Improving Some of the Weaker Movie Villains

[Vger23]

I sort of agree about Shinzon. I'd remove the clone stuff, but keep the Reman thing. There's a scene early on in Nemesis where we're given an intriguing picture of what Starfleet knows about the new Praetor: absolutely nothing. It would make for a more intriguing villain to make him analogous to Kim Jong-un; somebody who comes into power as an unknown quantity, and therefore the story becomes about how this could shift the balances of power in galactic politics. Who is this Reman guy? What's his story? What are his intentions towards the other galactic powers? How does his coming into power unexpectedly change the Romulan Empire? Suddenly, he's a much more interesting villain than the one we got in the actual movie.

What scuppers him in the actual movie is that once we get into all that I-Was-A-Clone-Of-You-Who-Got-Abandoned stuff, suddenly the character loses that ambiguity, that mystery, that enigmacy that the early parts of the movie kind of brought up. Instead of being about Shinzon and how his elevation to power affects the rest of the galaxy, the story instead becomes simply about Shinzon and Picard. Strangely enough, he stops being an interesting villain precisely because it becomes a personal story (for Picard), instead of being an impersonal one (about Shinzon).

Unfortunately you can't do this though. The small change to the character would completely alter the entire point of the movie. Regardless of how you feel about the film, this is too much.

Also, this might work for people who care more about galactic politics more than the characters, but I'm not among them. And I don't think most common moviegoers would have been interested either. Keeping the story a Picard story makes it a better movie. If it's just about some random bad guy that now controls the Romulan empire, who gives a crap about that?

Respectfully, this kind of change to the character would only make a week movie worse.

 

[Vger23]

I agree with Marsden that Sybok wasn't a villain. He was an antagonist in the true definition of the term. His role in the story was to create the conflict that motivated our heroes. He had no evil motives or intent, wasn't particularly dangerous, and essentially redeemed himself for the error of his ways at the end of the movie. I just wish he hadn't been Spock's half-brother. That seemed unnecessary and awkward.

I also agree with EnriqueH that the Borg queen diminished what the Borg stood for, but I thought Alice Krige was great in the role and that helped alleviate things for me. She brought a certain eroticism to her character that made her seem alluring and tempting even though she was horrible and pure evil.

I thought Ru'afo was by far the weakest Trek movie villain. When you boil it down, he's simply obsessed with obtaining eternal youth to the point of becoming basically amoral in its singular pursuit. Vanity as a motive to be evil. To me, Dougherty was the real villain of the movie, forsaking all his Starfleet values to act in complicity with Ru'afo.

Soran was the most under-rated Trek villain, IMO. A brilliant man who can even be pitied for becoming broken and a bit psychotic trying to feed his addiction to the nexus.

I've never understood the common complaint that Sybok being Spock's half-brother is poor storytelling. This revelation is completely consistent with how Spock's character was handled through the entire run of TOS. Spock was always secretive about the nature of Vulcan culture, biology and his own family relationships. Makes total sense that he would never mention a half brother who had been exiled from his home world for embracing emotion.

It's no different than introducing the Vulcan ambassador or as Spock's father, or David Marcus as Kirks son.

 

[Vger23]

V'ger, with its vast stores of knowledge spanning the totality of the known universe, should've not been so rigid in its quest to "join" its creator. It certainly views Humans as bottom feeders, until the NASA code signal schools it otherwise. Then, very last minute, it figures out a way to join with a Human, instead of a computer, as it intended to, all along. And joining with another Human wasn't even necessary, once it did learn the truth, because it had already sucked up dozens of them! Not to mention, there's Ilia there, the whole time, with her memory patterns. I don't know ... V'ger was a really cool idea and a fantastic visual, but for being a creature of Pure Logic, it didn't make a lot of sense, in the end. Some more thought invested into V'ger's motivations and how it might resolve itself would've benefitted THE MOTION PICTURE to the point where, if nothing else changed, this movie would've become a Critical Success. At least that ...

I'm not sure altering V'Ger's motivations or behaviors would have altered how critics felt about the film. Those seemed more related to pacing and character interaction.

 

[Vger23]

Kruge was kinda stupid. First, they know there are Grissom crew on the planet, but they don't try to beam them up (do Klingons not have "lifeform" scanners?). He tells his henchman to "Kill one of them. I don't care which," after Torg earlier cautioned him that one of those people on the planet might be one of the Genesis scientists they seek. And then he stands around with Kirk playing who's tougher instead of capturing him and making tracks for Klingon space with "the Genesis commander himself".

Dumb dumb dumb.

