As a member of the back fur community I take offense that anybody would comb it. We prefer it to be braided by nubile virgins

DamnYankees: Here's my question - why does there need to be a villain? Star Trek isn't about heroes v. villains. It's about exploration. Do more of that.

Stories need conflict. A villain is a simple way to generate conflict.

Is he too busy with wolfman 2?

So what is false? Is he not the villain or not in the movie at all?

Other reports are saying that he is signed on for the role. Also, Robocop just signed on as well.

cgraves67: So what is false? Is he not the villain or not in the movie at all?

By not being in the movie, he is also not the villain.

Chronology of shiat:

1) Rumored to be in movie.
2) Rumored to be Khan.
3) Rumored to be Khan proven false.
4) Rumored to be in movie proven false.
5) We are back to where we were months ago, except we now have Peter Weller who is not playing the main villain nor even determined to be a villain necessarily.

Confabulat: What a terribly written article. J.J. Abrams has already said he's trying to get Del Toro. The "not true" part was that he's playing Khan.

Sheesh people.

Unless that has been proven to be false and it was bearded Abrams who gave the quote.

DamnYankees: Here's my question - why does there need to be a villain? Star Trek isn't about heroes v. villains. It's about exploration. Do more of that.

I hear PBS and Discovery could probably help you explore the Milky Way and Black Holes. -Herman Cain

"Hand me the phaser, you cocksucker."
"In Romulan, please?"
"Excuse me?"
"In Romulan."
"Hand me the f*cking phaser, you cocksucker, what the f*ck?"

DamnYankees: Here's my question - why does there need to be a villain? Star Trek isn't about heroes v. villains. It's about exploration. Do more of that.

Stories without villains are boring. Stop being boring. You're boring everyone!

cgraves67: So what is false? Is he not the villain or not in the movie at all?

I've seen conflicting stories on all of this. Supposedly, at least yesterday anyway, Abrams responded "not true" to the idea that Del Toro was going to be Khan, not that Del Toro was in the movie. In other words, he's still in the movie, or at least being sought for the movie, but he will not be playing Khan.

/Which is fine, because really, they're setting themselves up for failure if they use Khan. They'll inevitably get compared to Star Trek 2, and it is unlikely they'll be able to top it.

Lens flare...

DamnYankees: scottydoesntknow: DamnYankees: Most of the greatest episodes of Star Trek don't involve individual villains at all.

Can you describe one or two of the greatest episodes that don't have a villain or antagonist but do have conflict? And I'm not sure why you put 'individual' as a qualifier in there, are the Borg not considered antagonists as a whole and individually?

Sure.

In the Pale Moonlight - There's no person who is the villain, it just takes place in the context of a war. You never even see the other side in the episode, IIRC.

The Inner Light - As far as I can tell there's zero antagonist in this story at all.

Yesterday's Enterprise - Again, no antagonist in the story. It just takes place during a war but you never see the enemy.

There's tons more.

From wiki - Yesterday's Enterprise

Captain Rachel Garrett of the Enterprise-C and her crew learn they have travelled into the future. Garrett explains that they were responding to a distress call from the Klingon outpost on Narendra III, and were attacked by Romulan warbirds. While the crew works to repair the Enterprise-C and tend to the crew's injuries, Picard and his command staff discuss whether or not the ship should return to the past. Riker argues that their deaths would be meaningless, but Data suggests that it would be considered an honorable act by the Klingons. Picard discusses the situation with Garrett, who tells him that her crew will serve the Federation in the present. Picard quietly reveals to her that the Federation is on the verge of defeat and the presence of one ship will make no difference, but if the Enterprise-C were to return to the past they may prevent the war from ever starting. Garrett agrees and announces to her crew that they will return through the anomaly, but at that moment, the two ships are ambushed by a Klingon Bird of Prey. Garrett is killed, and her helmsman, Richard Castillo, takes command. During the repair efforts, Yar becomes close to Castillo, but is unnerved by tense interactions with Guinan. Guinan reveals to Yar that she knows that Yar dies a meaningless death in the alternate timeline, and the two never should have met. Yar requests a transfer to the Enterprise-C based on Guinan's advice, to which Picard agrees.

My notes:

You do have the Klingon Bird of Prey as a minor antagonist. As well as the Romulans. As well as the ambiguity of the space-time continuum as a major antagonist (ignorance of Science and history can be an antagonist, not just a phycial enemy).

