Nero: Worst villain in a Star Trek movie yet?
- Thread starter Darth_Pazuzu
- Start date
Oh come on. I know it's hard to debate, because no one has seen Nemesis, but the clone of Jean Luc Picard used by the Romulans to destroy the Fenderation...
That's actually worse than Nero. Wow. Something could be worse than a Romulan coming back from the future in his mining ship to find a time travelling Spock...
It's not hard to see how people think the new Star Trek movie is actually good. They have very little recently to compare it against.
That's actually worse than Nero. Wow. Something could be worse than a Romulan coming back from the future in his mining ship to find a time travelling Spock...
It's not hard to see how people think the new Star Trek movie is actually good. They have very little recently to compare it against.
I like Nero, especially because of Eric Bana's performance. I wish he'd had more time onscreen, but to be honest the movie wasn't about him, it was about Kirk and Spock. And if you think about it, they should be faced with a villain who's tough for them at that point in their lives. And when you consider the fact that they're trying to start a new slew of films following these characters with these actors, you don't want to throw the ultimate baddie against them in their first outing. How do you follow that up on that? As it is, I'm worried about how they'll follow up this movie!
Nero's only the worst villain, if you prefer your villains to be melodramatic and over-the-top.
I kinda have to agree with the Ensign on this one. While Khan was a good villain, he was over-the-top and melodramatic; practically a mustache-twirling cartoon bad guy.
Then again, that goes for most all of the Trek movie villains. Kruge; Soran, The Borg Queen, Ru'afo, and Shinzon were all over the top, 2-dimensional caricatures of villains.
Nero is over the top as well, but I don't think he's nearly so melodramatic as any of his predecessors. His every speech isn't flamboyant or pretentious, nor is every line of dialog a paraphrased quote of historic import, nor from classical literature or poetry. For the most part, his dialog is pretty straightforward, and delivered plainly. He's a bit unhinged, but even that is performed within reason, sans maniacally laughter, and without once offing a henchman as a lesson to the others. He doesn't even "monologue" us like so many Trek baddies before him have. Oh sure, he'll drop a bit of exposition here and there, but no big long speeches to his intended victim(s) detailing every phase of his nefarious plot.
Compared to virtually all other Trek movie villains, Nero almost comes across as understated. Plausible even.
I kinda have to agree with the Ensign on this one. While Khan was a good villain, he was over-the-top and melodramatic; practically a mustache-twirling cartoon bad guy.
Then again, that goes for most all of the Trek movie villains. Kruge; Soran, The Borg Queen, Ru'afo, and Shinzon were all over the top, 2-dimensional caricatures of villains.
Nero is over the top as well, but I don't think he's nearly so melodramatic as any of his predecessors. His every speech isn't flamboyant or pretentious, nor is every line of dialog a paraphrased quote of historic import, nor from classical literature or poetry. For the most part, his dialog is pretty straightforward, and delivered plainly. He's a bit unhinged, but even that is performed within reason, sans maniacally laughter, and without once offing a henchman as a lesson to the others. He doesn't even "monologue" us like so many Trek baddies before him have. Oh sure, he'll drop a bit of exposition here and there, but no big long speeches to his intended victim(s) detailing every phase of his nefarious plot.
Compared to virtually all other Trek movie villains, Nero almost comes across as understated. Plausible even.
Last edited:
Basically, Nero is nothing more than the latest model in the Space Opera Genocidal Madman line, a line which is starting to show traces of genetic fade! He's ultimately just a poor man's Khan, Soran and Shinzon all rolled into one. I mean, say what you will about Nemesis, but at least Tom Hardy succeeded in bringing a certain depth and nuance to the character of Shinzon. Eric Bana certainly did the best acting job he could with what was on the page, but ultimately, in comparison with Shinzon, Nero's really nothing more than a petty thug with facial tattoos!
Really?? Shinzon had any kind of redeeming values?
Nero was ok.. not the best but one of the better ones in my opinion. Shinzon was me, Soran too, Sybok was awful and Kruge a bit too Klingon generic.
Best ones were Khan and General Chang because you felt they really were menacing and not because they had supernatural powers or some uberpowered technology (Chang's Bird of Prey doesn't really count).
