Why does Trek XII need a villain anyway..??

[Roald]

I mean, let's look at STIV The Voyage Home: it's the only film (besides perhaps TMP, and, to a certain degree, STV) without a villain, and yet it's funny, adventurous, emotional... In fact, when people don't 'get' the chemistry between the TOS crew, I recommend STIV. How many great episodes have there been without a villain..?? Why does it seem written in stone that EVERY Trek film post STII (barring the aforementioned STIV) should have this Khan-like villain..??? They rarely work...

So, I guess I'm kinda wondering what the Trek XII story could be like should it not centre around some mad villain bent on either destroying the Enterprise or Earth or the universe itself. 'Cause now, it seems to be pretty much predetermined that the film will have a plot along those lines...

 

[Devon]

Why does it seem written in stone that EVERY Trek film post STII (barring the aforementioned STIV) should have this Khan-like villain..??? They rarely work...

Well you sort of have two questions to your post. First you're asking about a Villain, and then a "Khan-like Villain." Which is your complaint against?

'Cause now, it seems to be pretty much predetermined that the film will have a plot along those lines...

By whom?!?!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I agree that a film with literally no villain - no antagonist - could work. ST IV obviously did. Of course it was played for laughs, but still. In ST XII, the crew could go up against a purely natural phenomenon - a planetary disaster, weather run amok, a supernova threatening a UFP member or colony, etc. Something that is not caused by anyone. The conflict would be against nature alone.

 

[Roald]

Why does it seem written in stone that EVERY Trek film post STII (barring the aforementioned STIV) should have this Khan-like villain..??? They rarely work...

Well you sort of have two questions to your post. First you're asking about a Villain, and then a "Khan-like Villain." Which is your complaint against?

'Cause now, it seems to be pretty much predetermined that the film will have a plot along those lines...

By whom?!?!

In Trek movies, 'villain' and 'Khan-like villain' have become synonymous, unfortunately...

Come on, everybody (and I do mean EVERYBODY) has been speculating about Trek XII's villain for almost four years now... I've never seen the question raised: maybe this film has no villain..? It is predetermined, which I think is unfortunate, cause there are SOOO many great science fiction stories imaginable without a villain in the vein of Khan... But somehow, in Trek films, there seems to be this tight, restricted mold that says there HAS to be a semi-singular, power seeking bad guy...

 

[Skywalker]

The fans are the film's villains.

 

[Roald]

The fans are the film's villains.

Yeah, sometimes it feels like that.

Hope you don't count me as one. I love Trek to death..!!!!!!!!!

 

[sonak]

this has been proposed in this forum before, and yes it's been done twice before in the movies. Still, the new series seems to be aiming more for "popcorn action movie" fare, so I'd be very surprised if the movie was about solving some kind of problem or dilemma with no actual villain involved. It'd be a pretty risky approach.

 

[Franklin]

I agree that a film with literally no villain - no antagonist - could work. ST IV obviously did. Of course it was played for laughs, but still. In ST XII, the crew could go up against a purely natural phenomenon - a planetary disaster, weather run amok, a supernova threatening a UFP member or colony, etc. Something that is not caused by anyone. The conflict would be against nature alone.

We're really talking semantics, here. Nature would be the atagonist in your example. An atagonist is merely an opponent in a story, not necessarily a "villain," and not even necessarily a person. Almost any good story needs an antagonist for the protagonist (simply put, hero) to play off of and create the main conflict that drives the story.
The probe in TVH was the antagonist. V-ger was the antagonist in TMP. There really wasn't a villain in TFF, either. Those stories didn't have the usual evil and maniacal villain who is out to take over Earth and/or kill our hero to settle some kind of score. I think some of think we had that in ST09, now let's see the conflict in STXII go in a different direction.

The antagonist in STXII could still be a person without being villainous. Think of Kor in "Errand of Mercy", the Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", or even Richard Daystrom in "The Ultimate Computer". They were great antagonists in good stories and not villains at all. I would be pleased if the STXII story went in direction like that.

 

[Greg Cox]

The antagonist in STXII could still be a person without being villainous. Think of Kor in "Errand of Mercy", the Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", or even Richard Daystrom in "The Ultimate Computer". They were great antagonists in good stories and not villains at all. I would be pleased if the STXII story went in direction like that.

