Dukat and Weyoun are better villains than Khan
- Thread starter Captain Zog
- Start date
Did Khan ever have a whole episode devoted to his psychology where he is haunted by inner demons about his past and future actions? Did Khan ever have an episode based around his need to serve and be loved by the being he saw as his god? Was Khan ever given more than five minutes of exploration as a character?
A good actor is enjoyable to watch but it doesn't make a character deep or complex. I like Khan, I enjoy his episode and love his movie, but as a character he was mainly used to put Kirk and Spock in interesting situations, he was not developed in his own right. He is just not on the same level as Dukat or Weyoun.
Montalban didn't show any range whatsoever as Khan. All he did was act like a creep 24/7. We are told he is supposed to be charming and magnetic, yet he never had the acting chops to convey that on-screen, hence the exposition was let down by the performance.
On the other, both Combs and Alaimo conveyed oodles of both charm and acting range that blows Montalban out of the water, big-time.
Montelban's Khan was too corny to really take seriously, but recast the role with Naveen Andrews and we might be talkin'...
It really undercut my respect for the intelligence of those so-called supermen and women following him that they wouldn't see through his blatant egomaniacal lunacy. That's why a more nuanced actor like Andrews could really give the role a new life - that guy could portray a character that very smart people would be willing to follow, even if he had them doing looney things.
I'm not sure about Dukat anymore. I really liked him for the first few seasons, but ever since the episode where his daughter died, that character seems to be getting worse and worse. I've been watching the episodes where he's disguised as a Bajoran and he has de-evolved into a laughable caricature of a villain (although that moment where he yells at Winn to go live in Sisko's shadow for the rest of her life was a cool, all-too-brief reminder of the good old Dukat).
I think Khan and Weyoun were a lot more consistently interesting. Khan changed a lot between "Space Seed" and "The Wrath of Khan" (to the point where Rodenberry was annoyed because he felt the character was written a little cornier in the movie), and I agree that some of the changes were bad. He was a lot more intimidating, crafty, and sinister in the show, but I never found him as lame as Pah Wraith-worshipping Dukat, who just strikes me as a one-note raving idiot heretic.
I think Khan and Weyoun were a lot more consistently interesting. Khan changed a lot between "Space Seed" and "The Wrath of Khan" (to the point where Rodenberry was annoyed because he felt the character was written a little cornier in the movie), and I agree that some of the changes were bad. He was a lot more intimidating, crafty, and sinister in the show, but I never found him as lame as Pah Wraith-worshipping Dukat, who just strikes me as a one-note raving idiot heretic.
^
Most DS9 fans abhor the great fubaring of Dukat as of the end of Waltz and on as the biggest and most tragic mistake of the series.
When we say Dukat is a great character, we mean before that great fubaring.
Having said that, I don't see how Khan was much better than post-fubar Dukat, either. Both are pretty much one-dimensional caricatures, but Khan was always nothing more than that, unlike Dukat.
I just rewatched Space Seed the other month and Khan certainly wasn't crafty in it. He was very much one-note & corny and accomplished things due to ludicrous plot contrivances of Federation members doing what he wanted for no plausible reason, rather than he having done something intelligent & interesting via his own talent.
In fact I even made a thread about that on the TOS board:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=94692
Most DS9 fans abhor the great fubaring of Dukat as of the end of Waltz and on as the biggest and most tragic mistake of the series.
When we say Dukat is a great character, we mean before that great fubaring.
Having said that, I don't see how Khan was much better than post-fubar Dukat, either. Both are pretty much one-dimensional caricatures, but Khan was always nothing more than that, unlike Dukat.
I just rewatched Space Seed the other month and Khan certainly wasn't crafty in it. He was very much one-note & corny and accomplished things due to ludicrous plot contrivances of Federation members doing what he wanted for no plausible reason, rather than he having done something intelligent & interesting via his own talent.
In fact I even made a thread about that on the TOS board:
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=94692
I tend to agree. While I dislike the simplification of Dukat, I don't think it was totally implausible given everything he went to. That is: I think it was presented in a way where the viewer could buy into him going that crazy.
Interestingly, it seems we were expected to accept that Khan had gone more or less that crazy, too, over the death of his beloved wife.
Interestingly, it seems we were expected to accept that Khan had gone more or less that crazy, too, over the death of his beloved wife.
Dukat? Absolutely!!!
Weyoun...not as much substance there. But Dukat is fantastic!
There's still that debate in the TOS forum about how McGivers was a weak-willed easily manipulated skank, and I doubt Khan could love someone like that. I'd like to think that maybe Khan himself got attacked by one of the Ceti Eels, but his enhanced physiology meant that he was immune to certain effects (suggestion, death) but not others (madness).
I’ve wondered about that myself. She didn’t have much going for her except her looks and her obsessive devotion to Khan. A few years on post-apocalyptic Ceti Alpha V probably took care of her looks, and her obsessive devotion to Khan probably didn’t mean much after a while, considering that he had all those other genetically engineered “superior” people who were also slavishly loyal to him.
