|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Mar 3, 2006 14:12:02 GMT -5
There's a lot of similarities between the little rivalries between these two Trek movie villains. Massive spoilers below to those who haven't seen Star Trek: The Wrath Of Khan or Star Trek: Nemesis.
-They're both the product of genetic engineering.
-Both attempted to plant a spy into their enemies midst (Khan had that mind-slug/proto-Yeerk thing, Shinzon sent the B4 android in.)
-Both were exiled to a desolate planet.
-Both have funky hair styles (if you can call Shinzon's a "style.")
-Both were using a highly dangerous-to-life super weapon (the Genesis Weapon vs. Shinzon's hyper radiation stuff.)
-Both of them tried to kill their respective Nemesis with their dying act (Khan blew up his ship trying to get Kirk, and Shinzon pulled himself further along a protrusion that he'd been impaled upon so that he could die with his hands at Picard's throat).
-Both committed actions that led to the death of a favorite character (Spock and Data (maybe Data put his Shakra into Geordi before he died.))
Lots of similarities, and it's hard for me to say who makes the better Nemesis.
The only thing that I think really seperates the two is that Shinzon was a true Antagonist of Picard through sharing the same genetic material, and that Shinzon was a Galactic Emperor-type villain (a villain type that Star Trek needs, if you ask me. I miss folks like "Ming The Merciless" who control vast reaches of space. If Shinzon hadn't died, he'd make a great recurring person).
Having said that, it really is a coin toss for me. I'm going to go with Shinzon, but ask me again in a week and it might be Khan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Mar 3, 2006 14:36:20 GMT -5
Anything and everything about Neme-poopie sucks and blows at the same time....
Especially John Logan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Mar 3, 2006 14:46:43 GMT -5
Excellent. Nice to see that intellectual discourse isn't dead.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wild Rebel on Mar 3, 2006 15:06:12 GMT -5
Excellent. Nice to see that intellectual discourse isn't dead. I'm a weirdo of few words. I find comparing any part of Trek X to Trek II to be futile and meaningless....if not downright insulting to the latter. Sorry.  |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck on Mar 3, 2006 16:34:48 GMT -5
I liked them equally as villians. But Ricardo Montalban esta MUY macho!
|
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Mar 3, 2006 21:57:02 GMT -5
I liked them equally as villians. But Ricardo Montalban esta MUY macho! Oh, no argument there. If this were a debate about which actor was superior, then I'd be going Khan all the way based on his non Star Trek track record alone. This is more of a literary poll, though. Trying to figure out who the better villain is (I'm the type of person who'll argue that Nurse Ratchet is a better literary villain than Sauron ever was.) No problem, WR. Any specifics for your opinions on why II was better than X? Is it a personal taste thing, or are there concrete reasons (ie., thought that Shatner was a better actor than Stewart, thought the writing was better in one vs. the other, etc.?) |
|
|
|
Post by Don Quixote on Mar 4, 2006 1:09:46 GMT -5
I know why you're on a Trek kick by the way Affy. Yesterday (Friday 3/3) was James Doohan's birthday. The historical trekness surrounding that date must be effecting you too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Afgncaap5 on Mar 4, 2006 1:27:07 GMT -5
...you know, even considering the fact that I didn't know that, it might explain it.
|
|
|
|
Post by siamesesin on Mar 4, 2006 1:46:32 GMT -5
I can't rag on you for a Trek obsession, Affy. I can't stop watching "Danger Mouse".
I prefer Khan just because II affected me so much more. It may have had a lot to do with my age when I saw each as well. That prosthetic chest wigged me out a lot when I was little though. Shinzon was a good baddie too, but didn't have the "umpf" for me that Khan did.
|
|
|
|
Post by spacechief on Mar 4, 2006 3:47:57 GMT -5
Khan is the best without a doubt. It's like comparing Sauron to Sid from Toy Story in my mind. Plus I hated Nemesis so I would never vote for it on anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleolanta on Mar 4, 2006 6:41:11 GMT -5
I agree with Wild Rebel. I don't even want to acknowledge the tenth movie's _existence_. Before that Star Trek: The Motion Picture (SSSSHHHH!!) was The One We Don't Talk About, followed by Star Trek V, but Nemesis? Oohh, boy. (shudders)
As for being on a kick, don't feel bad about that either...I'm _always_ on some "kick" or another. Every time I finish one I start another. Lately it's Futurama. I just recently started watching it, I mean really sitting down and paying _attention_ to whole episodes at a time for the first time ever, and along the way have gotten my whole freaking FAMILY hooked on it as well. Then again, this _is_ the family that discovered MST along with me, so I guess it's not that surprising.
Should I be worried that it appears my favourite character has somehow become Dr. Zoidberg? Naaahhh.... (I seem to have taken to the aliens in general on this show...my three favourites are Leela, Zoidberg and Kiff. All three have a combination of sympathy, coolness, weirdness and humour that I just can't resist.)
Anyway, back to Star Trek...Khan is one of my favourite villians ever (because of the overacting, not despite it--and he's just cool) whereas I didn't even REMEMBER the name of the villian from The Star Trek Movie That Must Not Be Named until you mentioned it in this poll. So random guess, try to figure out which one I'm going to vote for. (snicker)
...Notorious
|
|
|
|
Post by Mechanical Torgo on Mar 4, 2006 10:49:39 GMT -5
Kahn is the better villian, however if Shinzon was played by a better actor he could've been awesome.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidbeegah on Mar 4, 2006 11:54:48 GMT -5
Definitely Khan all the way. I agree with Cleolanta on this one. Star Trek I, V and X do not exist. Did not happen, not part of the space time continuum. Spock did not have a half-brother and Data is still alive somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shep on Mar 4, 2006 21:26:34 GMT -5
"Kirk...my old friend."
|
|
|
|
Post by Cleolanta on Mar 5, 2006 0:18:38 GMT -5
Oh, while we're wiping out things from the space-time continuum, can we also get rid of at least parts if not all of "Generations"? So that Picard's family can be alive again. What the freaking heck was the POINT of killing them off, anyway?! They weren't going to deeply interfere with the plot of the rest of the movies; they were _side_ characters! And they could've thought of something ELSE to make Picard sad enough to decide to go into the Matrix. I mean Memorex*. I mean...Nexus. :P They really could've.
All I know is, with that beautiful, poetic shot of Picard's little nephew sitting underneath the tree and dreaming about space, while a falling star shoots by overhead..with that shot and how many people I know who loved it so much...killing off the poor kid for a _cheap_ plot device was COMPLETELY unacceptable. :(
Anyway. I'll shut up now. As you can see, I have...issues about some of the stuff in this series. Then again, this isn't the only series I do this with--there are others where I just Don't Acknowledge entire seasons and prefer to believe that the plotline cut off back when things were still cool, too. But Trek is definitely among them. Yeah.
...Notorious
*Right after seeing Generations, my whole Trek club had this on-going injoke about "Is it live, or is it Nexus?" :P
|
|
