezon, Pridak, and more recently the new villains like the golden-skinned being, the hidden Great Being, and the shiny orb guy (sorry forgot name )And I thought that the Rahi idea was cool in 2001, heroes fighting against wild beasts was awesome.

[-Jaller-]

Mabye it was for money reasons. If there are swarms then you can get the same person twice, since that person did not have the same personality. That money lead to characters with thier own personality because they could afford it. Lets not forget Bionicle was kind of a new sort of thing.

[Klak]

Bad guys look more impressive if they have an army. The armies always had a leader, and that's what the story focused on between 2001-2005, with the minor exception of 2002 (scratch that, it's the Bahrag!). As for the changing face of the army, well, they had to sell sets. This put more emphasis on the army than the leader of the army, which leads to the confusion about who the real bad guys are. The bad guys of Bionicle were not the Rahi, the Bohrok, the Vahki, or the Visorak. They were Makuta, Bahrag, Makuta, and Roodaka. They just employed armies of the aforementioned beings. I think that Makuta and Roodaka were descent characters at least - hardly boring.2006-07 villains were okay.

I remember being intimidated by the complex builds of the Rahi, but the Bohrok, Vahki, and Rahkshi continue to be some of my favorite villains, even if they where swarm sets. The idea of 6 heroes vs. an army of cool-looking monsters led by complex villains was something that worked back then. Who (within the target range) didn't want to see that?Not that your opinion is invalid, Alterego, I understand where you're coming from, and I'm a big fan of the Barraki and Piraka's character development. But I also understand why Lego chose not to make Piraka-style villains from the beginning.

Well after 2006 of least I thought the villians were some of Bionicle's best characters, heck even before in 2005 we had Rodooka or Nidhiki in 2004.

I read that in Ammon's voice D:

Technically, the first canister-set-sized villains with actual personalities would have been the Bohrok-Kal in 2003. That could possibly be chalked up to the fact that the Bohrok-Kal arc was one of the first ones where Greg, who had mainly been in charge of the comics previously, was given a lot of creative control. Nonetheless, the Bohrok-Kal had less-distinct personalities than later villains like the Piraka, Barraki, or Makuta.However, I'd argue that by 2004 or 2005, titan-sized villains had begun to have a more driving role in the story, and thus should be considered. No longer were they only encountered as "end bosses" once the heroes had fought their way to their lair. In 2004, the Dark Hunters were a threat for at least the latter half of the year, and took matters into their own hands more often than just letting drones do all the hard work. And although Roodaka and Sidorak spent most of 2005 pulling the strings from the safety of their lairs, we were much more privy throughout the year to their machinations and state of mind than we had been in early years of BIONICLE, where Makuta was often a faceless, unknowable villain. And that's not mentioning the non-set villains and anti-villains of those two years: Mavrah, Krahka, the Energized Protodermis entity, and more. And of course, by Time Trap Makuta had become less of a faceless evil, and more of an intelligent, manipulative character in his own right.2006, of course, represented a turning point in the character development of its villains. The Piraka were the first canister-set-sized villains to be an even match for the heroes in terms of both their powers and their personalities. They each had their own backstories and motivations. Then in 2007 we encountered the Barraki, who were similar in this respect, and in 2008 the other Makuta were introduced, and proved to be as complex character-wise as the old Makuta (now Teridax) had been.Part of the attractiveness of swarm enemies is that they can be defeated without eliciting sympathy. Additionally, in those early years, the Toa Mata needed their own character development, which complex villains might have distracted from. But later in BIONICLE's lifespan, fans had voiced a desire for villains who were distinct in both form and character, and LEGO and Greg were more than happy to oblige. I think the voiceless villains of those early years were useful for fans as they spent more time learning about what Toa, Matoran, and Turaga were all about, and the conflict was more against the unknown: the mysteries of the island and the evils sealed beneath it. When fans became confident in their understanding of the concepts behind BIONICLE, the creators were free to introduce more character-vs.-character struggles.

Per Lychir. Edited August 15, 2012 by KlakWest

[The Lord Of Wednesday]

You could say that in such a universe where the story has black and white morality, along with the sheer amount of villains in the series, that Greg is both limited by what traits he can give his villains and then he has to spread those to another series of at least 6-8 more villains every year or so. One can only come up with so many combinations. Granted I did not find them to be that boring, but that is something to think about.

[fishers64]

You could say that in such a universe where the story has black and white morality, along with the sheer amount of villains in the series, that Greg is both limited by what traits he can give his villains and then he has to spread those to another series of at least 6-8 more villains every year or so. One can only come up with so many combinations. Granted I did not find them to be that boring, but that is something to think about.