I think his feelings about her death were not so much a result of his feelings for her as it was something he used as another source of fuel for his hatred of Kirk.
I agree. However, I credit most of those problems to the film's dreadful script. Khan was not a well thought-out character, plain and simple—in neither TWOK nor “Space Seed”, really.
The self proclaimed “superior intellect” didn’t exactly ooze the smarts. The guy displayed an overt ignorance and concept of his surroundings and was a mediocre tactician whose approach to combat was limited and parochial. Superior intellect my ass.
In fact, the only time he gained any strategically advantage at all was when his counterpart, a proven tactical genius, acted equally stupidly.
Nicky tried to pass this off as a symptom of the Ahab Syndrome, but it just doesn’t work because his lunacy is so laughable. Also, I think even an enraged Ahab is smart enough to realize there are three dimensions in space.
Ahab may have been an obsessed tyrant bitten by the goofy bug, but he at least maintained some part of his wits and faculties. Khan’s dish was best served in a room with white rubber walls.
Then there is the implication his megalomania was a byproduct of his engineering. This is completely contradictory to both the literary and historical archetype, however.
Khan was also a self proclaimed seducer and manipulator. Except, the only way he could get anyone to do what he wanted, was to rely on the oh-so-convenient magical “Make you do what I say!” bugs. Heck, there was even implication he had to use them on his own men. And, I can’t help to think that perhaps Joachim and friends’ blind loyalty was also a product of genetic pre-programming.
So, I think if a re-imaging were to happen, I think those things should be emphasized. He should be charming and seductive with a deviant, duplicitous coyness. He should be able to use people’s own words against them to surreptitiously bend those to his will. He should be a wordsmith able to communicate succinctly and decisively without having to always borrow from others.
He should always be five steps ahead of everyone. He should be meticulous and methodical with an obsessive necessity to assert is own brand of order, that ironically, brings chaos to the cosmos.
For better or worse, Ledger’s Joker raised the bar for that type of villain. Certainly, at the core the two are quite different, but their will to impose their own “plan” and order is obviously similar.
I also think the whole Superman bodybuilder bit should be left out. I think it would be better served to have him frail and weak. He was, after all, one of the first of his kind; mistakes were bound to happen. He was bread to conquer and lead: convince people to turn their plowshares into swords … not to wield them.
As far as Andrews, I don’t watch Lost so my exposure to him is limited to his smaller film roles. But I suppose he does fit the above description. He’s obviously very handsome and sensual and has the right body-type. And, from what I’ve seen of him, seems to be a fairly talented actor. Though I personally had Sendhil Ramamurthy in mind.
Heath Ledger's Joker was a plot device character. I mean seriously how the heck can someone in a realism based movie be that omniscient over how things will happen?
A much better example of a guy who plans like that but does it in a way that's believable is Norman Osborn from the Spectacular Spiderman cartoon. Greg Weisman knows how to write manipulative villains like no other.
A much better example of a guy who plans like that but does it in a way that's believable is Norman Osborn from the Spectacular Spiderman cartoon. Greg Weisman knows how to write manipulative villains like no other.
Or for an example more familiar to the local readership, how about Moriarty from “Elementary, Dear Data” and “Ship in a Bottle”?
Anybody here remember the sitcom “It’s Your Move” with Jason Bateman?
Dukat is definitely a better villain that Khan. Better developed character, a clear character arc (I'm one of those that liked S7 Dukat, for the most part... the whole "redeemed anti-hero" thing was always a mask that depended on other people - ie his daughter - supporting it), and brilliantly acted. It also helps that he had seven years rather than one episode and one movie.
Weyoun? Ehh... that one's a push at best, but I'm inclined to give it to Khan. Weyoun's problem when trying to claim the "better villain" role is that he's a toadie through and through, it's the very nature of his character. Extremely well acted, interestingly explored, but not a better villain.
Khan suffers because he has so relatively little screentime and, as others have said, is used as a foil for Kirk/Spock, not a character in his own right. It also hurts him that some of the setup for his movie is... questionable at best - why did Starfleet not check in, how did Reliant (especially Chekov) not know where they were, why in God's name can Starfleet officers not count how many planets are in a system? But Montalban carries the movie very well and is an extremely memorable villain; he's a better villain than Weyoun because he's menacing, charismatic, and nuts. Space Seed actually is a better look at Khan as a character (such as he is).
Weyoun? Ehh... that one's a push at best, but I'm inclined to give it to Khan. Weyoun's problem when trying to claim the "better villain" role is that he's a toadie through and through, it's the very nature of his character. Extremely well acted, interestingly explored, but not a better villain.
Khan suffers because he has so relatively little screentime and, as others have said, is used as a foil for Kirk/Spock, not a character in his own right. It also hurts him that some of the setup for his movie is... questionable at best - why did Starfleet not check in, how did Reliant (especially Chekov) not know where they were, why in God's name can Starfleet officers not count how many planets are in a system? But Montalban carries the movie very well and is an extremely memorable villain; he's a better villain than Weyoun because he's menacing, charismatic, and nuts. Space Seed actually is a better look at Khan as a character (such as he is).
