Villains, Always With The Villains

[Sigokat]

Cumberbatch is a great actor but in the trailers all he does is snarl in a black trenchcoat and blow stuff up. I doubt he'll compete with Winn, Dukat, Weyoun and Female Changeling in terms of great Trek villains.

Yes, I agree. I just think he will be a refreshing change from Nero and other Trek movie villains. At least I hope so.

And yeah, no way he'll be on the same level as DS9 baddies. I started off absolutely hating Weyoun and he ended up becoming my favorite DS9 bad guy, Combs was just excellent in the role.

I also like the Breen. Not because they look like Leia's character from ROTJ, but because I thought they were a cool race...and they had cool outfits, weapons, and ships. I also liked the mystery behind them and how it was left up to the viewers to decide what we thought they might look like underneath their uniforms.

 

[SchwEnt]

What works on TV doesn't always work with movies. The kind of plots Trek does with its movies generally do require villains.

Exactly. If Hollywood can't manage a ST movie without it requiring Super Evil Villains and kewl space battle climax for every entry, maybe ST shouldn't be in the cinema. Maybe it should remain a television production.

At this point, ST is becoming generic action sci-fi with space battles and evil villains and ST was never about that.

 

[sonak]

I've noticed Chang being named as an example of a good villain. How is that, exactly? I saw a lame baddie with awkwardly tacked-on Shakespeare quotes in a pathetic attempt to give him the illusion of depth. Not a patch on Kruge or even Shinzon.

he was smart, cultured, badass without being over the top about it, and he actually had decent motivation for a villain in a Trek movie, which some of the recent ones(Shinzon, Nero) haven't.

 

[yousirname]

At this point, ST is becoming generic action sci-fi with space battles and evil villains and ST was never about that.

It's always been part of Trek. It just happens to be the part that works best for a summer film.

 

[Avon]

tv trek had plenty of underdeveloped villains with stupid motivations, like sela, lore, one-shot tos klingons, the gorn, the kazon guy that seska hung around with, the idiot thieves from starship mine, a seductive shuttlecraft, angry vulcan dictator from the enterprise 3 parter, etc so i don't know why people are surprised that the films have them too

 

[The Wormhole]

What works on TV doesn't always work with movies. The kind of plots Trek does with its movies generally do require villains.

Exactly. If Hollywood can't manage a ST movie without it requiring Super Evil Villains and kewl space battle climax for every entry, maybe ST shouldn't be in the cinema. Maybe it should remain a television production.

Undeniably, television is where Star trek excels. But if it weren't for the movies, I doubt interest in Star Trek would have continued through the 1980s, which I believe is what made TNG possible, and from there everything Trek related in the 1990s and until Enterprise's end in 2005.

I don't particularly care for the Abrams movies, but they are a necessary evil. They are once again drumming up interest in Trek and will make it possible for a new TV series someday.

 

[Pavonis]

What works on TV doesn't always work with movies. The kind of plots Trek does with its movies generally do require villains.

Exactly. If Hollywood can't manage a ST movie without it requiring Super Evil Villains and kewl space battle climax for every entry, maybe ST shouldn't be in the cinema. Maybe it should remain a television production.

At this point, ST is becoming generic action sci-fi with space battles and evil villains and ST was never about that.

I thought that is exactly what Trek was and is about. It can have more, but it starts there.

Anyway, how could it "remain" a tv production when there hasn't been a Trek show on for years? Trek isn't more of one kind of media than another. It has been and can be everything - literature, games, films, tv. But it can't always be all of them simultaneously. Trek will remain a film franchise for the foreseeable future. If the films tank, don't count on new tv productions.

 

[DalekJim]

I don't particularly care for the Abrams movies, but they are a necessary evil. They are once again drumming up interest in Trek and will make it possible for a new TV series someday.

Absolutely this.

 

[plynch]

I couldn't care less if there's another series named StarTrek, unless it is the kind of show I like, and not just vengeance-crazed, scarey-looking baddies blowin' crap up. I will have to find pleasure in things not named Star Trek, or in rewatchings of eps 15-49 years old. Both are fine by me.

 

[SchwEnt]

What works on TV doesn't always work with movies. The kind of plots Trek does with its movies generally do require villains.

Exactly. If Hollywood can't manage a ST movie without it requiring Super Evil Villains and kewl space battle climax for every entry, maybe ST shouldn't be in the cinema. Maybe it should remain a television production.

At this point, ST is becoming generic action sci-fi with space battles and evil villains and ST was never about that.

I thought that is exactly what Trek was and is about. It can have more, but it starts there.

Anyway, how could it "remain" a tv production when there hasn't been a Trek show on for years? Trek isn't more of one kind of media than another. It has been and can be everything - literature, games, films, tv. But it can't always be all of them simultaneously. Trek will remain a film franchise for the foreseeable future. If the films tank, don't count on new tv productions.