What Nero lacks is some expanded background.. if they had included his background from the Countdown comic you would have understood him better and it would make him more complete.
But Shinzon better than Nero? Please... "Hi Christoher, I'm Nero"... that line alone makes him better than Shinzon could ever be
I have to disagree with you. Part of what makes Nero so chilling, in my opinion, is the fact that we know so little about his motivations, etc.
We don't need to understand anything other than the fact that the universe has crapped all over him and his life. We know he is a psychotic madman, we know that he is totally merciless, and we know that he is capable of anything.
If this is all we know about Nero, then we can truly place ourselves in the shoes of Kirk and Spock - they didn't know anything either. And that it was this film is about - how they reacted, and how their friendship grew out of their shared experience/development battling against a foe of such awesome power.
That would seem to be more proof of Trek movie failure than anything. I've said this before but Gal Dukat would make for an amazing villain if his multi-faceted character could be compressed into the time constraints of a movie. Surely a villain modeled after someone similar to him would make for a more engaging villain than Nero.
Nero does come off as terrifying at times, but otherwise he's a fairly uninteresting villain. I want to sympathize with my villain, perhaps question my perception of good and evil, and find myself at least intrigued by his internal conflicts. We got none of that from Nero.
The problem is, his hatred isn't well founded enough. The movie really could've sacrified just 5 minutes to cement his evil motivations better, or at least give us some more background about the whole Romulus-being-destroyed plot. We know the Vulcans aren't really responsible for Romulus' destruction, so Nero's hatred against the Vulcans isn't well established, but we need more insight as to why he hasn't accepted whatever explanation has been offered to him and why he chooses to place the blame solely on the Vulcans. A bad personal incident with a Vulcan, a half-Vulcan, half-Romulan bloodline, something to motivate his madman villain status.
And there's also the issues that stem from some plot weaknesses. If Nero has the ability to time travel, so many limitless possibilities are at his disposal, it's staggering. He could travel back to near the origin of the universe and attempt assert a Romulan domination of the universe. He could prevent all Vulcans from ever existing by killing the very first ones to exist. He could steal technology from 1000 years in the future, then rule over any period in the past he wishes to. His whole madman personality isn't so corrupting as to blind him of ALL these possibilities.
It did. The mindmeld scene.
Well, they wouldn't give him the Red Matter.
He blames the Federation as whole. It's just that Spock and the Vulcans were the ones with whom he had the most contact - so he starts with them.
Lol - no. That would be cartoonish and silly. How about the destruction of his homeworld that could've been prevented with material that the Vulcans had... oh, wait...
Firstly, you're forgetting he had no control of his time travel. It was an accident that he ended up in the past.
But on top of that, the guy is fucked up and isn't behaving rationally. He is a ruthless, cunning, psycho who isn't going to behave in a calm, rational or predictable manner.
Sorry for the rant - I just really like Nero.
Y'know, I actually liked Sybok quite a bit! And one of the reasons why was precisely because he wasn't your garden-variety Genocidal Madman type! Yeah, he was driven and obsessed, but ultimately bloodshed and destruction was never his aim. A great deal of credit must be given to Laurence Luckinbill for putting a very witty spin on the character (particularly in his delivery of lines such as "I'm sorry, Spock, but I'm afraid I can't let you arrest me. I'm not through violating the Neutral Zone Treaty!"), whereas so many others may have been tempted to go for a totally fanatical and threatening vibe. Sybok is very much the antagonist of the story, but only because his and his followers' ultimate goal necessitates the hijacking of the Enterprise.
Oh, just for the record, let me say that I think The Final Frontier definitely qualifies as the worst Star Trek film, definitely putting the overly-maligned Nemesis in the shade by a wide margin! I'm just saying that Laurence Luckinbill's Sybok is probably one of its few redeeming features. (Although Shatner did a reasonable job of directing, the screenplay could definitely have used a lot of touching up, and Shatner's not very good at directing himself!
