Greatest bad guys
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
A great example of this is the symbiont stealer from DS9. But I just get a kick out of Ricardo's performance evry time i think about it, sort of like F. Murrey Abraham' take on Salieri. He just embodied the part. Dukat to me was a little too nuanced. Even a great actor has to rely on a writer's conception of a piece. How about that guy who played the pirate in that TNG episode ? He always plays a bad guy and has a menacing look that we all love. He goes back to Buck Rogers which is a show that had alot of good bad guys, more I guess than any other show to pit against the lead. They were going to make that Klingon Captain Koloth from Trouble with Tribbles a continuuing nasty for Captain Kirk which I think should have went to Kor. I would have like to see them work together against something more nasty.
I'm supposed to be working here - and if I don't get down to it really soon, tomorrow is going to be ever so unpleasant 
- but I've now got Trek bad guys on my mind. And what I've finally figured out is that, for me, the best bad guys are those who actually make you feel...uncomfortable - not simply because they are so evil, but because something about them is...recognizable...familiar. Perhaps as close as your own country or town or family - or maybe even, if circumstances had been different, in the face you see in the mirror.
Dukat has that quality. So does Madred. So does Kai Winn and that admiral from "The Drumhead" - and even, to a far lesser extent, some of the TOS villains-of-the-week. But to me, Khan does not and never had that quality. He was too over the top, too much of a stereotype - there was too much moustache-twirling and not enough...humanity. It sounds to me as though the very qualities that give you "a kick," Xortex, are the very things about him that bore me. Aren't people funny?
- but I've now got Trek bad guys on my mind. And what I've finally figured out is that, for me, the best bad guys are those who actually make you feel...uncomfortable - not simply because they are so evil, but because something about them is...recognizable...familiar. Perhaps as close as your own country or town or family - or maybe even, if circumstances had been different, in the face you see in the mirror. Dukat has that quality. So does Madred. So does Kai Winn and that admiral from "The Drumhead" - and even, to a far lesser extent, some of the TOS villains-of-the-week. But to me, Khan does not and never had that quality. He was too over the top, too much of a stereotype - there was too much moustache-twirling and not enough...humanity. It sounds to me as though the very qualities that give you "a kick," Xortex, are the very things about him that bore me. Aren't people funny?
antiquityscion
Commander
my top picks:
Khan (My personal favorite)
Q (when he is a baddie,a anyway, De Lancie is awesome)
Gul Dukat (Possibly the best villain in all trek)
Weyoun (total weasel!)
Seska (even non-Fans of Voyager have to say she was a good villain)
Kai Winn (God I hated her!)
Lord Kruge (IMHO, way under-rated!)
The original Borg Queen (again, under rated!)
Kor and Kang from TOS! (In DS(, they weren't so villainous)
The Duras Sisters
Gul Madred
Trelane
Captain Tracey
Khan (My personal favorite)
Q (when he is a baddie,a anyway, De Lancie is awesome)
Gul Dukat (Possibly the best villain in all trek)
Weyoun (total weasel!)
Seska (even non-Fans of Voyager have to say she was a good villain)
Kai Winn (God I hated her!)
Lord Kruge (IMHO, way under-rated!)
The original Borg Queen (again, under rated!)
Kor and Kang from TOS! (In DS(, they weren't so villainous)
The Duras Sisters
Gul Madred
Trelane
Captain Tracey
I know you're joking, but - for trivia sake - that guy was Chris Collins (also known as Chris Latta) who did play a great villain in his time - he voiced the original Decepticon Starscream in the 1980s Transformers cartoon series!
^ Same guy, different surname. He was also in DS9's "Blood Oath" and was the original voice of Mr. Burns (and also Moe I think) in The Simpsons.
Combs was also great as one of Quark's nemesis at the bar. he just oozed conflict. The Enterprise didn't make him nasty enough. That way had they made him a regular character the arc of how he broke his mold and began to like and respect Humans would be clearer. Else he seems wishy washy and moraly nebulous. If you can't trust him whan he's bad or good, how can he be a regular crew member. The Klingons at least had a code of conduct. The writers once again didn't know what they were doing or had a clear concept and the idea of them trying to act alien is just useless.
But when you're dealing with a character in a tv show or movie, how can you discount the effect of acting and charisma? That's a big part of what makes a character memorable.
That's like saying that Marilyn Monroe is forgettable, aside from her looks, sex appeal, and comic timing . . . .
The Romulans from TOS. Particularly the ones played by Mark lenard and Joanne Linville. They were about honor. Somewhere in TNG the Klingons became the "honorable" ones and the Romulans became the "bad guys" that the Klingons were in TOS.
The Borg. Before they were wussified with the introduction of Hugh, and then the Borg Queen, and then that which was Voyager.
The Borg. Before they were wussified with the introduction of Hugh, and then the Borg Queen, and then that which was Voyager.
Your comparison to Marilyn isn't (IMO) really valid, Greg, because you're talking about the actor. But isn't the topic actually the character? I mean, that's who the bad guy is, right? The character. So how talented or charismatic or whatever the actor happens to be is only one factor that goes into creating a great character.
Marilyn was at her best when her looks, sex appeal and comic timing were showcased by the script, direction, etc. There's only so much an actor can do if he isn't given the right material to work with. As The Girl in The Seven-Year Itch, Marilyn was. In Khan - at least in the opinion of those of us who are not big fans of this character - Montalban was not. He did his best, but he wasn't given very good material. Because the character has to be the sum of all of its parts - the actor and the material he's given to work with - the greatest, most charismatic actor in the world cannot overcome second-rate material.
Last edited:
I think you've isolated the crux of the matter, Xortex: You think Montalban overcame second-rate material; I think he did his best but the material was too much for him - and in fact, too much for anybody.
I enjoyed Garak, too - but if you ask me, he also got better material than Montalban. I'm not sure he's one of my top "bad guys," though.
I enjoyed Garak, too - but if you ask me, he also got better material than Montalban. I'm not sure he's one of my top "bad guys," though.
Last edited: