Use of Time wrote:
What seperates Kahn's villian character to others is simply the performance of Montalban. It was flawless.
It was hardly flawless.
It was one huge slice of ham (even bigger than Shatner's) smothered in glaze. Thing about ham smothered in glaze is it's really effing tasty.
From a technical, "craft" standpoint, Hardy, McDowell, and Lloyd all did a better job. Unfortunately, Hardy's script was shit, McDowell's character was uninteresting, and Lloyd had certain preconceptions hanging over his head that made it hard for people to take him seriously.
You can even give Krige some merit in that she was actually able to whittle some nuance into her character, which is really something all the other actors failed to do. This is especially significant because her character was so one dimensional.
I think your reaching a little to find similarities in FC, I just don't see it.
Bill is just reaching.
The "Star Trek film formula" has nothing to do with TWOK--it was just the first in the franchise to use it. The "intrepid adventures square off against uber evil set on destruction and revenge" has been the industry standard for genre films for 40 years. It was conceived and put into play years before TWOK. Paramount was (and has) simply towing the line.
Berman's endless need to emulate TWOK as answer to that says a lot more about him than it does the film.
I'll accept that McDowell, Hardy and Lloyd did a better job but you are going to have to do better than just telling me they did. Don't forget that the acting style of 1982 is drastically different than 1994 and 2003. I don't think that Lloyd did anything that could possibly outshine Kahn with his portrayel of Kruge. He was adaquete but ultimately forgettable.
I think McDowell's character was hindered by the writing. He would have been much more of a sympathetic character had he not come across as such an asshole when calling Geordi "not normal." The audience never really had a need to understand his motivation, he was simply a selfish bad guy.