) The reason I find Sybok so appealing as an antagonist is precisely because he's so atypical of Star Trek film villains. One of the problems I've noticed with the Trek films is that far too often The Wrath Of Khan is held up as the watermark, or the film that everyone seems to find it most desirable to emulate. So time and again we get all these mustache-twirling supervillains who (even though well-played by the likes of such reliable stalwarts as Christopher Plummer, Malcolm McDowell, Alice Krige and F. Murray Abraham) all seem to struggle in the shadow of the late Ricardo Montalban as the great Khan Noonian Singh!
Oh please. Nero sucking as a villain has nothing to do with being anal, or a canon freak. Nero sucked as a villain because he had no screen time and there was NOTHING unique or interesting about him!
His motivation was revenge, but it wasn't even a GOOD motivation. Kahn was dumped on a planet an forgotten. When disaster struck the planet no one knew, no one cared, no one came to help. He had to fight for survival for years on a desolate planet, losing his son in the process, and when he got off he came after the man who stranded him.
But Nero, come on. A star went Super Nova. This was NOT caused by the Vulcans. A Vulcan tried to come to the rescue. A Vulcan had a plan when no one in the "great" Romulan Star Empire had any idea about what to do. It was NOT the Vulcan's fault the Rommies didn't have a plan. The Vulcan tried, and failed, so Nero decided to blow up the home planet of the guy who tried to save his world. You know what that is? That is LAME.
The only reason he kicks so much ass is because he is armed with technology from the future. Being in awe of Nero is like thinking some guy is the best fighter in the world because he beat the crap out of ten 5 year olds at the same time. He brought a gun back in time and jumped into a knife fight. Again, LAME.
Two guys beam over to his ship, in the middle of like TWENTY armed Romulans and the two guys manage to shoot their way out, with relatively outdated weapons to boot. Even Nero's crew was LAME!
I really dislike you right now, because you are making me defend a part of that movie between Star Trek IV and Star Trek VI that doesn't involve camping or fan dances, but in all fairness... Sybok was much more interesting. There. I said it. He may have been misguided, but he had an intellectual agenda. Sybok was unique among Vulcans, whereas Nero was you average dumbass Romulan. Sybok overcame overwhelming odds in a search for truth and freedom. Nero was a bully and a lunatic with misplaced anger issues.
Frankly, the probe in Star Trek IV was more interesting than Nero. Nero wasn't even developed enough to be called a character, he was a plot device. I don't know if Bana is a good actor. He didn't have much of a part in this movie, and I don't know any of his other work. Even if he is a great actor... Well, Patrick Stewart was hands down the best actor in Robin Hood: Men In Tights, but that sure doesn't mean he gave an oscar winning performance.
Lets review...
V'ger > Nero
Kahn > Nero
Those Squirmy Ear Bugs Kahn Used > Nero
Kruge > Nero
The Probe > Nero
The Guy with the mohawk on the bus in 1984 San Francisco < Nero
Sybok > Nero
General Chang > Nero
Valeris > Nero
Soran > Nero
Guinan's Hat > Nero
The Borg > Nero
Ru'afo > Nero
Shinzon > Nero
There, Nero is not the MOST lame Star Trek movie villain ever. That goes to the guy with the mohawk on the bus in 1984 San Francisco.
On the other hand, I think if the mohawk dude had the 5 minutes of screen time that Nero did, he would have been MUCH cooler.
Kruge was not "Klingon Generic". Kruge redefined what it was to be Klingon. All the generic Klingons followed Kruge. You can't go back farther than Kruge and find a Klingon as we know them now.
Why is Sybok even a part of this debate? He's not even a villain. He was the antagonist to be sure, but by no means is he definable as a bad guy. Infact, Sybok is the last movie adversary who wasn't an evil, selfish, murderous psycho decked out all in shiny black crap. To be honest, I'd like to see someone closer to him in the sequel. It doesn't always have to be about hell bent revenge. This is Star Trek, not Kill Bill.
But Shinzon better than Nero? Please... "Hi Christoher, I'm Nero"... that line alone makes him better than Shinzon could ever be
"I was lonely." was better. Not to mention, "I'm afraid you won't survive to witness the victory of the echo over the voice."
Incidentally, it is a little-known fact that Eric Bana based his Nero's manner of speech on his former Full Frontal co-star Shaun Micallef.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCDXWjFbz2U
Last edited:
QFT
Omega_Glory
Commodore
Nero is a very forgetable fellow.