Next?

(Hint: A conflict doesn't arise out of nowhere, there has to be an antagonist, either physical, metaphysical, abstract, emotional, etc)

Confabulat: What a terribly written article. J.J. Abrams has already said he's trying to get Del Toro. The "not true" part was that he's playing Khan.. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN

Sheesh people.

DamnYankees: coeyagi: (ignorance of Science and history can be an antagonist, not just a phycial enemy).

Next?

(Hint: A conflict doesn't arise out of nowhere, there has to be an antagonist, either physical, metaphysical, abstract, emotional, etc)

Oh please. You know what I meant. If you are going to define antagonist this broadly, you're being intentionally obtuse because you know what I meant in my Boobies. You are in fact making my exact point.

I know what you meant, but don't act like there is the possibility of conflict without antagonism. It just.... doesn't make you seem like you know what the fark you're talking about.

How about some shadowy figures in Starfleet's Bureau of Personnel who start asking question like How farked up is it to promote somebody from Midshipman to Captain based on one mission? Why don't we just give him a medal instead?

scottydoesntknow: DamnYankees: In the Pale Moonlight - There's no person who is the villain, it just takes place in the context of a war. You never even see the other side in the episode, IIRC.

You don't need to see the antagonist in the episode to know they're there. Are they actively working against one side, or did they say "hey, we're in the middle of this galactic war, but let's go pick flower samples on Alpha Seti 9 instead"? They decided to try and get the neutral Romulans on the Federation's side to tip the balances of the war.

DamnYankees: The Inner Light - As far as I can tell there's zero antagonist in this story at all.

Picard has visions & memories of a planet that went extinct 1000 years ago BECAUSE the planet's leaders actively ignored/suppressed information on the warning signs of the sun going super-nova. Pretty sure the leaders could be considered antagonists.

DamnYankees: Yesterday's Enterprise - Again, no antagonist in the story. It just takes place during a war but you never see the enemy.

The Klingons attack them twice, and this was a time travel episode dealing with the Klingon war. If you're actively working against one side, that side is the antagonists (at least in your eyes).

War is the central theme in two of your examples, and war immediately implies you'll have heroes & villains.

The second one does come close, but you have ignorant/corrupt world leaders (obvious antagonists) and an extinction level event, which can be considered an atangonist too.

Uhhh... "City on the edge of Forever," anyone?

coeyagi: I know what you meant, but don't act like there is the possibility of conflict without antagonism. It just.... doesn't make you seem like you know what the fark you're talking about.

I think what he meant was that these movies should be less villain of the week scenarios and more...exploration, or situational conflicts, etc.

The villain of the week style movie has overtaken Star Trek on the big screen: Generations (Dr. Soran), First Contact (Borg Queen), Insurrection (whats his nuts, I don't care enough to go look), Nemesis (Picard clone), and New Trek (Nero). This happened in the TOS movies too, like in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country. However, Wrath of Khan was exceedingly well done, and Undiscovered Country was set more against the backdrop of the overall Federation-Klingon conflict. There was a bad guy, but the whole movie was not centered around just General Chang.

A return more to the unknown would be interesting. The closest they came in the movies was Star Trek 4 and Star Trek 1 (even though it was horribly done). Hell, the Borg were an excellent antagonist before the writers misunderstood the nature of the Borg and made the Borg Queen. First Contact was well made, but set a horrible precedent by putting the Borg into the villain of the week model. It was if they could not handle the nature of a true hive mind and had to put a face to it.

I think the best shot we might have at this is a revisit of "The Doomsday Machine" from TOS. Plenty of conflict, and an antagonist, but not some big name guy that the whole movie has to center around. I honestly don't think Abrams and his writing crew have the talent to pull it off though. Orci and Kurtzman just don't seem to be wired for writing smart or subtle movies.

City
On
The
Edge
Of
Forever.

No
Antogonist.

Hugo Award 1968

Wait...when did a sequel to The Wolfman get greenlighted?

perigee: scottydoesntknow: DamnYankees: In the Pale Moonlight - There's no person who is the villain, it just takes place in the context of a war. You never even see the other side in the episode, IIRC.

You don't need to see the antagonist in the episode to know they're there. Are they actively working against one side, or did they say "hey, we're in the middle of this galactic war, but let's go pick flower samples on Alpha Seti 9 instead"? They decided to try and get the neutral Romulans on the Federation's side to tip the balances of the war.

