NERO was the most successful villian of all of the films

[Garm Bel Iblis]

Think about it,V'Ger took out some Klingons and the Epsilon Station

Khan killed the crew of Regula One

Kruge Killed a few dozen

The probe made it rain.

Sybok got Uhura hot for Scotty

Chang killed a couple of red shirts

Soran, indirectly got the crew of Armagosa Station killed.

The Borg Queen, she killed a bunch of people in Bozeman and a hundred or so Enterprise crewmen.

Ru'afo, i don't think anyone died on his watch

Shinzon, a few non coms and Data.

Nero. VULACN, 6 billion people, he had his revenge and died after avenging the death of his wife.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The only one I'd argue is Soran because he did kill a planet full of people before it was rewritten. If we're to accept alternate timelines like this movie, perhaps he really did kill those people and we just don't see the rest of that timeline.

EDIT: 230 million pre-industrial inhabitants isn't as bad as 6 billion, but it is a total genocide.

 

[6079SmithW]

AND Nero killed Jim Kirk's daddy (indirectly)
AND Nero killed Captain Robau (blasphemy!)
AND Nero permanently altered the timeline.
And Nero paralyzed Captain Pike via torture.
AND Nero reduced 47 klingon ships and a squadron of Starfleet ships to ashes.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero got the ultimate revenge: He got two Spocks to watch their world die at the same time.
He should have been doing cartwheels around the Narada.

 

[Ryan8bit]

He should have been doing cartwheels around the Narada.

He might fall off a ledge though.

 

[6079SmithW]

Nero got the ultimate revenge: He got two Spocks to watch their world die at the same time.
He should have been doing cartwheels around the Narada.

He was probably in a state blissful euphoria, grinning ear to ear and laughing hysterically while the other Romulans slowly backed away, thinking, "This guy is seriously F'd up!"

Nero, post genocide -------->

 

[Garm Bel Iblis]

He should have been doing cartwheels around the Narada.

He might fall off a ledge though.

It would be all right,the slow motion would have grabbed him

 

[Withers]

All this goes to show is that a body count does not a decent villain make. Cruella de Vil was more frightening than Nero and all she had to do was threaten to make a coat out of 99 worthless Dalmatian puppies.

He was successful in killing a bunch of people in-universe. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful in frightening anybody in the real universe or convincing very many people of his clout.

So... *clap,clap,clap* he wiped out Vulcan. BFD. He was still retarded.

-Withers-​

 

[F. King Daniel]

Nero wasn't meant to be scary. He was just a poor guy driven (quite understandably) mad by the death of his pregnant wife. Somehow he decided it was Spock's fault and set off on his quest.
I liked Nero. I wasn't scared of him, I was sad for him.

 

[Withers]

Somehow he decided it was Spock's fault and set off on his quest.

Yes, exactly, somehow he decided it was Spock's fault. No real motive for why or what Earth or the Federation had to do with any of it, he just decided they were to blame and went off as though that were somehow a fact when in reality nothing could have been further from valid.

Terrible writing. When the villain has no real motive it makes it hard to appreciate him or her. Sad for him? This is sci-fi... not a romantic comedy about a curmudgeon who eventually does an about face thanks to the company of a younger woman. I don't want to feel sad for sci-fi villains- I want to hate them, to feel the intensity of my heroes trying to defeat them. This movie had plenty of sad. The first 10 minutes were the saddest thing I've seen on screen... potentially ever. I didn't need any more sad. I needed something (like Kirk and Spock) to direct my hate towards.

Nero was quite simply not that. He wasn't worthy of the anguish he caused. It's like having someone rear-end your car only to find out it was some helpless, half blind, handicapped old hermit who hadn't left home in a hundred years. How unapologetically unsatisfying.

-Withers-​

 

[Sabataage]

He was successful in killing a bunch of people in-universe. Unfortunately he was unsuccessful in frightening anybody in the real universe or convincing very many people of his clout.

