Dukat and Weyoun are better villains than Khan

[Navaros]

I disagree with the sentiments of many posters here that Weyoun is uninteresting simply because he is loyal to the Founders. How is that different than every other character being loyal the the Federation?

Weyoun expertly conveyed a huge range of emotions throughout the series. Often several different ones in a two minute scene. Weyoun shows more versatility in the one scene talking to Sisko aboard DS9 in the Call to Arms episode (the scene where he talks of starving Cardassian children, and also gets PO'ed [You will not allow?!] at the Sisko, and then becomes gentle again etc.) than Khan showed in the entirety of Space Seed + WoK combined. Weyoun puts into action, visually and with his voice, all the diplomatic and persuasion skills that Khan is said to have yet never shows any scintilla of actually having.

Not to mention Weyoun's interest in learning to understand art, the ability to appreciate the different textures of food, ambitions to take control of earth, and all the empires he's conquered with his tongue instead of the sword, which is what a truly wise conqueror does.

 

[Thestral]

I disagree with the sentiments of many posters here that Weyoun is uninteresting simply because he is loyal to the Founders. How is that different than every other character being loyal the the Federation?

Weyoun expertly conveyed a huge range of emotions throughout the series. Often several different ones in a two minute scene. Weyoun shows more versatility in the one scene talking to Sisko aboard DS9 in the Call to Arms episode (the scene where he talks of starving Cardassian children, and also gets PO'ed [You will not allow?!] at the Sisko, and then becomes gentle again etc.) than Khan showed in the entirety of Space Seed + WoK combined. Weyoun puts into action, visually and with his voice, all the diplomatic and persuasion skills that Khan is said to have yet never shows any scintilla of actually having.

Not to mention Weyoun's interest in learning to understand art, the ability to appreciate the different textures of food, ambitions to take control of earth, and all the empires he's conquered with his tongue instead of the sword, which is what a truly wise conqueror does.

The assertion was that Weyoun is a better villain than Khan. Often better written, better developed, far more explored, a nice protagonist the one time, all this is true. It helps, of course, to have so many more episodes.

Not, however, a better villain, and certainly not better acted (probably equally acted, yes). He's not just loyal to the Founders, he's literally a puppet of them, and programmed to obedience. Weyoun's loyalty is different from the heroes' loyalty to the Federation because the Federats have choice where Weyoun does not. A masterful villainous sidekick, an expert toady. Weyoun is the modern Wormtongue, or perhaps Mouth of Sauron, and should be applauded as such, but he plays second fiddle to Khan (or Dukat, or later-Damar). And really, how smart can he be when the entire Seventh Season has Weyoun further and further alienating Damar, especially in the Final Chapter.

 

[DevilEyes]

Khan is overrated as a villain. Dukat is certainly much, much better - and not just is he more complex, deeper and a lot more rounded character (yes, I know he had many episodes...) but I also find him much more charismatic. Khan did have a great presence, but he was not really charming. Strangely enough, even though there was no doubt about Dukat's narcissism and his crimes, he always managed to be somehow likeable... It's funny that Dukat turned out to be so magnetic and sexy, which the creators of the show did not anticipate or intend, much more than Khan, who was always supposed to be all that.

Montelban's Khan was too corny to really take seriously, but recast the role with Naveen Andrews and we might be talkin'...

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.

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 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.

Sendhil Ramamurthy is totally wrong for Khan. I admit I have only seen him on Heroes so I don't know if it's showcases his talents the best, since the writing for his character is quite lame, but some other actors on that show have had to deal with the same problem and have done much better with it. Ramamurthy is handsome and has a lovely voice, but he lacks charisma, presence and the menacing quality needed for Khan. I don't know how much of it is due to their characters' lameness, but he and Milo Ventimiglia both come off as handsome and nice but bland in their roles of "idiot heroes" and always get completely overshadowed by Zachary Quinto.

Naveen Andrews, on the other hand, based on his role on Lost, would really be a perfect choice for Khan, if they actually decide to bring Khan back, which I don't think they should. He could really convincingly play all that Khan was supposed to be, but never really shown to be: smart, charming, manipulative, smooth-talking but still deadly, and able to appear reasonable even if he is actually insane. I could imagine him seducing women, scheming and manipulating people, and inspiring confidence in his people.