"What You Leave Behind"
- Thread starter TroiFan4ever
- Start date
FWIW, I really, really hate what the DS9 writers did with Dukat from Waltz onward as well.
From what I have read, they were basically really, really upset that people identified with him and sought to justify his actions, because they always intended him to be a slimy Hitler expy, nothing more or less. Thus they decided to destroy his character entirely in the end run, to ensure that no one would like him any longer.
IMHO the problem here is basically one of the core lessons of Trek is there are no monsters. Trek has had many great antagonists, but they've never (otherwise) been capital E Evil - just people who were following their own set of interests, which put them directly in the path of the protagonists of the show.
IMHO, Dukat shoudl have gotten Damar's closing arc. Nothing makes better drama than a good redemption story after all. One could argue that it wouldn't be "fair" that space Hitler became revered as a hero, rather than as the complicated man that he really was. But a lot of very dodgy people are revered as heroes by history. And the complex resolution - with a hint of bitterness - would have been very DS9.
From what I have read, they were basically really, really upset that people identified with him and sought to justify his actions, because they always intended him to be a slimy Hitler expy, nothing more or less. Thus they decided to destroy his character entirely in the end run, to ensure that no one would like him any longer.
IMHO the problem here is basically one of the core lessons of Trek is there are no monsters. Trek has had many great antagonists, but they've never (otherwise) been capital E Evil - just people who were following their own set of interests, which put them directly in the path of the protagonists of the show.
IMHO, Dukat shoudl have gotten Damar's closing arc. Nothing makes better drama than a good redemption story after all. One could argue that it wouldn't be "fair" that space Hitler became revered as a hero, rather than as the complicated man that he really was. But a lot of very dodgy people are revered as heroes by history. And the complex resolution - with a hint of bitterness - would have been very DS9.
Last edited:
I think the mistake was continuing Dukat's story at all after Sacrifice Of Angels. He just became an evil demented psychopath from Waltz onwards. He should've died or stayed locked up in a mental ward after losing DS9 and Ziyal.
That said, I still enjoyed the evil combo of Dukat and Winn in Season 7.
That said, I still enjoyed the evil combo of Dukat and Winn in Season 7.
Fletcher had a great way of saying "Don't TOUCH me" after she learned Dukat's true nature. She projected disgust very well
Patterns of Force, Skin of Evil, the Borg--any of those ring a bell?
And for what it matters, Dukat was never on a redemption arc. He never came to a realization of his past evil. He was but a temporary ally.
I don't think that follows very well from the early seasons. Dukat is far too prideful and over the top to ever be an effective resistance leader. He probably wouldn't even try - that kind of fighting is beneath him.
Also, he knew full well what he was doing on Bajor. He just considered himself automatically justified because he was 'better than the alternative'. Sob stories about Cardassian citizens being killed by the Dominion would not produce any sort of realization in him regarding his actions on Bajor. Damar was the better choice for this arc.
I actually really liked Waltz. But I could definitely have seen that being the end of Dukat's part in the show. Just let him disappear into the universe and let the audience wonder if he survived and if he ever regained any more of his mental faculties, rather than tacking on the whole Pah Wraith thing.
IIRC, the lesson of Patterns of Force wasn't that Melekon was EEVIL, it was absolute power corrupts absolutely.
In Skin of Evil Armus is supposed to be "pure evil" but we're also supposed to empathize with him in some fashion.
The Borg were clearly supposed to frighten the living daylights out of us, but never supposed to be evil, just an existential threat.
Mind you, I'm not saying Trek always lived up to its lofty ideals. I'm just saying that in general Trek has not portrayed the antagonists as being evil per se, just having a very, very different set of priorities than the protagonists.
I know Dukat never had a real redemption arc. But I think it would have been awesome if he had one. He and Winn were the two characters who ended the series far, far less complicated and interesting than they were in the middle of its run.
What bothered me about Dukat's devolution was that it never seemed well planned; just something the writers came up with to keep the character going and make him more evil. Ira Behr had some engaging notions about how Dukat was always evil, delusional, and self deceived but I don't think his ideas materialized on screen for the audience.
