I agree, but one of my favorite villains is Captain Garth who's just batshit crazy almost like the Joker. I like those villains too.
I've thought Garth might be good as a villain, but that goes back to the renegade Starfleet officer trope. He might make a good secondary villain, where his tenuous grip on sanity is used by the main villain.
He's a renegade star fleet officer, but not in the conventional sense, he's not like Admiral Robocop from the last film. He's more of the rouge officer that completely loses it and is just insane. There seems to be no rhyme or rhythm for Garth, much like the Joker.
Usually we call rouge officers by the simple red shirt term. Not really picking on you, but you've done it at least twice recently. Once is a typo, twice, it's just wrong. The word you want is in the title of the secondary Star Wars thread.
My guess is he's gonna be a Klingon. Maybe something along the lines of Kor. Klingons and Federation bumping heads over something or other, Elba is the head Klingon and Kirk of course representing the Federation. Some new thing has been discovered, both sides are racing after it . . . I dunno, that's as far as I've got.
And the title for the film will be: Star Trek Beyond http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20150423/star-trek-3-possible-title-revealed/
Like Kingpin in the Daredevil series, eh? Best sort, particularly when written and played well. Next best is a villain who knows he's a villain but takes no satisfaction in it - just considers it necessary, like The operative (though they surely couldn't just lift that trope whole) I'd like to see them do a story that naturally follows from one of the great TOS eps without being a rehash of it but I don't believe these folks are capable of that.
and by the way, i don't care about fixing the timeline because this is essentially a pocket universe (sez my personal canon) which has only the most basic connection to any future Trek. The smart play, creatively, after this is to close off this universe and let any future incarnation ignore it. But now they've been upstaged by Star Wars. What Disney is doing there, in having the main franchise plus other anthology stories within that Universe) would have been the perfect model for Trek, but - and one almost wants to get conspiratorial since JJ's first allegiance is to SW - you can't really do that with this bubble-gum trek, you could only do it with Trek that took itself seriously. Artistically, the ideal format would be to try and make the best-ever SF series again and do it on Netflix (Amazon, whatever) - it is a platform well suited for doing something remarkable (actually, the same way that Daredevil is making a completely remarkable superhero story) - but from the suits' point of view, the money is in the theaters so....
In the JJVerse, Kodos hasn't happened yet, so that would make an interesting possibility as a future story. A colony blockaded by the Klingons, food running low, the governor forced to make questionable decisions. Ethical questions abound. Of course we've seen similar in both nuBSG and Walking Dead, so I don't think Trek has really given us a truly evil villain though, one who knows he's doing wrong and revels in it - think someone with the personality of DC's Darkseid - no reason, no empathy, no sympathetic reason for doing what they do. They exist purely as some form of corruption that infects all around, they make people forget about the light by only showing them the shadows. No moustache twirling, just cold satisfaction at crushing free will and enslaving. Such a foe would defy Spock's logic, McCoys's humanity and Kirk's heroism.
Gene didn't believe in such evil, and even regretted making the Klingons as evil as they were in TOS, and Berman stuck to his formula with religious fervor, so...that's why you never saw a story like that.
Who cares what Gene Roddenberry thought. He's dead. But seriously, if you want to go all "real world" a "truly evil" villain almost never exists. Even the most evil people in human history justify their actions as being in some way "good" for their people, country, religion, et cetera thus putting them on the side of the angels. You can do good Star Trek without a villain. But I don't think you can do it without conflict.
http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2015/may/19/simon-pegg-criticises-dumbing-down-of-cinema Interesting comments from Simon Pegg, who is writing Star Trek 3. Not sure that Paramount will be too happy. But it's revealing and I'm in full agreement.
Then you have some very low standards and will mindlessly consume whatever they slap the label "Star Trek" on.
What I mean, is I don't care about any behind the scenes soap opera, the movie will either rule, or stink. I have no say in the outcome, and high school gossip won't enhance anything.
This is the writer of the movie, saying that he is going to make it "less Star Trek-y" and instead will "make a western or a thriller or a heist movie, then populate that with Star Trek characters". Hardly school gossip.
"Undiscovered Country", is an Agatha Christie mystery. "Wrath of Khan", is a submarine battle. I'll wait until I see the film.
Star Trek was always meant to be a Western -- Wagon Train to the Stars, remember? If you expect hard sci fi, you are expecting something that isn't Star trek. Space adventure <> science fiction. Not to say that there isn't room for that, but it's not a requirement, and most of the Trek we have seen falls out of that category.
