The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Sequel is not about villain
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-17-2010, 04:34 AM
NCC-73515's Avatar
NCC-73515 NCC-73515 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Heidelberg, Germany
Posts: 7,229
Default Sequel is not about villain

http://trekmovie.com/2010/10/16/damo...omment-2978323

Lindelof says it doesn't matter who the villain is... I partially agree. What do you think?
__________________


"English! I thought I dreamed hearing it!"?
Khan, Space Seed (TOS)

Brought to you in living color by NCC.
-= first fan member =-

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-17-2010, 09:42 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

I like the gist of what he's saying and agree with it. I'm hoping that the writers - who've demonstrated awareness of several of the common identified issues about Star Trek even amongst those who liked and welcomed the film - can deliver without compromising the elements which also made the first film work well.

But without more script specifics, it's still early days.

But while it would be great to have a Star Trek story which didn't rely on a villain - like many TOS eps managed - certainly films work differently to TV and have a different set of requirements.

Certainly I could do without another weak villain like some of the ones we've had to put up with over the last few theatrical outings, but I need more solid info about what the story will be and that isn't coming for a while yet.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-17-2010, 07:48 PM
omegaman's Avatar
omegaman omegaman is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Penrith NSW Australia
Posts: 4,613
Default

Its always about the "villain" or rather the protagonist (in whatever form that takes).

I think there will be a villain in the next sequel, though the primary focus will be on the "team" and the spirit of Trek.

The villain will undoubtedly be Harry Mudd and the trouble he causes. I think we will be in for lots of laughs this time around. Think Star Trek the Voyage Home for a parallel.
__________________
TREK IS TREK. WHATEVER THE TIMELINE!

The next TV Series should be called STARFLEET!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-17-2010, 09:37 PM
JR585's Avatar
JR585 JR585 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Narada
Posts: 395
Default

I hope we see more Romulan boots in the sequel
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-17-2010, 11:53 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Translation: Prepare for another Nero/Shinzon/Ruafo/BorgQueen

I'm a realist on these things. They gave us crap so I'm expecting crap.
How many of ue thought there was no way they'd put out two crappy Batman movies in a row? (Batman Forever+Batman and Robin)

In alot of ways I don't see much of diference between them and the New Star Trek. It's slightly more cooler and not as corny but it was just as cliche, the villians made with same built-in self-destruct triggers. They talk a good game but I'm not hearing it. Just do it. Let your work speak for yourself.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-18-2010, 06:39 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

I don't think that the writers understand villains and their functions too well but I welcome that they seem to intend to create no or just a minor villain.
But then again ST09 was already about the family and not about the villain and Nero sucked nonetheless while in comparison Khan had a lot of screen time in TWOK yet the movie was not about him but about Kirk.

So "not about the villain" is a not per se a virtue in my book.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-18-2010, 07:52 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

It's a minor Trek movie catch 22 that they frequently can't solve properly.

Movies of the sort Trek films seek to be need villains (or to a lesser degree, a protagonist of some description) for the antagonists to face.

The biggest problem is that this is not really how TOS (and really TNG) modelled themselves. Yes, DS9 had more in terms of villains and certainly VOY went with the villain model as well. The first two shows weren't really based on those kinds of ideas, yet a film without some sort of antagonist is needed for the bigger adventure format the post TMP movies want to be.

As it happens, I personally think almost all the 'villains' in Trek suck. Though some (R'uafo) to more degrees than others. Sure Khan has an effect on Kirk - but his motivations are still bogus and whiny, and if not for Montalban's performance the iffy dialogue would have relegated him to caricature in the flick anyway - but the majority of the rest are far from perfect.

So, yeah - not about the villain is a good observation by Lindelof, if you're talking mainly about TV TOS Trek - but this ain't a TV show, so it's a question of crafting a decent flick that does have one of some description for the crew to respond to, in whatever way.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-18-2010, 09:17 AM
samwiseb samwiseb is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,208
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
As it happens, I personally think almost all the 'villains' in Trek suck. Though some (R'uafo) to more degrees than others. Sure Khan has an effect on Kirk - but his motivations are still bogus and whiny, and if not for Montalban's performance the iffy dialogue would have relegated him to caricature in the flick anyway - but the majority of the rest are far from perfect.

