As Guinan says "Soren doesn't care about weapons or power." Unlike all of the other villains(excepting Sybok, who I can't really classify as a villain, merely egotistical and misguided), Soren is not motivated by power, greed, desire for territorial conquest, etc. I think it makes him a deeper and more sympathetic villain. One gets the feeling that he really would prefer to find another way to get back to the Nexus then the road he takes. You get a sense of how his tragic life experiences contribute to the bitter and cynical character we see on the screen. Also of course, Malcolm McDowell does a fantastic job in the role.
is soren the best trek movie villain?
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
I always thought so. He wasn't a villain per se, just someone who had a bad turn in his lift and just wanted happiness.
In so many ways, no he is not.
The "whale probe" is a better "villain" than Soren.
Sonak, you raise some interesting points about Soran, yet it's hard for me to agree fully because his goal/McGuffin was kind of strange and unfocused. If it was so impossible to get into the Nexus with just a ship, how could he have gotten into it the first time? And why not just take a few years to thrust a large asteroid into the Nexus's path instead of going through this rubegoldbergian process of blowing up stars? While his sheer, psychotic callousness in pursuit of a selfish yet almost romantic goal is interesting, it's just too big a case of overkill.
To me, the best Trek movie villain is Shinzon, because he's the only one who has a strong personal connection with the hero/captain. Khan has a personal vendetta against Kirk, true, but that's a fairly conventional hero-villain relationship, and it's undermined by the fact that we never actually see the two actors face each other directly. Kruge is a moustache-twirler without any connection or history with Kirk. Sybok has a history with Spock, and his character is pretty much the most worthwhile thing about the movie, but he's not really the film's villain, more a dupe of the ill-defined entity that's the real baddie. Chang is another Klingon warmonger, albeit a more charismatic one than Kruge. The Borg Queen does have a history with Picard, but again it's one of simple enmity, and she's really more an embodiment of a force of nature than a character. Ru'afo is just some guy with a grudge against some other guys.
But Shinzon is Jean-Luc Picard, a younger, twisted reflection of the same man. I find it intriguing to see them play off each other. There's a strong father-son vibe between them, as well as the philosophical question of whether a person's identity is predetermined by genetics or shaped by experience and choice. And although NEM is closely modeled on TWOK, it avoids that film's mistake, giving us several strong scenes between Patrick Stewart and Tom Hardy, letting them really play off one another. It's the most personal hero-villain relationship in any of the ten movies, and it's what makes the movie work for me despite its flaws.
To me, the best Trek movie villain is Shinzon, because he's the only one who has a strong personal connection with the hero/captain. Khan has a personal vendetta against Kirk, true, but that's a fairly conventional hero-villain relationship, and it's undermined by the fact that we never actually see the two actors face each other directly. Kruge is a moustache-twirler without any connection or history with Kirk. Sybok has a history with Spock, and his character is pretty much the most worthwhile thing about the movie, but he's not really the film's villain, more a dupe of the ill-defined entity that's the real baddie. Chang is another Klingon warmonger, albeit a more charismatic one than Kruge. The Borg Queen does have a history with Picard, but again it's one of simple enmity, and she's really more an embodiment of a force of nature than a character. Ru'afo is just some guy with a grudge against some other guys.
But Shinzon is Jean-Luc Picard, a younger, twisted reflection of the same man. I find it intriguing to see them play off each other. There's a strong father-son vibe between them, as well as the philosophical question of whether a person's identity is predetermined by genetics or shaped by experience and choice. And although NEM is closely modeled on TWOK, it avoids that film's mistake, giving us several strong scenes between Patrick Stewart and Tom Hardy, letting them really play off one another. It's the most personal hero-villain relationship in any of the ten movies, and it's what makes the movie work for me despite its flaws.
That was very good actually, Christopher. I had always run under the belief that Khan was the best of all baddies. Having read your explanation and breakdown of each one, I have to agree with you wholeheartedly there. It has been said in many different ways that one's worse enemy is usually one's self. Shinzon was most definitely the perfect example of that. In effect, Star Trek:Nemesis took "Man vs Himself" conflict and externalized it.