How does "black and white morality" limit the amount of characteristics villains can have? Black comes in many forms. I don't think the the villains were similar to each other year-to-year, however. Bitter warlords are different from rebelious criminals are different from a vast legion of spiders are different from a city wrecking plant are different from skinny minions of a big black armoured antidermis cloud which are different from cleaning robots and beasts gone awry. On that point, there was a wide veriety of villains. Hardly boring.

[CeeCee]

You could say that in such a universe where the story has black and white morality, along with the sheer amount of villains in the series, that Greg is both limited by what traits he can give his villains and then he has to spread those to another series of at least 6-8 more villains every year or so. One can only come up with so many combinations. Granted I did not find them to be that boring, but that is something to think about.

How does "black and white morality" limit the amount of characteristics villains can have? Black comes in many forms.I don't think the the villains were similar to each other year-to-year, however. Bitter warlords are different from rebelious criminals are different from a vast legion of spiders are different from a city wrecking plant are different from skinny minions of a big black armoured antidermis cloud which are different from cleaning robots and beasts gone awry. On that point, there was a wide veriety of villains. Hardly boring.

I'm honestly not trying to be rude here but need to read the OP

[The Lord Of Wednesday]

You could say that in such a universe where the story has black and white morality, along with the sheer amount of villains in the series, that Greg is both limited by what traits he can give his villains and then he has to spread those to another series of at least 6-8 more villains every year or so. One can only come up with so many combinations. Granted I did not find them to be that boring, but that is something to think about.

How does "black and white morality" limit the amount of characteristics villains can have? Black comes in many forms.I don't think the the villains were similar to each other year-to-year, however. Bitter warlords are different from rebelious criminals are different from a vast legion of spiders are different from a city wrecking plant are different from skinny minions of a big black armoured antidermis cloud which are different from cleaning robots and beasts gone awry. On that point, there was a wide veriety of villains. Hardly boring.

Well first off, "evil" or "black" morality is defined in the Bionicle universe, meaning that if you want an "evil" character, they need to harken back to some of those traits as a defining trait (lust for power and/or tendency to backstab are generally traits of "evil" characters in Bionicle). Granted in Real Life "Black" comes in many shades depending on the observer, but Bionicle is a work of fiction, and tends to have a "These are heroes, these are villains" sort of thing going on. Also I will agree that those are interesting backgrounds but having them does not mean you have character or personality. I will also remind you of the end of that post.

Granted I did not find them to be that boring' date=' but that is something to think about.[/color'][/Quote]

Edited August 18, 2012 by Proud Stigma

[fishers64]

You could say that in such a universe where the story has black and white morality, along with the sheer amount of villains in the series, that Greg is both limited by what traits he can give his villains and then he has to spread those to another series of at least 6-8 more villains every year or so. One can only come up with so many combinations. Granted I did not find them to be that boring, but that is something to think about.

How does "black and white morality" limit the amount of characteristics villains can have? Black comes in many forms.I don't think the the villains were similar to each other year-to-year, however. Bitter warlords are different from rebelious criminals are different from a vast legion of spiders are different from a city wrecking plant are different from skinny minions of a big black armoured antidermis cloud which are different from cleaning robots and beasts gone awry. On that point, there was a wide variety of villains. Hardly boring.

Well first off, "evil" or "black" morality is defined in the Bionicle universe, meaning that if you want an "evil" character, they need to harken back to some of those traits as a defining trait (lust for power and/or tendency to backstab are generally traits of "evil" characters in Bionicle). Granted in Real Life "Black" comes in many shades depending on the observer, but Bionicle is a work of fiction, and tends to have a "These are heroes, these are villains" sort of thing going on. Also I will agree that those are interesting backgrounds but having them does not mean you have character or personality. I will also remind you of the end of that post.

Granted I did not find them to be that boring' date=' but that is something to think about.[/color'][/Quote]

Sorry. "Hardly Boring." was referring to the title of this topic - I thought that you were using your point (about the "black and white morality" limiting the range of villain characters) as a reason why the villains of Bionicle were boring. Or could appear as boring to some people. Thinking is what I do. :)Eventually, all villains in any story will have to harken back to the black qualities as a defining characteristic anyway. That's what makes a villain a villain. But I will agree that there was little moral subtlety in Bionicle, unless you count Teridax appearing as Turaga Dume, and that wasn't handled well enough for the moral subtlety there to truly stick. But I guess you're right in the fact that the innate villain qualities had to be obvious to the target audiance, unlike some stories where the villains try to appear as "good" to the protagonist in order to win them over...but then keep hearing "Makuta as Dume trying to sway Vakama" in my head. But that secret was exposed too early, robbing it of most of the effectiveness. But, except in that minor instance, I will admit that evident villain qualities and less moral ambiguity among the villains might have made it a little boring...But then again, moral ambiguity itself gets old after awhile, and eventually villains must reveal their true colors or the story does get boring.

Edited August 18, 2012 by fishers64