These are nitpicks that I can level at every trek villain, or any movie baddie for that matter. My point is that he was an entertaining one to watch and Lloyd brought a lot of life to the character, unlike Klaa in TFF.

Even though he was the villian in TSFS Kruge was the template for the "Noble Klingon Warrior" character that became a staple starting in TNG.
Yes he was ruthless and brutal, but what he was doing he believed was vital to the safety and survival of the Klingon Empire and he wasn't doing it for personal gain or a vendetta. After they watch the tape and John Laroquette says impressive they can create a whole planet, Kruge's response is yes charming thinking of living there with your wife and so on and the flag of the Federation fluttering in the breeze. That indicates to me he is more concerned about the Federation using this weapon against the Klingons than he is about wanting to get it to use on earth (Although I'm sure he wouldn't have minded that as a bonus if necessary). So he is acting in the best interest of the Empire.
He also has a hint of honor in him, especially when he kind of salutes the Enterprise's fighting spirit by giving 2 minutes to Kirk and his gallant crew instead of the one Kirk asked for. He also showed the fearless Klingon spirit of battle when he told Torg "We are Klingons" when they thought they'd be outnumbered something like 300 to 6 when they boarded the Enterprise (True he didn't go himself, but I think it wasn't out of fear).

This is much more in line with the noble warrior most Klingons became in TNG tha Klaa, who wanted to pick a fight with the Enterprise for the hell of it and risk the Empire going to war over his personal ambition. Also Chang didn't seemed particularly concerned with the Klingon empire, he just didn't want to make peace with the Federation on general principle, even though it was probably needed for the Empire to survive, so he was putting his own feelings ahead of what was best for his race. Plus he wasn't particularly noble, Kruge was all business when fighting the Enterprise where Chang just ranted like a drunk for much of the battle. Also I think a Klingon like Worf would say Chang's attacking while cloaked would be a dishonorable way to fight by not showing your enemy your face (I do understand why he would use that advantage though) not to mention his betrayal of the Empire. He was actually more like Duras in that he really didn't give a shit about the empire, he just wanted to fulfill his agenda which was to go out guns blazing.

Because of this and the fact I think Lloyd played it well /kruge was the most true to the Klingon way and the best Klingon villian. Yes he was stupid in some of the actions he took to get Genesis, but his intentions were true to his people.

I will always believe he got short shrift because he came right after Khan and the fact he was Christopher Lloyd as a not very heavily disguised Klingon and too many people knew him as Reverend Jim or retroactively saw him as Doc Brown being a Klingon when BTTF came out and they had a hard time accepting him as a true villian when his most popular roles were comedic.

I think Kruge is the second-best villain in the film franchise. You hit the nail right on the head here.

 

[Smellmet]

I think Kruge is the second-best villain in the film franchise. You hit the nail right on the head here.

I think he is too, he's one of the few antagonists that requires no excuses for his behaviour and motivation - it was all clearly defined and consistent. Yes there were a couple of nitpicks with his actions but overall I found him to be hugely entertaining, and on my first viewing I had no idea who the actor was as it was before Back to the Future and I wasn't aware of his other roles.

 

[eyeresist]

Whats the special edition of Nemesis? Is it a different cut of the film?

Not as far as I know, but two commentaries (director and writer) that aren't on the remastered edition, plus bonus DVD with various background info.

I would like to re-edit NEM and cut most of Riker's boring fight with the Viceroy, which I think saps tension from the main conflict. It's ironic that the bad edit of the showdown is the worst part of the movie, considering the director is an editor by profession (he worked on Superman FFS).

I do like that the moral of the film is that we have the ability to improve our selves, and whether we choose to or not defines us. Most other Trek films don't actually have a moral, but they managed to do it here without being too heavy handed, because it related to the dilemma of the protagonists.

I think they tried to save things with Nemesis by having it have a more Khan and First Contact style to it, but by this point the die had been cast and the public was obviously ready to move on from Star Trek films at that time.

The point's been made before, but still it is interesting to consider that NEM came out after the first Harry Potter and LOTR movies. Those movies set the benchmark in sophisticated FX and editing, beside which NEM looked even stiffer and more old fashioned than it actually was.

 

[Timo]

If [ST:INS] is supposed to be an actual morally complex movie, either Ru'afo should have been made more sympathetic or he should have been ditched and the admiral should been made into the main villain and something of an anti villain.

No, no, no - these characters are not the ones who need to be morally ambiguous for the overall scenario to be. It's Picard who must make a stand in a situation where there are several wrongs and no rights.

