Do we need a villian every single time ? I like complex plots told in simple ways. Villians are just easier for little kids to grasp on to than mysterious ideas (not convoluded ideas) but that is seriously underestimating kids these days whose minds can grasp complex ideas but ones that are told in a meaningful metaphysical way i.e. they can identify with the plot. The action speaks to them. Villians are for james Bond and Star Wars, not Star Trek well not exculsively evil villians but villians who believe they are justified or who have no choice. conflicted villians. But a conflict that resonates with the times or some metaphysical truism about the human condition. Evil to me is not an absolute truism.
Plot
- Thread starter xortex
- Start date
C
cynical dreamer
Guest
Technically you could call V'Ger a villain. Or the probe in TVH.
Drama is built on conflict. That tends to eb accomplished easier with a central villain. I see what you're getting at and I agree in so much that a mustache twirling central villain isn't absolutely necessary. But there has to be some sort of threat, otherwise it's just people in jumpsuits staring at viewscreens with the Keanu Reeves "woah" look on their faces in silence.
Drama is built on conflict. That tends to eb accomplished easier with a central villain. I see what you're getting at and I agree in so much that a mustache twirling central villain isn't absolutely necessary. But there has to be some sort of threat, otherwise it's just people in jumpsuits staring at viewscreens with the Keanu Reeves "woah" look on their faces in silence.
The threat could be the idea itself. Life is full of inherent conflicts. They're not all necessarily evil, just different. Look, I'm not a sci-fi expert or literary person, I'm a freakin musician.
Was Sybok really villian? I guess it depends on how you look at it.
I'd say V'Ger was more a threat than a villain. Same for the probe in TVH. After all both were just looking for communication, and had different values about what was important to preserve and destroy, and neither was defeated or killed in the end. It's one of the things that makes Trek different.
But you do have to have a threat. Trek is epic, and epic requires that the heroes face the possibility of death, or destruction of all that is important to them.
But you do have to have a threat. Trek is epic, and epic requires that the heroes face the possibility of death, or destruction of all that is important to them.
Maybe I should confine it to a self serving villian.
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
The original poster has a good point.
Bond movies ( well the late Connery ones and most of the Moores) and Trek movies like Insurrection and Nemesis, have that thing where the last 20 minutes of the movie is about the heroes running around the bad guy's facility while some timer counts down and a lot of punching and a spectacular (in the sense of being extreme, like blowing up) death for the bad guy.
I really hope the new movie doesn't waste time with that. Of course we need excitement, but a cookie-cutter ending like that just gives you a 20 minute head start on getting out of the parking lot first.
Bond movies ( well the late Connery ones and most of the Moores) and Trek movies like Insurrection and Nemesis, have that thing where the last 20 minutes of the movie is about the heroes running around the bad guy's facility while some timer counts down and a lot of punching and a spectacular (in the sense of being extreme, like blowing up) death for the bad guy.
I really hope the new movie doesn't waste time with that. Of course we need excitement, but a cookie-cutter ending like that just gives you a 20 minute head start on getting out of the parking lot first.
We need an antagonist every time. Without some sort of antagonist, there is no story.
But an antagonist is not always a "villain." Is that what you mean?
Sure, the Borg are a great example. They are not self-serving because they have no "self." They have an ideal they strive to achieve and they don't seem to have an option about trying to achieve it. Yet they are a great antagonist because they are a substantial threat.
Just don't blow the whole thing by imposing a Borg Queen on the story.
But an antagonist is not always a "villain." Is that what you mean?
Now you're narrowing things down even further. Many of the greatest fictional and real-life villains are not self-serving. You can be completely motivated by ideals and still be completely villanous. Example: Adolph Hitler.
Sure, the Borg are a great example. They are not self-serving because they have no "self." They have an ideal they strive to achieve and they don't seem to have an option about trying to achieve it. Yet they are a great antagonist because they are a substantial threat.
Just don't blow the whole thing by imposing a Borg Queen on the story.
Well the borg queen is out for herself, isn't she. She is not conflicted in any meaningful way. Yes, Hitler is a better antagonist, of course he didn't think he was a villian. His ideals for Germany were evil. He wasn't really out for himself.
How about the Romulan Empress in all her glory?
You know... black widow/cat woman/cleopatra/masaka/borg queen, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtC-xvmFJI
You know... black widow/cat woman/cleopatra/masaka/borg queen, etc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOtC-xvmFJI
Nardpuncher
Rear Admiral
I'm surprised nobody really wants to discuss this. This thread's been stagnant for 2 days.
I agree that not every Star Trek movie needs a traditional bad guy. Who was the villain in "City...?" Great episode. I also wish not every movie involved saving the planet Earth. One thing I liked about "ST: Insurrections" was that it brought the Star Trek plots back down to smale scale but still important concepts.
I don't think you NEED a villain, but that's just the way movies seem to go these days - there has to be a bad guy and he has to die at the end. Perhaps you could make a Star Trek disaster movie of some kind, but there needs to be something to battle/overcome. From what little we know, I can't help feeling that Nero might have been shoehorned in as the "token bad guy" - I hope I'm wrong.
There have been a good number of Trek episodes with no obvious "bad guy," but how many would scale up to a movie?
(As an aside, did anyone see Redeye, the movie with Cillian Murphy? The bad guy didn't die at the end of that movie, and I found it quite jarring - not in a bad way, but being used to seeing the baddie getting his comeuppance it was unexpected).
I agree, INS felt much smaller-scale than other Trek movies, but it dealt with some important issues. Battling with principals, or the establishment, can make an effective conflict.
