Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/action?

[Cadet49]

Nero was a great villain in the last film, because we could sympathize with him. The conflict with him was a great way to introduce the new crew, which is why I think it might be great if the next film focus on a new aspect of danger, driven by the idea of exploring space, unknown planets, life forms, etc.

I think Trek, at its best, was always when the danger came from the unknown of something they had discovered in space that threatened the ship or life on a planet, but it wasn't necessarily a villain (e.g. - the "Whale Probe" in Star Trek IV) or the Gorn in "Arena", or the Horta in "Devil in the Dark", or even Sybok from Star Trek V - entities that put our crew in danger, but aren't necessarily "evil", and lead to an opportunity to reflect on the human condition. There is still lots of potential for action and suspense, as we saw in the two episodes I mentioned, but we didn't have the classic villain.

In superhero movies, for example, every movie includes a new "bad guy" to face off with the superhero, but it can become a bit grating on the audience, in my opinion, after a series of films.

I want to see what this crew can do as explorers, not just as military out there trying to defeat "bad guys piloting superweapons", as we seem to have seen in the past several Star Trek movies. The exploration element, and the optimism of TOS and TNG, is something that I feel always Trek something very different from other Sci-Fi films - even Star Trek III had an exploration element to it, with the Grisson exploring the Genesis planet, and the mystery of Spock's katra.

I'm sure the film will be great, if they keep the same creative team! They really seem to want to keep the nature of what Trek was, but add some new excitement to it, which is great!

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

I am curious as to whether Suraks Katra escaped Vulcan's demise...

I recall Orci/Kurtzman mentioning something about exploring a story wherein "space itself" could have a 'villainous' nature. If they followed up on that or not with the new story I don't know but it could be the change-up needed to keep it interesting.

Perhaps those ungodly Hugh Bussard Collectors are destroying subspace and need to be refitted. *hope, hope*

 

[Garak]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

As long as it isn't Khan in the next movie, I'm good.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

It's going to be Khan.

In any event, two of the examples cited by the OP were villains - they were at least initially motivated antagonists to the heroes, with whom Kirk and company established some rapprochement by the end of the story.


"The Doomsday Machine" was about a weapon - undirected, but constructed by intelligences for the purpose of destroying their enemies. Whether it constitutes a villain per se or not, it definitely falls into the category of Someone We Have To Shoot Back At.

Very few TOS stories didn't feature villains or other central, motivated antagonists to drive the plot. Of those few that avoided it, some were good or great - such as "City On The Edge Of Forever" - and many were pretty lame (such as "The Immunity Syndrome").

 

[Peter the Younger]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Given their more recent comments about how "the sequel is about the villain", I expect there will be a humanoid foe of some sort. Personally, I'd like to see a human villain and a larger natural threat serving as the backdrop (I'd prefer to avoid a Giant Space Monster, if possible, but I suppose this could be done well.)

If it is Khan, they either have to avoid talking about his background, or change the timeline of the Eugenics Wars, at which point they are saying this is an alternate universe. Personally, I'd prefer the latter. Nobody outside the fanbase is going to buy the whole "alternate 1996" or "it was a secret world war" stuff; in fact, I expect Abrams would nix that as soon as it came up.

If they don't go with Khan, I'd favor a Starfleet officer gone bad or a Klingon captain.

 

[Set Harth]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Nobody outside the fanbase is going to buy the whole "alternate 1996" or "it was a secret world war" stuff; in fact, I expect Abrams would nix that as soon as it came up.

Some of us inside the fanbase don't buy it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Moving the Eugenics Wars forward would be a retcon, not an alternate timeline. TNG and First Contact already bumped WWIII from the 1990's to the 2060's. I don't think it would be too much to say WWIII is the Eugenics war, much like WWI is/was called "The Great War".

Didn't the writers say something about making "space itself" or a natural disaster the enemy in STXII a few months ago? Maybe they changed their minds. As long as they don't remake "Force of Nature", eh?

Big-budget films kinda need a villain - if for no other reason than marketing an action figure.

If they go for Khan, fine - but I want a new Khan, as different as Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger's versions of The Joker were.

(and before people cry "alternate universe" at that I remind you of Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis' dissimilar Saaviks, and Glen Corbett and James Cromwell's night-and-day Zephram Cochranes)

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

It's going to be Khan.

Dennis, glad its just not me picking up on that.

but I want a new Khan, as different as Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger's versions of The Joker were.

Considering they told the actors the first time around "to make them their own and not ape the originals actors". Chances are you'll get what you want.

