I know I say that modern Star Trek hasn't really introduced very many original villains, but that's not quite fair., So...
Comprehensive list of new villains offered by modern Star Trek (post 2017)
BA'UL
Why They're villains: They oppressed the Kelpiens on Kaminar for thousands of years and lied about their origins. Pros: Notably creepy design, and notably creepy technology Cons: They can't really be used as recurring villains because the Kelpiens overthrew them at the end of the episode; 900 years later, they'd become allies.
CONTROL(technically borrowed from the novels, but whatever):
Why They're Villains: Did that standard basic bitch evil computer move where they tried to wipe out all organic life in the galaxy. Pros: Um...at least the writers got it out of the way so that they couldn't make that particular aspect of the novelverse canon.
Cons:
CONTROL sucks.
Seriously, at their best, they're just like...Diet Borg. Fuck CONTROL.
Can't come back because Emperor Georgiou murdered it up but good, yum yum. Not that you would want it to.
HIGHER SYNTHETICS:
Why They're Villains: "Just ring us up and we'll come kill all organic life in your galaxy", lol.
Pros:
Tentacular
Introduces some cosmic horror to the Star Trek universe.
Cons:
Kind of a generic doomsday villain.
Too powerful to really use them again.
GELRAKIANS:
Why They're Villains: Turn hostile if you show them wood.
Pros: Umm...
Cons:
Completely obsessed with crystals
Not really prime "recurring villain" material
DROOKMANI:
Why They're Villains: Extremely territorial about their salvage.
Pros: So far, they're the first villains on this list who have actually been recurring
Cons: They don't really seem like a threat to any ship more powerful than California class.
BADGEY:
Pros: "I will burn! Your heart! In a fiiiiiiiire!"
Why He's a Villain: Daddy issues.
Cons:
Kind of a one-note joke.
Ascended to a higher plane of existence so he can't be come back.
AGIMUS & PEANUT HAMPER:
Why They're Villains: He's a tyrannical supercomputer! She's just kind of a bitchy robot! Together they're...legitimately just making each other into better people?
Pros: They're kind of adorable?
Cons:
They're not really villains anymore
Peanut Hamper shouldn't even be on this list since Exocomps were from TNG.
SPECIES 10-C:
Why They're Villains: Gravitationally dredging the Milky Way for dark matter.
Pros:
Kind of a cool concept
Not a type of alien that Star Trek has really done before.
Cons:
Not really villains.
Extremely unlikely to recur.
TRANSWARP CONDUIT ALIENS:
Cons:
Why They're Villains: They, uh, opened up a big-ass transwarp conduit in the middle of Federation space for some reason.
Pros: Umm. They gave Agnes something to do in the finale.
Blatantly just created at the last minute to justify the presence of the Borg at the beginning of the season.
By the writers' own admission, they never had any actual intent to follow up on them, even though they really ought to.
They're a complete blank slate; even more so than the Higher Synthetics. Who are they? Dunno. What do they want? Dunno.
Honestly I don't even care about them, I just want to see more Jurati-Borg
VAU N'AKAT
Why They're Villains: They blame the Federation for destroying their planet in the future.
Pros:
It's nice to actually have an original alien species as arc villains for a change
I like the aesthetics of their technology
John Noble and Jameela Jamil both have really pleasant voices; like, I could listen to them all day
Space Goths
Drednok
Cons:
There's only, like, a hundred of them who came back from the future so it's not clear how much of a threat they can be without their living construct jiggerypokery.
I'm sure that this will get fleshed out in season 2, but they seem kind of underdeveloped as a culture at this point.
I assume that they'll probably make friends by the end of the series, so they probably can't be recurring antagonists elsewhere.
SHEPHERDS:
Why They're Villains: Ancient fundamentalists amorally protecting a holy comet on its path.
Pros: It was a good episode.
Cons: Unless you run into that one specific comet, they'll probably just leave you alone.
MAJALANS:
Why They're Villains: You know The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas? That.
Pros: It was a good short story.
Cons: Aside from ritualistically torturing a child to death every few years, they're kind of upstanding citizens of a the galactic community. Not really villain material.
HYSPERIANS:
Why They're Villains: Their evil queen keeps trying to trick her asexual son into losing his virginity.
Pros:
Their ship is really pretty.
The concept of Ren Faire larpers getting together to make a real kingdom is kind of hilarious.
Cons:
They're just another type of human
They seem to mind their own business when they're not trying to interfere in the sex life of one specific Starfleet engineer.
KROMSAPIODS:
Why They're Villains: They have a undeniable biological need to hunt
Pros: Kind of terrifying design
Cons: Catch-and-release hunters aren't really threatening.
MOOPSY:
Why It's a Villain: The Moopsy DRINKS YOUR BONES!!!
Pros: Moopsy!
Cons: Moopsy!
60 notes
·
View notes
The whole of Star Trek canon makes way more sense of you give it the Xena: Warrior Princess treatment. Within XWP, it is canon that the whole story is being given to us through bits and pieces of Gabrielle's scrolls. So any weirdness can be explained away as this bit was missing, so we filled it in. Or how was Xena at the Trojan War, but also around during Julius Caesar's reign? Gabrielle was trying her hand at fiction (without the cursed scroll this time) and wanted to write a "what if we were in Troy" story.
How does this compare to Star Trek? I hear some of you asking. Well, Star Trek episodes frequently begin with a log entry. The Captain or Chief Engineer or Science Officer or whoever is telling the story. We are watching the events play out as they recount them. And since every crew member is supposed to keep logs, if we piece those logs together, we presumably have a coherent story. But listen to any group of people recount a story and you'll hear the inconsistencies, the bias, the limited perspective. Now couple that with the fact that these stories are being turned into a show at some future date when bits and pieces of the story may be lost and you have a recipe for weirdness.
For me, thinking of it this way explains so many things. Why were there so many encounters with historical and mythological figures on Kirks Enterprise? Well, Janeway said it herself: there's debate about whether or not Kirk was exaggerating his logs. Why does it seem like there's weird one-sided sexual tension between two characters? Because character A is keeping their logs in a way that doesn't hide their unrequited love and longing for the very oblivious character B. Why is this or that character seemingly missing from an event that they'd have a vested interest in? Their log was lost or corrupted or they were so excited to be a part of the mission that they completely forgot to write it down.
I don't know if I'm making any sense. But it makes sense for me and is much more fun to think of Star Trek this way than it is to be overly critical of canon inconsistencies within a franchise that has been around for as long as it has and gone through as many permutations as it has.
2K notes
·
View notes