Villains can still all be evil. Just how evil, the audience doesn't know at first. But Picard has real trouble sorting out the villains from the good guys. It's not a matter of shades of grey, but of rapid shifts from black to white to transparent, which is more dynamic and more interesting. Every player in the game goes from villain to victim to hero, in some permutation of that order, and nobody comes out clean, Picard the least of all. The fun moments come with each shift - one of the most effective being the one where Dougherty establishes himself as the hero and Picard as the villain in a meeting that leaves the audience convinced of the exact opposite.

Sure, ST:INS has major weaknesses - the silly bits would have crippled any plotline (and I only count Worf's zit and the boob talk; any plotline could in turn easily withstand the android's bottom bit). But that's not an identity crisis as such, it's just a case of insufficient pruning. Other movies suffer from ugly sprouting of bad jokes or superfluous VFX or ill-founded fisticuffs, too.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Overlord]

If [ST:INS] is supposed to be an actual morally complex movie, either Ru'afo should have been made more sympathetic or he should have been ditched and the admiral should been made into the main villain and something of an anti villain.

No, no, no - these characters are not the ones who need to be morally ambiguous for the overall scenario to be. It's Picard who must make a stand in a situation where there are several wrongs and no rights.

Villains can still all be evil. Just how evil, the audience doesn't know at first. But Picard has real trouble sorting out the villains from the good guys. It's not a matter of shades of grey, but of rapid shifts from black to white to transparent, which is more dynamic and more interesting. Every player in the game goes from villain to victim to hero, in some permutation of that order, and nobody comes out clean, Picard the least of all. The fun moments come with each shift - one of the most effective being the one where Dougherty establishes himself as the hero and Picard as the villain in a meeting that leaves the audience convinced of the exact opposite.

Sure, ST:INS has major weaknesses - the silly bits would have crippled any plotline (and I only count Worf's zit and the boob talk; any plotline could in turn easily withstand the android's bottom bit). But that's not an identity crisis as such, it's just a case of insufficient pruning. Other movies suffer from ugly sprouting of bad jokes or superfluous VFX or ill-founded fisticuffs, too.

Timo Saloniemi

How is that a compelling moral dilemma, when one side is represented by a one dimensional bad guy with no real complexity to him? Ru'afo being the bad guy is no surprise to anyone, he is "ugly" and acts like a jerk most of the time. That is the easiest moral dilemma ever and frankly it sends a bad message, the pretty people are right and the ugly people are wrong, seriously its like the writers were trying to make this as black and white as possible and that is not how to write a good moral dilemma.

The only thing that makes this a supposed moral dilemma, is frankly I don't see why the Son'a claim to the planet is any less valid then the Ba'ku's, that if the Ba'ku can exile the Son'a from the planet, exactly why couldn't the Son'a do the same thing? And you didn't answer any the questions that the Son'a really being Ba'ku brings up that I have mentioned twice already.

Again if they are not going to make a real gray moral dilemma, then they may as well make a pure good vs. evil battle and just make the Son'a evil invading aliens who have nothing to do the Ba'ku and just want to become immortal. That would actually give Ru'afo something to do, watching him do evil things is better then watching him do nothing like he does in the first half of Insurrection. That is why he is one of the weakest villains in the film series and the things I brought are why a lot of people think Insurrection failed as a movie.

 

[eyeresist]

the pretty people and the ugly people are wrong

^ You might want to edit that?

 

[Timo]

How is that a compelling moral dilemma, when one side is represented by a one dimensional bad guy with no real complexity to him?

That's just it, though - the villain doesn't represent any particular side. He's just along for the ride, making use of the UFP's moral struggle to pursue his own agenda of petty revenge.

The moral dilemma here is whether the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Rua'fo tries to muddle the waters by claiming that the good of the many cannot be served without hurting the few ("You need our collector tech, and you need to destroy the planet with it"), but that's just tangential to the actual issue. Picard spells it out: how many victims does it take to turn right into wrong? But he's too much blinded with rage to answer his own question. The UFP Council has already come up with an answer, and it's "more than 600".

Things get even more interesting when there's so much ambiguity about what will actually happen to those 600. The truth is that nothing needs to be done to them. But Rua'fo has the technological superiority that allows him to claim with a straight (okay, wrinkled) face that they need to be relocated; and in reality, Rua'fo clearly wants to kill them all.

So there's the basic dilemma, and then there are three parameters to go with it. When would white become black? At the relocation of those 600? At the death of millions? At one of the locals getting agitated and writing an angry column?