They'll tackle his back story and make it make sense. Most normal none Trekkies assume from the get go that Star Trek is not "our universe" but rather a fictional landscape meant to tell stories within.

 

[BolianAuthor]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

It's not going to be Khan. It's not going to be Khan because most of the fan base think it is going to be Khan. Does anyone remember how before TUC came out, the fan boards were afire with talk that Spock would marry Valeris, just based on that one photo of them face to face? Ugh... fan rumor carries absolutely NO weight in a movie that is still in pre-production, and won't be released for over another year.

Granted, I place almost no confidence in Hollywood's ability to be in any way original, but I doubt they would be that blatantly obvious. Trust me... it will not be Khan. And if it is, I'll admit I was wrong.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Doomsday Machine/Space Amoeba type foes probably come off better in one-hour TV shows, rather than summer popcorn blockbusters, where the audience expects the central conflict to be a simple, familiar type, embodied by something that can think and talk and make big, windbaggy speeches, with the conflict resolved by a big KABOOM at the end. Nobody wants to think in the movie theater in August. That's why Star Trek needs to be back on TV. Trekkies cannot live on popcorn alone.

If it is Khan, they either have to avoid talking about his background, or change the timeline of the Eugenics Wars, at which point they are saying this is an alternate universe.

Since they're already in an AU, there's no problem. Sure, bring on Khan. If Sendhil Ramamurthy could learn to act well enough for the part (it's a pretty hammy part, not requiring great thespian skills), it would be a blast to see Mo and Sylar back in action, with the roles reversed.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Roberto Orci says that "we have a story that we like like and we just have to get cranking it out".

Orci's response to the question of putting Khan in the sequel is to say "log in, vote, speak up, we will listen."

Do the math. This is as transparent as your boss saying to you "thank you for your honesty" - that is, "this is settled and now we're being diplomatic."

...with the conflict resolved by a big KABOOM at the end. Nobody wants to think in the movie theater in August.

Oh, then a big screen version of "The Doomsday Machine" would be perfect.

That's why Star Trek needs to be back on TV. Trekkies cannot live on popcorn alone.

So much the worse for Trekkies; they'll have to adjust.

 

[Too Much Fun]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

I thought Nero was a terrible villain and after three crappy villains in a row (the three worst in the history of the film franchise as far as I'm concerned), I wish the people behind the movies would learn from those mistakes and go in a more original direction. Tom Hardy and Eric Bana gave great, intense performances, but their characters were still poorly conceived. I didn't sympathize with Nero. Just like Shinzon, I thought he was a lame Khan rip off. For me, the two worst parts of the movie were when Spock explains who Nero is and when Nero tells Pike about why he's pissed off.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Roberto Orci says that "we have a story that we like like and we just have to get cranking it out".

Orci's response to the question of putting Khan in the sequel is to say "log in, vote, speak up, we will listen."

Do the math. This is as transparent as your boss saying to you "thank you for your honesty" - that is, "this is settled and now we're being diplomatic."

...with the conflict resolved by a big KABOOM at the end. Nobody wants to think in the movie theater in August.

Oh, then a big screen version of "The Doomsday Machine" would be perfect.

That's why Star Trek needs to be back on TV. Trekkies cannot live on popcorn alone.

So much the worse for Trekkies; they'll have to adjust.

I can predict the result of that poll: An overwhelming desire to see Khan vs. Kirk on the big screen again. The results will confound this forum to no end. Orci knows this will be the result, thats why he responded as he has done so he can point to the poll later and silence the naysayers.

learn from those mistakes

I would say, Paramount & Co. would laugh at the notion of Nero being a "mistake" as he helped launch for them a blockbuster. So that notion is in and of itself a mistake.

Now Shinzon, that whole movie was mistake and the results on every level prove it. Shinzon's motives were just really confused...

 

[Jack Bauer]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

It's gonna be Khan. Deal with it.

Another hint towards that?
Producer Burk Compares ‘Trek XII’ To ‘Dark Knight’

“I can tell you as we go into it, that our aspirations are for the movie to be even bigger and better than the first one,” Star Trek XII producer Bryan Burk this week told TrekMovie.com. “I don’t mean that just in scope, I mean content and characters and emotionally. We had a lot of conversations about Batman Begins and how that movie kind of re-invented that franchise, and we looked at what The Dark Knight did and how that really ramped it up and they went to a different place with that film, and how those two films keep re-inventing themselves and are not the same thing every time. So we have strong ideas of what we want to do and we are hoping that this one is an even bigger film than the last one.”