There have been a good number of Trek episodes with no obvious "bad guy," but how many would scale up to a movie?
(As an aside, did anyone see Redeye, the movie with Cillian Murphy? The bad guy didn't die at the end of that movie, and I found it quite jarring - not in a bad way, but being used to seeing the baddie getting his comeuppance it was unexpected).
I agree, INS felt much smaller-scale than other Trek movies, but it dealt with some important issues. Battling with principals, or the establishment, can make an effective conflict.
The funny thing the most popular of all the Star Trek movies, The Voyage Home, had no villian and less of a present threat than any of the other films. Trek has always done well with the other great form of heroic fiction - the quest story. But I think the action-adventure genre (which in film has long since swallowed up space opera) has forgotten the quest story exists.
As others have said here, it depends on the definition of "villain".
We don't know much about the character, but based on the bits of info that have surfaced, it would seem that Nero is an opportunist who pursues his goal to eradicate history for his own reasons. True, his machinations may appear, on the surface, to be for the good of the Romulan Empire, but somehow I think he's looking for some glory of his own. After all, don't you think the Romulan government would be quick to practically deify the one who was able to rid them of the scourge that was James T. Kirk and the crew of the starship Enterprise?
Personally, I think the more fearful villain is the one whose motives aren't easily understood and whose methods aren't easily visible. After all, who would you be more fearful of: the brash megalomaniac boldly telling of his plan to rule the world, or the cold, ominously silent, calculating monster of a man who has no intention of telling you what he wants and how he's going to get it?
More to the point, wouldn't one villain, or even a small group of evildoers, be less inspiring of dread than a vast, ominous movement with its tendrils so deep in every aspect of society that it's literally everywhere you go?
There's a line from the trailer for Quantum of Solace, spoken by Mr. White, that I absolutely love, because it takes the scope beyond the one-man villain and makes it something much more threatening and malevolent:
"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere."
If it turned out that Nero was just one cog in this dangerous and deadly machine that was operating to tear apart the Federation in any way possible, it would make for one hell of a compelling enemy.
We don't know much about the character, but based on the bits of info that have surfaced, it would seem that Nero is an opportunist who pursues his goal to eradicate history for his own reasons. True, his machinations may appear, on the surface, to be for the good of the Romulan Empire, but somehow I think he's looking for some glory of his own. After all, don't you think the Romulan government would be quick to practically deify the one who was able to rid them of the scourge that was James T. Kirk and the crew of the starship Enterprise?
Personally, I think the more fearful villain is the one whose motives aren't easily understood and whose methods aren't easily visible. After all, who would you be more fearful of: the brash megalomaniac boldly telling of his plan to rule the world, or the cold, ominously silent, calculating monster of a man who has no intention of telling you what he wants and how he's going to get it?
More to the point, wouldn't one villain, or even a small group of evildoers, be less inspiring of dread than a vast, ominous movement with its tendrils so deep in every aspect of society that it's literally everywhere you go?
There's a line from the trailer for Quantum of Solace, spoken by Mr. White, that I absolutely love, because it takes the scope beyond the one-man villain and makes it something much more threatening and malevolent:
"The first thing you should know about us is that we have people everywhere."
If it turned out that Nero was just one cog in this dangerous and deadly machine that was operating to tear apart the Federation in any way possible, it would make for one hell of a compelling enemy.
I don't think it's a "Villain", so much as a Protagonist.
A challenge to our heroes, to test them.
It's a problem to solve, one with high stakes, and something that may be time dependent.
- Mysterious cloud heading to earth, destroying all in it's path.
- Superhuman tyrant wanting revenge for being marooned for 15 years.
- Warmonger wanting to attain an incredibly dangerous technology for power.
- Mysterious probe sending destructive signals, waiting for a reply that will never come.
A Threat of some kind is needed. There is no hero without a problem to solve.
I think the reason that there are so many villains as antagonists in the Star Trek movies is that a good, interesting villain is often the most compelling and accessible way to challenge the main cast.
Telling an origin story without the protagonist becomes a boring experience.
They get to gether. They shake hands. They have a few arguments. The become a crew.
By having a protagonist, aka Khan or Nero, there is an energy added to the story, the possibility of failure, and an emotional punch to eventual success. They have overcome something or someone, and that is far more satisfying in a story than "they got together".
A challenge to our heroes, to test them.
It's a problem to solve, one with high stakes, and something that may be time dependent.
- Mysterious cloud heading to earth, destroying all in it's path.
- Superhuman tyrant wanting revenge for being marooned for 15 years.
- Warmonger wanting to attain an incredibly dangerous technology for power.
- Mysterious probe sending destructive signals, waiting for a reply that will never come.
A Threat of some kind is needed. There is no hero without a problem to solve.
I think the reason that there are so many villains as antagonists in the Star Trek movies is that a good, interesting villain is often the most compelling and accessible way to challenge the main cast.
Telling an origin story without the protagonist becomes a boring experience.
They get to gether. They shake hands. They have a few arguments. The become a crew.
By having a protagonist, aka Khan or Nero, there is an energy added to the story, the possibility of failure, and an emotional punch to eventual success. They have overcome something or someone, and that is far more satisfying in a story than "they got together".
It would also open the door to one or more sequels that relate directly to the this movie.
Nothing that can be addressed, but a little curveball like that before Nero is defeated, perhaps "There are more of us than you know. This will not be forgotten." for instance.
Something to make the audience go "U-oh" ... and start anticipating a sequel.
Sort of like a temporal cold war with a future guy....AAAAAAAAARGH!
Huh? Earth was being destroyed by the probe looking for humpback whales! What more threat can there be?
Similar threads