If all that were reduced to a simplistic villain (no matter how sympathetic) pitting himself against the squeaky-clean Starfleet or UFP, there'd be a dilemma that offers nothing new to the audience, no real food for thought. Relocate or not relocate? Ho-hum, sit down and discuss. No need to break out the death rays, even.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[The Overlord]

How is that a compelling moral dilemma, when one side is represented by a one dimensional bad guy with no real complexity to him?

That's just it, though - the villain doesn't represent any particular side. He's just along for the ride, making use of the UFP's moral struggle to pursue his own agenda of petty revenge.

Then they should have ditched him and made the Admiral the main bad guy and somewhat of sympathetic bad guy. Ru'afo the way he is presented doesn't fit in with a real moral dilemma story.

The moral dilemma here is whether the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. Rua'fo tries to muddle the waters by claiming that the good of the many cannot be served without hurting the few ("You need our collector tech, and you need to destroy the planet with it"), but that's just tangential to the actual issue. Picard spells it out: how many victims does it take to turn right into wrong? But he's too much blinded with rage to answer his own question. The UFP Council has already come up with an answer, and it's "more than 600".

Things get even more interesting when there's so much ambiguity about what will actually happen to those 600. The truth is that nothing needs to be done to them. But Rua'fo has the technological superiority that allows him to claim with a straight (okay, wrinkled) face that they need to be relocated; and in reality, Rua'fo clearly wants to kill them all.

So there's the basic dilemma, and then there are three parameters to go with it. When would white become black? At the relocation of those 600? At the death of millions? At one of the locals getting agitated and writing an angry column?

If all that were reduced to a simplistic villain (no matter how sympathetic) pitting himself against the squeaky-clean Starfleet or UFP, there'd be a dilemma that offers nothing new to the audience, no real food for thought. Relocate or not relocate? Ho-hum, sit down and discuss. No need to break out the death rays, even.

Timo Saloniemi

But Ru'afo is a simplistic villain and undermines everything about this situation. Its hard to make this a real, important and meaningful moral dilemma, when one side has a one dimensional bad guy on its side. Its like having a debate between Martin Luther King and Hitler, almost no one would think Hitler has some valid points, because he is Hitler. The movie makes this supposed moral dilemma into such a black and white conflict, that it undermines the premise of the movie.

They could have easily wrote Ru'afo out the movie and just say the Federation has developed the technology to capture the fountain of youth plot radiation. If Ru'afo just there to provide some tech, he could easily be removed from the movie and maybe the movie would be better, because Ru'afo is not going down as one of the villains of cinema, he is pretty lame in fact.

And you seem to be ignoring that the Son'a being the Ba'ku brings up a million questions. Heck isn't the Son'a claim to the planet just as valid as the Ba'ku's? This plot twist makes no sense and creates a million plot holes.

 

[FormerLurker]

The Son'a being the Ba'ku actually answers most of your questions. The Son'a claim to the planet is invalid if they are actually exiled Ba'ku. They cannot lay claim if they're from the culture they're trying to dislocate, as their claim comes from within the other one. This plot twist shows that while the moral dilemma the admiral presents no longer applies, the real villain is finally shown to be Ru'afo, who until now was merely the leader of the civilization that so graciously loaned the Federation their technology.

As far as Ru'afo is concerned, he spends much of the movie just being this thorn in the side of Picard, and other Starfleet officers with whom he doesn't agree. When he kills Admiral Dougherty, and his people are subsequently revealed to be Ba'ku, it becomes plain that the moral dilemma was only a temporary Maguffin meant to distract from the real threat to the Ba'ku; Ru'afo and his insidious plans for revenge. We finally see that it has all been about the lengths that Ru'afo is willing to go to to destroy his parents and their friends, just to get back at them for not letting him and his friends have the cool toys for Christmas.

Finally, I never got the impression that the Son'a were banished. I was always convinced they had fled of their own volition, to get away from the Ba'ku rules. Essentially, they're a bunch of runaway teens who never got the assistance, counseling etc. they needed, and have become a group of disaffected petty criminals, living on the streets selling drugs or whatever.

 

[The Overlord]

The Son'a being the Ba'ku actually answers most of your questions. The Son'a claim to the planet is invalid if they are actually exiled Ba'ku. They cannot lay claim if they're from the culture they're trying to dislocate, as their claim comes from within the other one. This plot twist shows that while the moral dilemma the admiral presents no longer applies, the real villain is finally shown to be Ru'afo, who until now was merely the leader of the civilization that so graciously loaned the Federation their technology.

So the Ba'ku exiled the Son'a, so why is it okay for the Ba'ku to exile the Son'a and not okay for the Son'a to exile the Ba'ku later? Turnabout is fair play.