Er, DS9 appearances aside, I would argue that Kor was definitely playing the villain role on TOS. Sure, he was a charming, even likeable villain, but he was conquering a defenseless planet, threatening our heroes with torture, ordering the massacre of innocent civilians, etc. He didn't actually tie Yeoman Rand to any railroad tracks, but he was clearly wearing the black hat in that episode . . .

 

[davejames]

The antagonist in STXII could still be a person without being villainous. Think of Kor in "Errand of Mercy", the Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", or even Richard Daystrom in "The Ultimate Computer". They were great antagonists in good stories and not villains at all. I would be pleased if the STXII story went in direction like that.

Yeah those were great characters who weren't these angry, bitter sociopaths hell bent on destroying everything in their path (like Shinzon or Nero were). They were just commanders from another military or vain scientists, and they happend to have a goal that was diammetrically opposed to that of Starfleet.

 

[Yevetha]

Is the upcoming vido game a tie in with the next movie?

 

[Maurice]

An antagonist does not have to be your enemy. That's another thing that Gene was careful to point out to people in his shows. Just because that person—that entity—is your antagonist, doesn't mean he is bad. It means that he has different needs than you. That's the heart of drama.

ROBERT H. JUSTMAN

This.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The antagonist in STXII could still be a person without being villainous. Think of Kor in "Errand of Mercy", the Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", or even Richard Daystrom in "The Ultimate Computer". They were great antagonists in good stories and not villains at all. I would be pleased if the STXII story went in direction like that.

Er, DS9 appearances aside, I would argue that Kor was definitely playing the villain role on TOS. Sure, he was a charming, even likeable villain, but he was conquering a defenseless planet, threatening our heroes with torture, ordering the massacre of innocent civilians, etc. He didn't actually tie Yeoman Rand to any railroad tracks, but he was clearly wearing the black hat in that episode . . .

And Daystrom was, in effect, somewhat of a villain, if only for the fact that his creation (M-5) kills an Enterprise crewman, and hundreds of others on board the Excalibur. Daystrom, as designer and protector of M-5, shares the responsibility in any destruction and deaths M-5 causes. Especially since Daystrom obviously shows no remorse over these deaths.

 

[Franklin]

An antagonist does not have to be your enemy. That's another thing that Gene was careful to point out to people in his shows. Just because that person—that entity—is your antagonist, doesn't mean he is bad. It means that he has different needs than you. That's the heart of drama.

ROBERT H. JUSTMAN

This.

Exactly. In TOS, McCoy was Spock's antagonist, sometimes. To that end, Kirk and Spock were antagonists at first in ST09.

 

[Greg Cox]

And Daystrom was, in effect, somewhat of a villain, if only for the fact that his creation (M-5) kills an Enterprise crewman, and hundreds of others on board the Excalibur. Daystrom, as designer and protector of M-5, shares the responsibility in any destruction and deaths M-5 causes. Especially since Daystrom obviously shows no remorse over these deaths.

I think Daystrom is more complicated than that. By coincidence, I watched the episode again last night and, by the end, Daystrom is overcome with guilt over the deaths, to the point that he has a nervous breakdown. "Murder is against the laws of man and God!"

Indeed, Kirk ultimately defeats the M-5 (which is modeled on Daystrom's own mind) by confronting the computer with its own guilt and remorse . . .

Daystrom comes off as more tragic than villainous.

 

[Franklin]

The antagonist in STXII could still be a person without being villainous. Think of Kor in "Errand of Mercy", the Romulan Commander in "Balance of Terror", or even Richard Daystrom in "The Ultimate Computer". They were great antagonists in good stories and not villains at all. I would be pleased if the STXII story went in direction like that.

Er, DS9 appearances aside, I would argue that Kor was definitely playing the villain role on TOS. Sure, he was a charming, even likeable villain, but he was conquering a defenseless planet, threatening our heroes with torture, ordering the massacre of innocent civilians, etc. He didn't actually tie Yeoman Rand to any railroad tracks, but he was clearly wearing the black hat in that episode . . .

I see your point. I guess I would say that at least unlike Khan or Nero or Snidely Whiplash (the type of villain the OP is opining about), Kor at least does have a moral compass (albeit a Klingon one), is a rational actor and not self-destructive (not ego-maniacal -- he would give himself up for the good of a greater cause), and is acting under orders to pursue a greater good (again, albeit a Klingon one). You could probably turn your back on Kor (sometimes). He's simply the "anti-Kirk." Maybe he's a villain to some, but then again, Kirk is a villain to the Klingons. Maybe I'm picking at nits, here, but there's more ambiguity to Kor than to call him an outright villain.