I dunno.
I class someone who destroyed stars and whole civilizations -- just for his own happiness -- pretty much a villain. A selfish, amoral, villain.
Tony
is soren the best trek movie villain?
- Thread starter sonak
- Start date
I dunno.
I class someone who destroyed stars and whole civilizations -- just for his own happiness -- pretty much a villain. A selfish, amoral, villain.
Tony
Yes, he could. At the end of Generations, Kirk found a way to stop the aging process completely!
But seriously -- Kirk was roughly 60 years old and in very good health for that age when he died. He was still very fit and athletic, as physically capable as a typical man 20 years younger. Heck, by 23rd-century standards, 60 is probably midlife-crisis age. Aside from a little blurred vision and gained weight, Kirk never "grew old" at all -- he never got the chance. He died while he was still strong, active, and able to make a difference. That's how he would've wanted it.
I can agree with that.
Which is pretty rare for villains, really. I mean, many villains do that sort of stuff for some sort of tangible personal gain. Control of the universe, say, or obtaining of immense wealth. But Soran did it because he cared for his family.
That made a sort of horrible sense. By trying to reverse what the Borg had done, Soran became at least as bad as the Borg, and probably felt justified in doing so. He had a yardstick to go by in defining his morals - it's just too bad that the stick was labeled "Collective"...
Timo Saloniemi
Yes, he could. At the end of Generations, Kirk found a way to stop the aging process completely!
In which case he owes Soran a debt of gratitude. He wasn't a villain at all!
I thought so. Malcom McDowell has always played good "bad guy" roles. I liked him in the remake of Fantasy Island, but that series didn't last. Too bad, it was better then the original. I also saw him in a movie called The Void, which he played an "evil" scientist kind of character.
The fact that Khan and Kirk don't meet in person is what ELEVATES ST II. The movie is about more than two old men (or women) fighting on scaffolding, a device used in every TNG movie. I will not even dignify the idea of Nemesis having the 'best villian' far from it.
I would say Khan and the Whale Probe win, trek fans love Khan, the casual fan knows him (KHHHHHAAAAAANNNNNNN!), and they also loved and remember 'The One With The Whales'. Those clearly caught the zeitgeist and win in my book.
I would say Khan and the Whale Probe win, trek fans love Khan, the casual fan knows him (KHHHHHAAAAAANNNNNNN!), and they also loved and remember 'The One With The Whales'. Those clearly caught the zeitgeist and win in my book.
Absolutely!
If you read earlier drafts of ST II, in which there was an attempt to shoehorn in scenes where Kirk and Khan meet in the flesh, without exception the scenes don't work, and are clearly just there to have some sort of physical confrontation. The final version is far more satisfying dramatically than anything that Soran does in Generations (at least in my opinion).
He was desperate to get back to the nexis and his family. That obsession made him do things he would not normally do. For that reason, I'm glad they cut the Geordi torture scene out of the movie. I don't think he had any joy at all in the things he was doing. He just wanted to get back to where he was.
Kahn, on the other hand, took complete joy in thinking he was going to kill Kirk. He would have killed just to get command of the Enterprise in Space Seed. He had evil in him, and was a true villain. There is no doubt he was the most evil villian in the trek movies.
As far as Kruge is concerned, I think Chang would be ahead of him. But that's the way many Klingons were...ruthless warriors. When you get a human like that, it's more effective.
Kahn, on the other hand, took complete joy in thinking he was going to kill Kirk. He would have killed just to get command of the Enterprise in Space Seed. He had evil in him, and was a true villain. There is no doubt he was the most evil villian in the trek movies.
As far as Kruge is concerned, I think Chang would be ahead of him. But that's the way many Klingons were...ruthless warriors. When you get a human like that, it's more effective.
That's a non sequitur. I couldn't care less if they fought, since it would just be stunt doubles anyway. I wanted to see William Shatner and Ricardo Montalban get to exchange dialogue face to face. Nothing beats the energy of two good actors in the same room, playing off each other, each one building on what the other gives. Two separate performances cut together just can't have the same dramatic intensity. (Of course, the ultimate is live theater, actually being in the same room with the actors and feeling their energy as it happens. A master take is the closest you can get to that in movies or TV.)
I liked the interaction of Patrick Stewart and Tom Hardy in NEM. Regardless of criticisms about the story and characters (some of which I agree with, some of which I don't), I enjoyed watching two stage-trained English actors playing off one another face-to-face. Maybe others don't think there's chemistry between those two actors, but for me, there was.