As far as Ru'afo is concerned, he spends much of the movie just being this thorn in the side of Picard, and other Starfleet officers with whom he doesn't agree. When he kills Admiral Dougherty, and his people are subsequently revealed to be Ba'ku, it becomes plain that the moral dilemma was only a temporary Maguffin meant to distract from the real threat to the Ba'ku; Ru'afo and his insidious plans for revenge. We finally see that it has all been about the lengths that Ru'afo is willing to go to to destroy his parents and their friends, just to get back at them for not letting him and his friends have the cool toys for Christmas.

Well frankly then, if Ru'afo is just that one dimensionally evil, then we should have ditched any pretense of a real moral dilemma and just have him be pure evil from the get go, because he does jack for the first part of the film, what an underwhelming villain, he is not sympathetic and frankly he doesn't do enough to be really scary or detestable, he's just there so the movie can have a bad guy and to provide a lame plot twist at the end. He fails both as an evil villain and potentially sympathetic, frankly he is just a jerk for most of the film.

Ru'afo may as well be an evil spacer invader with no connection to the Ba'ku who simply wants to be immortal if he is just evil and that's it. At least he would do more and it could be fun watching him do evil things through out the film, rather then having do almost nothing for the sake of a rather lame plot twist.

Finally, I never got the impression that the Son'a were banished. I was always convinced they had fled of their own volition, to get away from the Ba'ku rules. Essentially, they're a bunch of runaway teens who never got the assistance, counseling etc. they needed, and have become a group of disaffected petty criminals, living on the streets selling drugs or whatever.

Then why didn't they just build their own city somewhere else on the planet? Also how do the Luddite pacifist Ba'ku defeat the violent tech loving Son'a? Heck if the Son'a are Ba'ku, why can't the Son'a just go up to the Federation, make a claim on the planet and then use the Prime Directive to keep the Federation out of an internal affair?

The Son'a are very underdeveloped and them being Ba'ku brings up so many questions that are never answered. Like I said, they may as well be evil invading aliens with no connection to the Ba'ku, if they play no real important role in a movie with a supposed gray moral dilemma.

 

[FormerLurker]

You must not have seen the same movie I did.

 

[Melakon]

TSFS - Kruge was always a bit 'meh' for me. Not sure how it'd be best to improve him.

I've wondered how much differently Kruge would have been played if Nimoy had been allowed to go with his first choice for the role-- Edward James Olmos. But Paramount rejected the idea.

 

[JRoss]

The Romulan clone story would have worked better as an episode of Next Gen.

 

[The Overlord]

You must not have seen the same movie I did.

Well I saw Insurrection and I think those plot holes are there. Heck I have seen a couple of reviews of Insurrection that will bring up these same plot holes.

 

[eyeresist]

The Romulan clone story would have worked better as an episode of Next Gen.

But then I would never have seen it

 

[FormerLurker]

Finally, I never got the impression that the Son'a were banished. I was always convinced they had fled of their own volition, to get away from the Ba'ku rules. Essentially, they're a bunch of runaway teens who never got the assistance, counseling etc. they needed, and have become a group of disaffected petty criminals, living on the streets selling drugs or whatever.

Then why didn't they just build their own city somewhere else on the planet? Also how do the Luddite pacifist Ba'ku defeat the violent tech loving Son'a? Heck if the Son'a are Ba'ku, why can't the Son'a just go up to the Federation, make a claim on the planet and then use the Prime Directive to keep the Federation out of an internal affair?

The Son'a are very underdeveloped and them being Ba'ku brings up so many questions that are never answered. Like I said, they may as well be evil invading aliens with no connection to the Ba'ku, if they play no real important role in a movie with a supposed gray moral dilemma.

Why don't the Son'a build their own city? Because their leader Ru'afo wants to destroy the Ba'ku, not move in on their territory.

How do the pacifist Ba'ku defeat the violent Son'a? Who ever said they fought? Once the Ba'ku knew who they were, they said the Son'a went into voluntary exile.

Why don't the Son'a identify themselves as Ba'ku and tell the Federation to stay out of an internal matter? Because Ru'afo doesn't want to be seen as a "Weak Ba'ku". Rather, he wants to exterminate the "Weak Ba'ku". Which would be easier with the Federation's help.

Any other plot holes?

 

[Nebusj]

Why don't the Son'a build their own city? Because their leader Ru'afo wants to destroy the Ba'ku, not move in on their territory.

You'd think he could have spared one photon torpedo, then, and cut the Gordian knot.