Yeah, the torture scene with Geordi seemed out of character for Soren, but I chalk it up to a cinematic concession for villainous characters. That's one of his few "mustache-twirling" moments in the film.
Christopher's right about the illogic of the problem getting into the Nexus. Since the El-Aurians got there in the first place in a ship...
I blame the screenwriters for not catching that error.
I think Shinzon had good potential as a villain, but didn't see much of Picard in him really. I think they wanted to push that angle, it just didn't work for me.
Christopher's right about the illogic of the problem getting into the Nexus. Since the El-Aurians got there in the first place in a ship...
I blame the screenwriters for not catching that error.
I think Shinzon had good potential as a villain, but didn't see much of Picard in him really. I think they wanted to push that angle, it just didn't work for me.
I always saw that as a strength of the movie. Regardless, Sowards' idea to have them face-to-face was beyond atrocious.
I agree that Shinzon had the potential to be all you saw in the role. I don't think any of that really came through in the film.
There's only one Trek Movie villain even worth consideration.
Shinzon? Not in my book. Shinzon is the least memorable movie villain to me. I think it is very difficult to compete with Montalban's performance as Khan. We had watched (and rewatched) Khan's defeat at Kirk's hands in Space Seed so many times that it gave Khan's desire for vengeance much more emotional oomph. I actually like the fact that Kirk and Khan never met face to face-it seemed more elegant and realistic to do it the way they did. It made it more of a chess game, or a proxy war, with other people and ships getting pulled into the struggle between the two men. I also suspect that had they met it would likely have degnerated into a fistfight, and that would have been a rehash of the end of Space Seed where the two of them fought it out in engineering. I do not think they could top that.
I know it is very popular to bash Nemesis, etc, etc, but I can honestly say it is the one piece of Trek, including all the series and movies, that I saw once and never wanted to see again. It just had no positive emotional impact on me. When the credits rolled the only thing I felt was a vague sense of anger at how poorly the film had turned out, and how disappointed I was that TPTB would put a film like that out under the banner of Star Trek.
I know it is very popular to bash Nemesis, etc, etc, but I can honestly say it is the one piece of Trek, including all the series and movies, that I saw once and never wanted to see again. It just had no positive emotional impact on me. When the credits rolled the only thing I felt was a vague sense of anger at how poorly the film had turned out, and how disappointed I was that TPTB would put a film like that out under the banner of Star Trek.
Last edited:
Ditto. This was Trek's Batman & Robin. I walked out of the theater wishing I'd never walked in.
Shinzon was a paper tiger--everything that Christopher describes in theory, and none of it in execution. And if having the hero and villain face-to-face means ludicrous, cringe-inducing scenes like Shinzon's prolonged dramatic reveal, in which he stood amongst the characters holding a complete conversation while his features remained obscured in shadow...I'll take TWOK's approach, thank you.
Nothing I can remember from Nemesis had anything on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m24iJ1TxmSI
I think the scene where Khan first comes on the viewscreen is just as thrilling--"You remember me. I cannot help but be touched." No, Khan has the "villain" category all sewn up just as Vejur cleans up in the "incomprehensible force" category (its only competion being the Whale Probe--boooooooo, Whale Probe!) ("Whale Probe": makes me fear for George and Gracie, if you catch my drift...)
Whale probe? Hmmm... I wonder how "I love the moon-a, I love the moon-a and the June-a and the spring-a, I love to sing-a..." translates into whalesong? 
Next to Khan, yes. Shinzon could of been a good villian, but the cloning procedures got boring and in the way.
Whale probe? Hmmm... I wonder how "I love the moon-a, I love the moon-a and the June-a and the spring-a, I love to sing-a..." translates into whalesong?
I hate South Park and still
Shinzon had potential, but Nemesis was just poorly written.
Khan is still the best villain in ST movies so far.
Khan is still the best villain in ST movies so far.
Let's see...SorAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, doesn't have the same ring as KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
Nah, doesn't have the same ring as KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!
I'm also going to nominate the director of San Francisco's Cetacean Institute circa: 1987 (Bob?). He was the villain of the worst kind. A bureaucrat, a sly one at that.
"I had the whales removed last-night to avoid the media circus."
See?
Evil
"I had the whales removed last-night to avoid the media circus."
See?
Evil