 

[Nerd unRage]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

I hope it's not Khan. Then it would feel like they are just trying re-do the older movies. While I can appreciate the Dark Knight goal, I think going in an original direction would be better. Perhaps a new villian altogether or like some have suggested an environment of some kind that is the villian rather than flesh and blood. If the new movies are an alternate timelime/universe/whatever, then think outside the box a bit. That is one thing that I've enjoyed about watching the older movies and TOS is some of the antagonists weren't standard issue.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Now Shinzon, that whole movie was mistake and the results on every level prove it. Shinzon's motives were just really confused...

No more confused than waiting around twenty-five years to punish the only guy who was trying to help you.

The problem with Nemesis was with how tired and wore out the actors portraying the Enterprise crew were. It was the first time where the stars just felt like they were going through the motions. The film had absolutely no energy to it.

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

Now Shinzon, that whole movie was mistake and the results on every level prove it. Shinzon's motives were just really confused...

No more confused than waiting around twenty-five years to punish the only guy who was trying to help you.

Did you miss the part where Spock had not yet shown up, and he lacked his means to do such? Nero's plans all come back to the red matter - which Spock Prime had with him until she showed up 25 years later.

Its actually the perfect rationale to have your bad guy sitting around being emo, if the key to his plans has not yet arrived in the time period. Doing anything else but waiting makes no sense as it would draw none needed attention before he was ready to act.

I love how haters can't see this rather clear plot point.
Nero did not have a planet killing weapon until Spock returned to the past, moreover it was elder Spock he wanted to "punish", young Spock was an after thought when the Enterprise showed up on the scene. So why would he do anything before Spock Prime came onto the scene?

All of which is why the Klingon scenes would only have served to complicate the story rather than help make it clearer. Not needed as an explanation for what Nero was doing, he was waiting for Spock Prime who not only was his target but also had the weapon he needed to wipe out the Federation, case closed.

And at least Nero's gunning for the right targets, Shinzon didn't need to do all that space travel, the actual people he should have hated were right below him on Romulus.

The problem with Nemesis was with how tired and wore out the actors portraying the Enterprise crew were. It was the first time where the stars just felt like they were going through the motions. The film had absolutely no energy to it.

If thats how you want to excuse it. I tend to think it was the story and Stewart/Spiners need to meddle and it just being tired old Bermen style Trek. Had the actors had more interesting material I think they're more than up to snuff to act the parts. Thats just a silly excuse.

 

[BillJ]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

I love how haters can't see this rather clear plot point.
Nero did not have a planet killing weapon until Spock returned to the past, moreover it was elder Spock he wanted to "punish",

What clear plot point?

The guy wiped out forty-seven Klingon battle cruisers, Vulcan's planetary defenses and eight Federation starships in the course of a few hours with the Narada. Seems to me he already had all the firepower he needed to wreck havoc on a planetary scale.

Once again... Spock Prime was late, but according to Countdown, was the only one willing to help.

I'll never understand how people who love this movie can't seem to see the simple logic flaws throughout it.

 

[Cadet49]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

I thought Nero was a terrible villain and after three crappy villains in a row (the three worst in the history of the film franchise as far as I'm concerned), I wish the people behind the movies would learn from those mistakes and go in a more original direction. Tom Hardy and Eric Bana gave great, intense performances, but their characters were still poorly conceived. I didn't sympathize with Nero. Just like Shinzon, I thought he was a lame Khan rip off. For me, the two worst parts of the movie were when Spock explains who Nero is and when Nero tells Pike about why he's pissed off.

You're right, actually. I did like Nero as a villain, but only because I had read the Nero backstory in Countdown. If I hadn't read the comic before seeing the movie, I probably wouldn't have understood the villain's motivation!

 

[Sharr Khan]

Re: Trek villain vs "the unknown" of space to drive the suspense/actio

I love how haters can't see this rather clear plot point.
Nero did not have a planet killing weapon until Spock returned to the past, moreover it was elder Spock he wanted to "punish",

What clear plot point?

The guy wiped out forty-seven Klingon battle cruisers, Vulcan's planetary defenses and eight Federation starships in the course of a few hours with the Narada. Seems to me he already had all the firepower he needed to wreck havoc on a planetary scale.

Once again... Spock Prime was late, but according to Countdown, was the only one willing to help.

I'll never understand how people who love this movie can't seem to see the simple logic flaws throughout it.

Wiping out ships is not the same as imploding whole planets. Nero's vessels was only stronger because it was from the future. The comic does not count.