Agreed! If you have to have a "villain", make it a V'Ger/Whale Probe type scenario. Otherwise, just don't do it!
The "Villain wants revenge" trope has been going on for far too long now. Let it end.
Noah Hawley Movie Seems Dead
- Thread starter KepperC
- Start date
- Status
Agreed! If you have to have a "villain", make it a V'Ger/Whale Probe type scenario. Otherwise, just don't do it!
The "Villain wants revenge" trope has been going on for far too long now. Let it end.
I don't mind a villain as long as it isn't a revenge plot. It could simply be a Klingon who is out to expand his power and gain glory for the Empire. It could be a society's leader who is convinced they are right and will do anything to silence the crew. Or, as noted, a force of nature type of villain.
Villains are not bad, in terms of story. Just all in the execution.
Villains are not bad, in terms of story. Just all in the execution.
Technically, the Borg were not out for revenge (but Picard was), so FIRST CONTACT marks the last movie to not deal with some sort of vengeful villain. Barring vengeance altogether, I think maybe Star Trek V was the last movie where no one was trying to get revenge for something, depending on if you count Soran from Generations or Kirk and/or the assassins from Star Trek VI as vengeful.
The real question is, how much vengeance are you willing to tolerate? I'm burnt out on all forms, even petty resentment, so it makes sense for the next villain to be either delusional or evil by nature, or a force of nature.
I mean, it's all in how the character is done. If revenge is the motivation for the villain is it a revenge that I can understand and sympathize with the villain's plight then I'll be along for the ride.
tl: dr-It depends on the character.
Maybe that's been the problem with the past several Star Trek films. It wasn't the vengeance factor (no pun intended) but rather the poor characterization of the villains, which we just can't find ourselves understanding OR sympathizing with, thus making them come off as fairly forgettable.
A perfect example of a revenge story done right was one I saw today, from a non-Trek film. X-Men: First Class delivered a fantastic depiction of Magneto, building him up to become a villain we looked forward to seeing grow, while providing plenty of time and investment into exploring his past and need for revenge. IMO a great Star Trek film should use that idea. Maybe do a Gary Mitchell story involving his slow descent into madness as a result of mutating into a godlike entity?
Other than Krall I was identfying with the last several villains.
Yeah, but there is a difference between understanding the villain's motivations, and feeling for the villain. I can't remember the last Star Trek villain I cared anything about, not even villains like Nero or Soran who were just normal people driven to do horrible things. The execution is lacking when it comes to making a sympathetic villain.
On a side note, I don't think any purely evil Trek villain has been very compelling, because having a mustache-twirling villain is a very anti-Star Trek statement. "Oooh, this is a BAD GUY, and we are the GOOD GUYS". We argue all the time about what makes Star Trek, Star Trek. Well for me, a fundamental ingredient in any good Star Trek story is that we have to see both sides as neither good not bad, but rather varying shades of grey. Even the Borg have redeemable aspects: Hugh and his entire arc showed how a previously depicted pure evil figure can be dissected and distilled into a much more complicated entity. No Star Trek villain worth his/her salt was completely evil.
That being said, in the movies, I have never felt the characterization of even the sympathetic villains to have been handled well. Going in order, Khan was practically programmed to be evil, Kruge was just an asshole with too much power, Sybok was hardly a villain at all but rather a misguided antihero, Chang and Valeris were terrorists at best, Soran was poorly written, the Borg Queen was cool but unnecessary, the Son'a were one-note, Shinzon was mildly threatening at best and poorly written at worst, Nero was underdeveloped, Kelvin Khan was same as his prime universe counterpart, and Krall was just dull. NONE of those characters were sympathetic, or added anything compelling to the plot in my humble opinion. They all just seemed like moving cardboard-cutout targets for our heroes to shoot down, and for us to cheer when they got shot down. Honestly, I felt more for V'Ger and the Whale Probe, which were arguably forces of nature that had no emotions whatsoever.
I know that's more than two cents, but it's just like, my opinion man.
That's funny, my friend and I have talked about this often where we are both on the same page that this is all we really want/need in a villain. The hero is the focus, and the more time used building up a "compelling" villain only takes away from what we really want, a fleshed out and amazing hero.
Our line is always "A villain is there to get punched by the hero, we don't need anything more than that." and are baffled at today's audience needing to "relate" to a villain (most villains are evil and psycho, there should be zero relating at all!)
I felt for Nero, Marcus and Khan. Didn't overly care about Soran.
That's B.S. A villain at some level is still a person. There should be some measure of understanding their position, even if it is antithetical to your or the hero.
That itself is "B.S" as you put it.
Some people are absolutely irredeemable monsters where there is zero understanding why they do what they do.
Base a character off of Edmund Kemper and if anybody says they wish they related to him, then there's something very wrong with them.
So, I cannot understand an "irredeemable monster" even if I am completely and totally opposed to them? And I said understanding because that is the point of fiction-to see a different point of view. I did not say "relate" to them. That's conflating my point. Understanding means I see where you are coming from even if I find it abhorrent.
And maybe there isn't a why but I would hope that a writer crafts a villain with some sort of why in mind. Otherwise, it's just "Kill the bad guy because he's bad!" and that's surface level at best.
As long as the rest of the story is crafted well enough, there's nothing wrong with surface level "kill him he's bad" storytelling. The best world war 2 movies work fine with "Hitler is bad, stop him." as a background to fantastic stories about our heroes.
Agree to disagree. These are stories about human beings (in theory).
And your point about Hitler is rather trivial since that history is at least superficially understood by many. Creating a villain to be a Hitler without that understanding of their history is not a convincing villain. It's just a cardboard cutout for the hero to beat up.
Worked for Star Wars: A New Hope.
There was nothing deep about Vader or the Empire at all, save "these are space nazis, enjoy the biggest blockbuster of all time".
But for sure, agree to disagree, I mostly popped in to say I know I'm the opposite of most modern views of storytelling regarding this. I don't find villains fascinating or engaging ever. To me it's about the hero. I didn't even bother to watch the recent Joker movie for this very reason.
And it can work but not all the time. Star Trek did its best to make villains understandable to a degree. Balance of Terror probably the best example of this.
And that's more my point. I shouldn't make sweeping statements of all villains. Video game villains and cartoon villains are fun. But, Star Trek, which is supposedly about exploring the human condition? I would prefer some measure of depth than just "Bad guy must die!"
And, I seem to recall Star Wars had what is considered it's best movie when the villain was discovered to be related to the hero. Something like that. It's weird, I know
And, I seem to recall Star Wars had what is considered it's best movie when the villain was discovered to be related to the hero. Something like that. It's weird, I know
Ha! Oh, I agree with that, absolutely.
At this point I'm just having fun playing devil's advocate. And I also agree with you that Trek's style of storytelling generally is about showing more regarding the antagonist.
Fair enough. It's also much easier for humans to create a villain as an other that can't be understood because then we would never do what they did because we are different.
Hawley now confirmed to be doing an Alien series
https://deadline.com/2020/12/alien-...dley-scott-in-advance-talks-to-ep-1234654111/
https://deadline.com/2020/12/alien-...dley-scott-in-advance-talks-to-ep-1234654111/
From what I read, Paramount are slowly edging in the right direction, which would be a follow up to the first three films with the same cast.
I really really really, hope that is what happens!!!!!!!!!
I really really really, hope that is what happens!!!!!!!!!
The deluge of new shows and movies Disney just announced will hopefully make Paramount announce its upcoming Trek plans in greater detail.. specifically a new movie or two
- Status
Similar threads