The Dukat from By Inferno's Light to The Sacrifice of Angels who sold out the alpha quadrant to The Dominion was my least favorite rendition of the character and I thought the whole Ziyal/Kira/Dukat triangle during the occupation arc was melodramatic garbage. The writers were bent on having him become a self delusional windbag who would lose everything, go crazy, and become vengeful.
Once they decided to make him a focused psychopath bent on revenge in Tears of The Prophets I thought the character had some charm again but I could only enjoy it if I viewed him as a different character from the first 5 seasons.
"On the contrary. I'm a new man. I no longer have a need for conquest or power. I'm far beyond all that! I exist in a state of complete clarity, a clarity I intend to share with the universe!"
"You're right, Dukat, you have changed! You've gone from being a self-important egoist to a self-deluded madman – I hardly call that an improvement!"
- Weyoun and Dukat
The Dukat from By Inferno's Light to The Sacrifice of Angels who sold out the alpha quadrant to The Dominion was my least favorite rendition of the character and I thought the whole Ziyal/Kira/Dukat triangle during the occupation arc was melodramatic garbage. The writers were bent on having him become a self delusional windbag who would lose everything, go crazy, and become vengeful.
Once they decided to make him a focused psychopath bent on revenge in Tears of The Prophets I thought the character had some charm again but I could only enjoy it if I viewed him as a different character from the first 5 seasons.
"On the contrary. I'm a new man. I no longer have a need for conquest or power. I'm far beyond all that! I exist in a state of complete clarity, a clarity I intend to share with the universe!"
"You're right, Dukat, you have changed! You've gone from being a self-important egoist to a self-deluded madman – I hardly call that an improvement!"
- Weyoun and Dukat
Last edited:
It is the system that is corrupt, that "must be destroyed at a terrible cost."
Shouldn't you take the franchise as a whole rather than picking and choosing?
Dukat was far simpler in the first season, basically a face for Cardassian interests. Save Alaimo's acting, he was largely indistinguishable from Tomalak. The complexity for which the character was known did not emerge until the second season, especially in The Maquis, where he is shown pursuing an agenda of his own. Yes, at the end he is somewhat comic-book like, but there is more behind the character than in Emissary, and that place where Dukat ends up evolves organically as the series progressed.
All Good Things is a great episode, but it's not as good a finale as What You Leave Behind. That's not an insult to it, because it's not really supposed to be a finale. It's the final episode of the show, but they were handing off the storytelling to the films. It's also a finale to mostly standalone storytelling. It's primarily a Picard episode, as opposed to finishing the stories of all the main characters.
Short version: Both are excellent, and are serving very different purposes. Therefore I don't have to decide which is better.
Short version: Both are excellent, and are serving very different purposes. Therefore I don't have to decide which is better.
Trek has no message that there are no monsters... for one reason, because there ARE monsters, and we have to be on guard against them. A lot of fans, though, think that "character development" automatically means showing that everyone's nice underneath. That's only one kind of development. Character development can go in very different directions, showing how other kinds of personalities form. There really are people like Dukat. And the people who warmed up to him and thought he was just a nice guy underneath really were missing the point.
-------------------
You can have fond feelings for a few people like your kids, you can serve your country, you can pet your dog, and still be a monster. People are complicated.
------------------------
"Evil" is a tricky concept. I say evil doesn't exist because it means doing bad for its own sake, not to achieve some understandable objective. That's a religious concept. The Devil is out to hurt and make people suffer, period.
------------------------
There are, however, very twisted people who do have deep, ugly urges to destroy, however much they may rationalize or justify it all.
------------------
It's great to consider that a seemingly evil person may have better motives underneath, but assuming this of all people is unrealistic and not what any maker of Trek ever intended.
What holds WYLB back for me is the Dukat/Winn subplot and the feeling like DS9 was incomplete. Other than that it's my second favorite finale in trek behind All Good Things.