With all the various media, ST can be all the things it does well... adventure stories, human drama, future explorations, morality plays, character pieces, and yes, space battles with bad guys.

But it seems the movies can only show this one minor aspect of ST, space battles with evil villains. What about exploring the human condition? Exploring strange new worlds? Can ST no longer go where no one has gone before and must instead be about fighting evil villains with kewl explosions every time?

 

[yousirname]

They could do that, but it would be a massive flop. Not enough people want that in a Star Trek movie for it to be viable.

 

[Pavonis]

Pretty much. Star Trek in film is an action-movie-in-space genre. It's not going to be a dramatic science fiction film about the "human condition" or "exploring the unknown". Wanting it to be means you'll just be disappointed.

Anyone who wants Trek to be science fiction should look to the literature.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Cumberbatch is a great actor but in the trailers all he does is snarl in a black trenchcoat and blow stuff up. I doubt he'll compete with Winn, Dukat, Weyoun and Female Changeling in terms of great Trek villains.

The movies tend to be big, dumb, loud Hollywood blockbusters so lack the nuance I like in Trek. The best "villain" in the movie series is V'ger. An unknown, alien being that opens up philisophical questions. That we've de-evolved from that to fucking Eric "FIRE EVERYTHING!" Bana blowing planets up for no reason is a sad state of affairs.

Please, his reason is so obvious you'd have to be dead not to notice it.

The "devolution" started and stopped with TWOK. That's the blueprint for Trek's on screen success. They've been trying to recapture that for decades. Looks like they finally did, in spades.

 

[Anji]

It is much easier to write a mustache twirling villain than contruct a villain from immoral ideals and falllacies in our culture.

And I'm sorry, for how much I love it, Star Trek has rarely had writers of that caliber.

 

[plynch]

Cumberbatch is a great actor but in the trailers all he does is snarl in a black trenchcoat and blow stuff up. I doubt he'll compete with Winn, Dukat, Weyoun and Female Changeling in terms of great Trek villains.

The movies tend to be big, dumb, loud Hollywood blockbusters so lack the nuance I like in Trek. The best "villain" in the movie series is V'ger. An unknown, alien being that opens up philisophical questions. That we've de-evolved from that to fucking Eric "FIRE EVERYTHING!" Bana blowing planets up for no reason is a sad state of affairs.

Please, his reason is so obvious you'd have to be dead not to notice it.

no rational reason, then

"Waah, I'm mad, I will destroy others." It gets old.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I always feel like the true villain of Trek is humanity's bloody past.

So when we see a stereotypical action movie villain who's nasty for the sake of nasty, it's extremely boring.

 

[Avon]

wouldn't you have to see all the film before judging whether cumberbatch's character has a reason for his actions? seems like a fuckload of presumption going on here.

 

[Herkimer Jitty]

blah blah blah Gene's Vision™

yadda e yadda dumb movies these days

blah blah blah they dont make em like they used to

 

[Nerys Myk]

Cumberbatch is a great actor but in the trailers all he does is snarl in a black trenchcoat and blow stuff up. I doubt he'll compete with Winn, Dukat, Weyoun and Female Changeling in terms of great Trek villains.

The movies tend to be big, dumb, loud Hollywood blockbusters so lack the nuance I like in Trek. The best "villain" in the movie series is V'ger. An unknown, alien being that opens up philisophical questions. That we've de-evolved from that to fucking Eric "FIRE EVERYTHING!" Bana blowing planets up for no reason is a sad state of affairs.

Please, his reason is so obvious you'd have to be dead not to notice it.

no rational reason, then

"Waah, I'm mad, I will destroy others." It gets old.

Did someone claim Nero was rational? The man's home planet was destroyed, along with the people he loved. Of course he's not going to be rational. I think something like might lead you to do some crazy things. It even happens in real life when tragedy strikes.

Nah, it doesn't get old. Its been driving entertainment for years and people seem to like it. It's all in the execution.

 

[The Wormhole]

Did someone claim Nero was rational? The man's home planet was destroyed, along with the people he loved. Of course he's not going to be rational. I think something like might lead you to do some crazy things. It even happens in real life when tragedy strikes.

Nah, it doesn't get old. Its been driving entertainment for years and people seem to like it. It's all in the execution.

That's all well and good, but at the end of the day Nero was a pretty terrible villain. The whole "IT HAPPENED!" rant shows he's a bit too irrational to be taken seriously. From Pike's persepctive, the destruction of Romulus won't HAPPEN for another 130 years, so screaming at him for not thinking IT HAPPENED isn't really accomplishing anything at all.