I agree that Hardy's character was at his least annoying and least wasted in the dialogue at the Senate Hall, and had a few good moments during the holo-gloating scene as well. His antics when holding Picard captive were standard cardboard villain stuff, though - and most of the lines uttered elsewhere were cringeworthy at best.
As for the Kirk/Khan thing, I guess I'm glad to trade the potential of good acting for the enjoyment of a daring dramatic choice that elevates at least one Trek movie from formulaic mediocrity. Yes, I agree it might have been glorious. It just wouldn't have been worth it.
Timo Saloniemi
As for the Kirk/Khan thing, I guess I'm glad to trade the potential of good acting for the enjoyment of a daring dramatic choice that elevates at least one Trek movie from formulaic mediocrity. Yes, I agree it might have been glorious. It just wouldn't have been worth it.
Timo Saloniemi
How was keeping Kirk and Khan on separate ships "a daring dramatic choice?" I always had the impression (based, I believe, on interviews and behind-the-scenes material I've read, though I can't swear to it) that it was more of an oversight -- that after the film was made, they suddenly realized, "Hey, we never gave these guys a scene together! Well, too late now." After all, it was filmed on a TV-like schedule and budget, so they had to make the best of what they had rather than being able to refine every element to a tee.
I also don't see how their lack of a face-to-face confrontation has any effect on whether the story is formulaic or not. If, say, Khan had beamed down to the Genesis Cave and taken the torpedo himself after a tense exchange with Kirk (assuming some reason was devised to keep him from shooting Kirk on the spot), that wouldn't have altered the story flow much. And anything would've been better than that embarrassingly melodramatic, deservedly ridiculed "KHAAAANNNN!!!"
I also don't see how their lack of a face-to-face confrontation has any effect on whether the story is formulaic or not. If, say, Khan had beamed down to the Genesis Cave and taken the torpedo himself after a tense exchange with Kirk (assuming some reason was devised to keep him from shooting Kirk on the spot), that wouldn't have altered the story flow much. And anything would've been better than that embarrassingly melodramatic, deservedly ridiculed "KHAAAANNNN!!!"
"That embarrassingly melodramatic, deservedly ridiculed "KHAAAANNNN!!! is MEMORABLE, if over the top, something you can't say about any scene between Shinzon and Picard. The movie isn't memorable and was never seen by a broad audience.
My comment about the fights on scaffolding is not a non-sequitir by the way, it's how every confrontation escalated in the last few Trek films (and a physical fight of some sort in the TOS films), and this thread is now, because you derailed it, discussing having Montalban and Shatner in a scene together. Sorry derailed may be too harsh, if you really think that the character and portrayal of Shinzon of Remus (a laughingly silly name, character concept, etc. in my opinion) is the BEST trek movie villain then good for you. I'm just surprised that any real fan of Trek thinks that, but hey, IDIC isn't just a neclace sold my Lincoln Enterprises. I will say that since I saw Nemesis, I firlmly felt that it would have been greatly improved if it had been rewritten to have Shinzon age in the second act to be portrayed by Stewart, opposite himself. Only that would have made that film more bearable for me, and the character of Shinzon any more than a footnote as the 'lame bad-guy that killed the modern Trek franchise'
The fact you can't see how their lack of face-to-face confrontation has an effect on 'if' the story is formulaic shows your knee-jerk reaction to this topic. The formula, used in ST III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X was to have the hero in a physical fight with an adversary. A lot of Trek employs this FORMULA, and I'm glad TWOK didn't.
I'm also glad that Kirk and Chang had a chance to sit and spar without a physical exchange, but their dynamic was different than Kirk vs Khan and the way it was handled in ST II really keeps it in favor with many fans.
We are all Trek fans here, it's no crime to have different favorites, and reasons for them. I love ST II and IV for the way the hero/antagonist dynamic is handled, and you prefer Nemesis. That's cool, as they say on earth, c'est la vie.
