Originally Posted by kevin
IMO, Khan made a great villain because although he had a sob story of his own, he didn't dwell on it. He was simply crazy from that isolation and took sheer delight in destroying as much as he could. He was bad, and he was unrepentant.
He had no Grand Plan, just took what opportunity presented to him.
Even when your task is impossible it doesn't discourage the villian.
Ultimately how a villian handles himself against the Hero is the ultimate critera
Originally Posted by StarTrekXIfan
these are all fair points, however I would question comparing Star Trek villains whether they be Khan or Nero to Hitler; Hitler was not just the villain in some story, he was a dictator of a Fascist regime, who committed genocide and filled peoples minds with xenophobic and racist beliefs, who plunged Europe and subsequently the world into another world war.
I guess the debate does boil down to criteria but if you are arguing Nero had no depth as a villain, despite his accomplishments, then I would probably suggest you think about the fact that he was an intensely patriotic Romulan who wanted to alter History for the sake of his world's future prosperity, he knew he could never return to his time or bring back his wife again, so he decided to do his best to change history for sake of his future wife and people.
However I wasn't aware we were debating to win an argument, I just enjoy discussing the film and sharing different viewpoints, if you think what I've had to say in Nero's 'defence' as a strong villain is weak that's fine, I don't really have anything else to say on the subject.
Consider this aswell.
Nero destroyed the planet that would help Romulus 300 some odd years later by a supernova. 300 years from now what's to stop Romulus from being destroyed? The institute that would create that ship doesn't exist anymore.
His family will likely die again.
Instead of giving the vulcans the knowledge to do the job right he kills him and only chance to do the job right.