Nero: Worst villain in a Star Trek movie yet?

[Darth_Pazuzu]

Well, now that I've seen the new Star Trek, I'm still feeling rather conflicted about it. While I thought it was certainly a very decent sci-fi/action/adventure film, and was for the most part highly enjoyable, there were a number of things about it which certainly gave me pause - the destruction of Vulcan, for one.

I know that I'll probably have to see this movie more than once, because I know that I'm still not completely able to evaluate the film objectively because of a certain veteran Trekkie's attachment to what's gone before. I'm definitely going to purchase the movie when it comes out on DVD!

But one of the areas in which the movie really let me down was its villain, Nero, played by Eric Bana. I mean, what the hell?! Yet another madman driven by revenge and bent on genocide and cosmic destruction?! Come on!! I mean yeah, granted, it's his dastardly deeds which provide the engine that drives the story along and creates the drama, but did he have to be made so damned generic?!

Basically, Nero is nothing more than the latest model in the Space Opera Genocidal Madman line, a line which is starting to show traces of genetic fade! He's ultimately just a poor man's Khan, Soran and Shinzon all rolled into one. I mean, say what you will about Nemesis, but at least Tom Hardy succeeded in bringing a certain depth and nuance to the character of Shinzon. Eric Bana certainly did the best acting job he could with what was on the page, but ultimately, in comparison with Shinzon, Nero's really nothing more than a petty thug with facial tattoos!

 

[The Wormhole]

Nero was horrible. I found Ru'afo more compelling, and I hate most everything about Insurrection.

 

[Kpnuts]

Sadly, whilst I didn't think Nero was that bad, it did seem like a giant waste after casting someone as good as Bana.

 

[Kelso]

Hardly. I'd put him in the top 3 or 4.


Of course, that isn't saying much.

 

[Peter the Younger]

Personally, I found Nero very effective, not because of the writing but because of Bana's performance. Tom Hardy's Shinzon is a petulant twink by comparison.

Having said this, I partially agree with you on a couple of points. Nero is, admittedly, "Khan Mk V". This shouldn't surprise us, since most Trek writers have been trying to recreate the magic of TWOK for decades now, and failing. IMO, Nero gets as close as we are going to get. Now, for God's sake, lets' be done with it. A moratorium on revenge-based villains for a period not to exceed 20 years.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I thought Nero was great.

 

[flemm]

He's pretty bad. Basically he comes across as a pale imitation of Khan. On the bright side, the Narada is awesome, both exterieur and interieur.

The premise is actually not bad: a simple miner and family man driven mad with grief and given hyper-advanced technology to exact his revenge.

Only none of this is developped on screen so he is reduced to being a moderately cool looking Romulan who hates Spock a lot.

 

[Middle Earther]

There's another thread about how Nero only has, literally, about 5-6 minutes of screentime. He also timed the scene where Picard sits down to talk with Shinzon and it, alone, was about 5 minutes long. Bana never gets a chance to do anything with the character. This is totally a director's choice.

 

[I am not Spock]

I think Nero was a Shinzon wannabe.

 

[CaptainCanada]

I wouldn't say the worst, but he's extremely perfunctory.

 

[Iasius]

Yeah, the villain in STXI was a bit of a letdown. The Countdown comic explains him a bit better, but I don't think it's sufficient either.
However the rest of the movie was mostly excellent (a bit too much lens flare ) so all in all, it was still a pretty good movie in my view.

I think next time around we need a villain that has actual valid reasons to be a villain (one whose reasons to cause trouble we can understand logically, but do not agree with, basically), not a relatively simple "I watched my homeworld get destroyed, got a bit crazy and decided to blame the Federation and Spock in particular for not helping enough."

 

[Jolantru]

Nero was an awesome bad guy to everyone except the anal cannon crowd. Bana is a better actor than most of the main cast in the other movies, let alone the bad guys.

The only ST movie baddie who is hands down better than Nero is Khan.

How can anyone say "worst yet", when there's freaking Sybok?

 

[cultcross]

I think Nero was a Shinzon wannabe.

No, Shinzon was a Nero wannabe.

 

[erebus]

you'll find more on Nero when they release the DVD according to the writers in a recent interview.

 

[Michael Chris]

No, I disagree. I think he was actually a good villain.

 

[Admiral Kird]

Bana needed more screentime. Let's hope for a lot more extra scenes on the DVD.

 

[Phily B]

I liked Nero a lot, he wasn't some military general either, he was just a guy driven mad by seeing everything he held dear destroyed before his very eyes.

 

[flemm]

Nero was an awesome bad guy to everyone except the anal cannon crowd. Bana is a better actor than most of the main cast in the other movies, let alone the bad guys.

As far as I can tell, Nero has little or nothing to do with past "canon."

The only ST movie baddie who is hands down better than Nero is Khan.

How can anyone say "worst yet", when there's freaking Sybok?

"Worst" is definitely a stretch, but I would say he is back there in the pack of mediocre Trek movie villains, with Khan and the Borg/Borg Queen being the obvious frontrunners.

If you're a fan and have read the backstory he improves a bit, but what we are given during the feature itself is very, very thin.

 

[USS Gettysburg]

He was exactly what he needed to be: A threat to get together the TOS crew. Nothing more, nothing less. He did that job well, thus a good movie.

 

[Gojira]

I don't think this movie was a typical good guy vs, bad villain Star Trek movie. This movie really was about the development of Kirk and Spock and Nero was simply a catalyst and not the main focus like other villains have been.