So, yeah - not about the villain is a good observation by Lindelof, if you're talking mainly about TV TOS Trek - but this ain't a TV show, so it's a question of crafting a decent flick that does have one of some description for the crew to respond to, in whatever way.
I don't think STII really 'needed' Khan, as most of the movie's core themes didn't concern him anyway. I know Bennett felt inspired to produce a sequel to 'Space Seed', but I don't think STII is that sequel. It just happens to use that encounter to push the more central themes (friendship, mortality, sacrifice) into play. But the villain could just as well have been anybody. I also agree though that you could hardly go wrong with Ricardo Montalban.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain the new film will have a villain for the reasons you mentioned, this being film and all. I'm also confident the people involved will have a greater sense of what the movie needs than most of us do, having already proven they aren't so close to ST that they can't re-visualize it in more cinematic terms (something I think very few of the prior films managed to even partially achieve).
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-18-2010, 09:44 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kevin View Post
As it happens, I personally think almost all the 'villains' in Trek suck. Though some (R'uafo) to more degrees than others. Sure Khan has an effect on Kirk - but his motivations are still bogus and whiny, and if not for Montalban's performance the iffy dialogue would have relegated him to caricature in the flick anyway - but the majority of the rest are far from perfect.

So, yeah - not about the villain is a good observation by Lindelof, if you're talking mainly about TV TOS Trek - but this ain't a TV show, so it's a question of crafting a decent flick that does have one of some description for the crew to respond to, in whatever way.
I gotta disagree with you about Khan. Of course he isn't justified to go after Kirk and of course Kirk didn't have responsibility for their well-being but we can understand why he blames Kirk. In fact the largest part of Khan's dialogue (i.e. I disagree also with the general opinion that Khan's lines are bad and that only Montalban's performance saved it, his lines were fine) is about revealing how he ticks.
His two pathetic copies on the other hand don't make sense. You can think about it and come up with potential motivations but the dialogue and acting doesn't reflect any.

I also don't agree with the broad stroke that all villains in Trek suck. There are better and worse ones but they rarely have that much of an impact upon the respective movie. A Chang doesn't make TUC terrific and a Kruge doesn't draw TSFS down. Soran is great and Nero is pathetic yet GEN doesn't rock and ST09 doesn't suck.


Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
I don't think STII really 'needed' Khan, as most of the movie's core themes didn't concern him anyway. I know Bennett felt inspired to produce a sequel to 'Space Seed', but I don't think STII is that sequel. It just happens to use that encounter to push the more central themes (friendship, mortality, sacrifice) into play. But the villain could just as well have been anybody. I also agree though that you could hardly go wrong with Ricardo Montalban.
I agree, he merely triggers some things in Kirk.
Kirk has to deal with an unsolved issue from the past which reminds him directly that his easy and untroubled command style doesn't work anymore (i.e. he should have executed or imprisoned Khan years ago) and indirectly via the death crewmembers after the "I don't care about regulations, don't raise shields" scene.

Last edited by horatio : 10-18-2010 at 09:52 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-18-2010, 10:53 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by samwiseb View Post
Anyway, I'm fairly certain the new film will have a villain for the reasons you mentioned, this being film and all. I'm also confident the people involved will have a greater sense of what the movie needs than most of us do, having already proven they aren't so close to ST that they can't re-visualize it in more cinematic terms (something I think very few of the prior films managed to even partially achieve).
Yeah, much as I thoroughly enjoyed the first film though, I'm not going to assume that I'll love the sequel - there are too many variables until I see the thing and that's a bit away yet.

But............I'll remain optimistic about things until I have sufficient evidence to decide otherwise for myself.
__________________
'If the Apocalypse starts, beep me!' - Buffy Summers
'The sky's the limit.....' Jean-Luc Picard, 'All Good Things'


courtesy of Saquist
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:51 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.