I think the problem with Nero and the challenge of the writers was somehow keeping him scary and the Narada threatening even after the opening sequence. I think the reason the Kelvin scene works so well is because it subverts your expectations. The USS Kelvin appears to be a gigantic red shirt whose total, humiliating and unambiguous defeat will establish Nero as serious threat. Only that doesn't happen. By the time he's re-emerged over Vulcan he's already been defeated once on camera, and spectacularly too.

The destruction of the 47 Klingon ships and the seven Federation vessels happen entirely off camera. We only see the wreckage after the fact. And the destruction of Vulcan is brought about by way of a macguffin he has acquired not via a massive "Death-Star" -like gun on the outside of the ship.

So in a way he's like an idiot with a bazooka. He couldn't build one if he wanted to. He just knows which end to point at the thing he wants to die.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Somehow he decided it was Spock's fault and set off on his quest.

Yes, exactly, somehow he decided it was Spock's fault. No real motive for why or what Earth or the Federation had to do with any of it, he just decided they were to blame and went off as though that were somehow a fact when in reality nothing could have been further from valid.

Terrible writing. When the villain has no real motive it makes it hard to appreciate him or her. Sad for him? This is sci-fi... not a romantic comedy about a curmudgeon who eventually does an about face thanks to the company of a younger woman. I don't want to feel sad for sci-fi villains- I want to hate them, to feel the intensity of my heroes trying to defeat them. This movie had plenty of sad. The first 10 minutes were the saddest thing I've seen on screen... potentially ever. I didn't need any more sad. I needed something (like Kirk and Spock) to direct my hate towards.

Nero was quite simply not that. He wasn't worthy of the anguish he caused. It's like having someone rear-end your car only to find out it was some helpless, half blind, handicapped old hermit who hadn't left home in a hundred years. How unapologetically unsatisfying.

-Withers-​

Spock failed to deliver on his promise to save Romulas. The planet and Ms Nero died. So its Spock's fault. Not a sane conclusion but guys who lose their planets and wives are not the sanest bunch. (see Singh, Khan N.)

 

[Withers]

Spock failed to deliver on his promise to save Romulas. The planet and Ms Nero died. So its Spock's fault. Not a sane conclusion but guys who lose their planets and wives are not the sanest bunch. (see Singh, Khan N.)

[Missing quote attribution added and balance of quote restored. - M'] Were you under the impression I hadn't seen the movie? I'm only curious because that's the only reason I can think of for explaining this to someone... unless you're assuming I was drunk, stoned, and gassed when I saw it? Either way- thanks for the refresher, but I was clear on their half assed attempt at a motive for Nero I just didn't buy it. It wasn't a matter of his sanity it was a matter of effort on behalf of the writers plain and simple. "Why did he do that?" "He was crazy!!" Not an acceptable answer.

So in a way he's like an idiot with a bazooka. He couldn't build one if he wanted to. He just knows which end to point at the thing he wants to die.

Exactly. They made no effort to make him... plausible, just comically violent. If I was supposed to believe that he was driven insane by the events leading up to and included in the film, then he should have come off more crazy and less... retarded. There's a difference.

Either way I don't think his body count made him a "successful" villain in any meaningful sense of that word... other than to say his body count was higher. If we're looking specifically in-universe, I would posit he succeeded in making the Federation stronger than it ever would have been without his presence. So what does that say about his success?

-Withers-​

 

[Cyke101]

Nero was the weakest element in an otherwise fun film. So I'm a fan of the movie but not of Nero, which leaves me free to criticize him however I want

1. V'Ger killed untold numbers on its way to Earth (the Klingons and Epsilon station was only its introduction -- remember that it's been on this journey for a while)

2. The Whale Probe disrupted weather patterns and created quakes and tremors all over the Earth. Think of Katrina on a global scale and we've got something drastic here.

3. The Borg Queen created a timeline where everyone on Earth was assimilated, which according to Trek lore is worse than death. But going back in time and fundamentally changing an entire planet's culture is something that... surprise!... Nero accomplished, too.