My comment about the fights on scaffolding is not a non-sequitir by the way, it's how every confrontation escalated in the last few Trek films (and a physical fight of some sort in the TOS films), and this thread is now, because you derailed it, discussing having Montalban and Shatner in a scene together. Sorry derailed may be too harsh, if you really think that the character and portrayal of Shinzon of Remus (a laughingly silly name, character concept, etc. in my opinion) is the BEST trek movie villain then good for you. I'm just surprised that any real fan of Trek thinks that, but hey, IDIC isn't just a neclace sold my Lincoln Enterprises. I will say that since I saw Nemesis, I firlmly felt that it would have been greatly improved if it had been rewritten to have Shinzon age in the second act to be portrayed by Stewart, opposite himself. Only that would have made that film more bearable for me, and the character of Shinzon any more than a footnote as the 'lame bad-guy that killed the modern Trek franchise'
The fact you can't see how their lack of face-to-face confrontation has an effect on 'if' the story is formulaic shows your knee-jerk reaction to this topic. The formula, used in ST III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X was to have the hero in a physical fight with an adversary. A lot of Trek employs this FORMULA, and I'm glad TWOK didn't.
I'm also glad that Kirk and Chang had a chance to sit and spar without a physical exchange, but their dynamic was different than Kirk vs Khan and the way it was handled in ST II really keeps it in favor with many fans.
We are all Trek fans here, it's no crime to have different favorites, and reasons for them. I love ST II and IV for the way the hero/antagonist dynamic is handled, and you prefer Nemesis. That's cool, as they say on earth, c'est la vie.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to get into a "My film is better than yours" argument, because that's silly. We're entitled to have different opinions.
But memorable or not, TWOK changed Star Trek fundamentally. It was meant to be a grounded, plausible adult drama that happened to be set in space. But TWOK turned it into an over-the-top melodrama on every level. Apparently that was the kind of movie audiences wanted to see in the post-Star Wars era, and still do, judging from what's in theaters to this day. But ST had to sacrifice a lot of realism to become "memorable" to mass moviegoing audiences.
That's an insulting and childish response. I made a statement that arose organically out of a wide-ranging and ongoing discussion of all the movie villains. You misinterpreted the intent of that comment and gave a response that was a criticism of the TNG films, which was indeed a non sequitur because it had nothing to do with my point about TWOK specifically.
Then why did you let it stand? There is a backspace key, you know. If you think a statement is too harsh, then you should delete it before posting, rather than going ahead and posting it and then offering an insincere retraction thereafter.
And again, you make a blatantly condescending and obnoxious comment and then retract it as if that somehow removes the insult. It's disgusting to even voice the arrogant thought that someone who disagrees with your opinions can't be a "real" Trek fan. You don't have to post every rude thought that pops into your head, you know. Learn to edit yourself.
You're a jerk. I'm sorry, "jerk" may have been too harsh.
MeanJoePhaser
Admiral
Best to worst Trek Villains
Khan
Chang (I accidently wrote "Change" before proof reading...
)
Kruge
"God" (I'll let Sybok off the hook this time)
Borg Queen (hate the concept, but Krige is strangely appealling)
Soren
Adhar Ru'afo (both F. Murray Abraham and McDowell were cliched villains actors by the time of their Trek appearances, and that makes them stand out less, I think.)
Shinzon
V'ger
Whale Turd Log Probe
So, Soren is in the middle.
Khan
Chang (I accidently wrote "Change" before proof reading...
)Kruge
"God" (I'll let Sybok off the hook this time)
Borg Queen (hate the concept, but Krige is strangely appealling)
Soren
Adhar Ru'afo (both F. Murray Abraham and McDowell were cliched villains actors by the time of their Trek appearances, and that makes them stand out less, I think.)
Shinzon
V'ger
Whale Turd Log Probe
So, Soren is in the middle.
Christopher, you shouldn't be so sensitive when some disagrees with you. We can disagree about who is or isn't the best bad-guy in Trek, we should just leave it at that.
Back on topic, I am very surprised that you have such a negative take on ST II and Khan's place in the pantheon of villians, it's as simple as that. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions.
I was actually hoping that the new Trek next summer wouldn't have a traditional bad-guy at all, making it more like IV, a situation that needs solving.
Back on topic, I am very surprised that you have such a negative take on ST II and Khan's place in the pantheon of villians, it's as simple as that. I enjoy reading everyone's opinions.
I was actually hoping that the new Trek next summer wouldn't have a traditional bad-guy at all, making it more like IV, a situation that needs solving.
Whether you love it or hate it, Kirk's "KHAAAAAAANNNNNNN" moment is iconic...
...or should that be, "iKHAAAAAAANNNNNNNic"...?
...or should that be, "iKHAAAAAAANNNNNNNic"...?
I agreed earlier about Soren being the best Trek movie villian, but after watching The Undiscovered Country I almost think General Chang could fall into this category.