DamnYankees: The Inner Light - As far as I can tell there's zero antagonist in this story at all.

Picard has visions & memories of a planet that went extinct 1000 years ago BECAUSE the planet's leaders actively ignored/suppressed information on the warning signs of the sun going super-nova. Pretty sure the leaders could be considered antagonists.

DamnYankees: Yesterday's Enterprise - Again, no antagonist in the story. It just takes place during a war but you never see the enemy.

The Klingons attack them twice, and this was a time travel episode dealing with the Klingon war. If you're actively working against one side, that side is the antagonists (at least in your eyes).

War is the central theme in two of your examples, and war immediately implies you'll have heroes & villains.

The second one does come close, but you have ignorant/corrupt world leaders (obvious antagonists) and an extinction level event, which can be considered an atangonist too.

Uhhh... "City on the edge of Forever," anyone?

The car was totally the antagonist in that episode.

This thread reeks of geek and douche.

DamnYankees: scottydoesntknow: Yes, just as Deep Impact, Armageddon, The Core, The Day After Tomorrow, 2012, [insert generic Doomsday movie/TV show here] used an extinction level event as an antagonist.

And who did they cast in those roles?

I'm pretty sure the antagonist in Armageddon was Aerosmith and Michael Bay.

That leaves Mickey Rourke as the only other working Klingon in Hollywood.

well you could 'city on the edge of forever' an antagonist, some nameless odd alien that has come to 'fix' the timeline that nero hosed. not to be evil, just because it's throwing things out of whack.

Actually, McCoy was off the drugs at the time of the split - if anything he would have been the PROtagonist, in saving a woman's life - if there were a protagonist to have. Kirk, in deliberately foiling McCoy's attempt to save her would have been the Antagonist.

Except in killing her, he returned history to its original course. Which is not to say better; just different.

DamnYankees: why does there need to be a villain?

Because Roddenberry is dead. And the benevolent scientific space communists have been replaced with gritty angst ridden adolescents that solve their problems though superior fire power and sex.

Sun Worshiping Dog Launcher: The villain of the week style movie has overtaken Star Trek on the big screen: Generations (Dr. Soran), First Contact (Borg Queen), Insurrection (whats his nuts, I don't care enough to go look), Nemesis (Picard clone), and New Trek (Nero). This happened in the TOS movies too, like in Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country. However, Wrath of Khan was exceedingly well done, and Undiscovered Country was set more against the backdrop of the overall Federation-Klingon conflict. There was a bad guy, but the whole movie was not centered around just General Chang.

A return more to the unknown would be interesting. The closest they came in the movies was Star Trek 4 and Star Trek 1 (even though it was horribly done). Hell, the Borg were an excellent antagonist before the writers misunderstood the nature of the Borg and made the Borg Queen. First Contact was well made, but set a horrible precedent by putting the Borg into the villain of the week model. It was if they could not handle the nature of a true hive mind and had to put a face to it.

I think the best shot we might have at this is a revisit of "The Doomsday Machine" from TOS. Plenty of conflict, and an antagonist, but not some big name guy that the whole movie has to center around. I honestly don't think Abrams and his writing crew have the talent to pull it off though. Orci and Kurtzman just don't seem to be wired for writing smart or subtle movies.


I think my brain has become irreparably damaged. I read all of that in Harvey Plinkett's voice.

/pizza rolls

DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: why does there need to be a villain?

Because Roddenberry is dead. And the benevolent scientific space communists have been replaced with gritty angst ridden adolescents that solve their problems though superior fire power and sex.

And because the giant space-amoeba is unavailable.

DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: why does there need to be a villain?

Because Roddenberry is dead. And the benevolent scientific space communists have been replaced with gritty angst ridden adolescents that solve their problems though superior fire power and sex.

Please... Roddenberry's Kirk was plowing every sentient being with two legs to spread.

Son of Thunder: DarnoKonrad: DamnYankees: why does there need to be a villain?

Because Roddenberry is dead. And the benevolent scientific space communists have been replaced with gritty angst ridden adolescents that solve their problems though superior fire power and sex.

And because the giant space-amoeba is unavailable.

Don't forget about the giant floating head of Abraham Lincoln. They could even update it for modern audiences and make it Michelle Bachmann.

I just hope they visit the Planet of Hats.