4. Shinzon (about the only praise I'll ever give this guy) wiped out a significant portion of an Empire's governmental structure. That's something that terrorists on 24 wish they could do. Star Trek Online hints that this instability was the beginning of the end of the Romulan Empire, culminating in the supernova and Nero's actions to begin with.

Granted, whether V'Ger and the Whale Probe count as villains is debatable, but if we're going by the standards which we apply to Nero (murder, time travel, etc etc), then he's got some competition.

 

[Agenda]

Khan was the most successful in the only way that truly matters.

C'mon...look at those pecs!

 

[M'Sharak]

Spock failed to deliver on his promise to save Romulas. The planet and Ms Nero died. So its Spock's fault. Not a sane conclusion but guys who lose their planets and wives are not the sanest bunch. (see Singh, Khan N.)

[Missing quote attribution added and balance of quote restored. - M']

Were you under the impression I hadn't seen the movie?

I don't see anything suggesting that Nerys Myk was under such an impression.

I'm only curious because that's the only reason I can think of for explaining this to someone... unless you're assuming I was drunk, stoned, and gassed when I saw it?

I see nothing which indicated he was making any such assumption. Nerys Myk was making what I'd call a perfectly reasonable response to the assertion you made here:

Somehow he decided it was Spock's fault and set off on his quest.

Yes, exactly, somehow he decided it was Spock's fault. No real motive for why or what Earth or the Federation had to do with any of it, he just decided they were to blame and went off as though that were somehow a fact when in reality nothing could have been further from valid.

I do, however, see you up to your old trick of attempted escalation by way of hyperbole: representing his post as something it clearly was not, then overreacting to your own misrepresentation. I'll invite you once again to drop that tactic, and to drop it now.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Spock failed to deliver on his promise to save Romulas. The planet and Ms Nero died.

[Missing quote attribution added. - M']

<SNIP>It wasn't a matter of his sanity it was a matter of effort on behalf of the writers plain and simple. "Why did he do that?" "He was crazy!!" Not an acceptable answer.

-Withers-​

Works in real life. Something happens. Guy goes crazy. Looks for someone to blame. Grabs a weapon. Bad stuff ensues.

The Question: why is Nero crazy?

The Answer: Dead wife. Destroyed planet. Trapped 100 years in the past of an alternate reality.

So he get his hands on the guy he blames and one hell of a weapon. Bad stuff ensues.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Khan was the most successful in the only way that truly matters.

C'mon...look at those pecs!

That's not fair!

Nero wasn't genetically engineered

 

[The Wormhole]

Soran took out an entire solar system. Two really, though the second one was reset.

Also, his accomplices took out the Enterprise D, the only movie villains to destroy an Enterprise. Trek III doesn't count since Kirk set the auto-destruct.

 

[Withers]

I do, however, see you up to your old trick of attempted escalation by way of hyperbole: representing his post as something it clearly was not, then overreacting to your own misrepresentation. I'll invite you once again to drop that tactic, and to drop it now.

Or what? You'll warn me over your interpretation of a tactic? Or you'll attempt to edit my posts to make them to your liking only to completely screw them up? Or you'll make it more of your personal goal to lambaste me every time I show up here? Knock yourself out my friend. We all have to prove our worth somehow. In case it isn't apparent I'm not scared of you. While we're inviting one another to do stuff I'll invite you to look up sarcasm which is in no way against the rules. The guy I was talking to seemed to handle it just fine- the real question is why can't you?

Works in real life. Something happens. Guy goes crazy. Looks for someone to blame

See, I'd totally buy that if he came off as crazy and not just stupid. If he had suffered some form of... I dunno, mental break down that lead him to make these wildly absurd connections from one event to another, I'd buy it. But instead he just came off as being somewhat...lazy in what he directed his vengeance at. He just didn't work as a villain for me. I think, largely, that had to do with giving the main heroes as much screen time as possible. I'm glad they didn't go with the TNG-movie bit of "Only give Beverly 3 lines" business. Hopefully in the next movie they'll be able to go with something a little meatier because a well executed villain could move this re-boot from good to epic.

-Withers-​