• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn story

Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

She had the haircut of a 10 year old boy.

Actually, that said, she looked alright in season 7.

Ugh...I couldn't stand Kira's hair in Season 7.

Many of Kira's short haircuts, though, looked very nice--I think she was fortunate enough to have a very nice shape to her face, and also very pretty, feminine eyes...I don't think she ever looked masculine, though she looked very no-nonsense, and like a military officer.

And THAT is why I think she was probably the best female character on Trek--she is pretty, but she is NOT there to be a sex object...she is there to be a strong character and to be taken seriously doing her job.
QFT.

I didn't like her season 7 haircut either... I thought it was too... ladylike. Her best haircut was in the middle seasons, IMO.

The only TRUE grey villain I've ever seen, personally, is nuBSG's Gaius Baltar. (Who interestingly does follow the Dukat path in many ways.) But I still think Dukat was ALWAYS more clearcut from the beginning than Baltar.
There are plenty of "grey" villains in fiction, even in Battlestar Galactica itself. But I don't think that Baltar is a villain at all. I would describe him as antihero and antagonist - and he was not even an antagonist all the time. He was never actively villainous, not for a single moment. Most of the time he was just reacting to whatever situation he was in, desperately trying to survive, save his skin, make himself look better, make himself feel better about himself, but he never had any kind of actual villainous scheme, nor was he ever actually trying to hurt anyone. In fact, he was, amazingly, one of the characters who exhibited the least amount of hatred, prejudice or malice. The bad things he did, like giving Caprica the codes or sending Gina the nuke, he did out of ignorance, cowardice, arrogance, recklessness, and host of other weaknesses and flaws - although sometimes his selfishness could, ironically, end up doing good (as when he framed/outed Doral as a Cylon) while sometimes his compassion or affection could eventually lead to a bad outcome (his relationship with Gina). He was praised as a savior of the fleet when nobody knew his role in getting them all into that mess in the first place; ironically, other times he was blamed and condemned over things he had little control of (New Caprica). He seemed like a really flawed, bad man, often pathetic, dangerous, funny, despicable and sympathetic at the same time. You might even say he embodied a lot of what it wrong with the human race. But, he always lacked an evil intent, and an active villainous role.

The real villains were, in the beginning, the Cylons. But Six, Leoben and others become 'greyer' and 'greyer' until they weren't even villains any more, except for Cavil, who was made into the uber-villain of the show. Some people think of Boomer as a villain - which she certainly wasn't for the first 2 and a half seasons, then she was turned into something like a tragic villain, before having another 'redemptive' turnaround in the finale. Zarek was a somewhat grey antagonist/villain, and Gaeta turned into a grey and tragic antagonist (villain?). Cain is a character I definitely consider a villain, but Ron Moore disagrees, he said that he never considered her a villain. I'd say she certainly seemed like one, though Razor tried to make her into a greyer, tragic villain.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

You really can't think of any other reasons why someone could dislike that storyline? Seriously? :cardie:

You don't think that someone could possibly have a problem with:

[*]magic books and red-eye demon possessions on a show that had up to that point been showing that religion and SciFi can mix perfectly?

I don't see a conflict here. The whole Science/Religion ties have been throughout the entire DS9 series and it's pretty much the backbone for everything important that happened. Much of the things that occurred involving the Prophets and Pah-W's involved religious/spiritual/magical attributes. Heck even Dukat did a few magic tricks to get possessed and kill Dax.... now suddenly because it was part of the season finale, it crosses the line?

[*]good/evil dualism of the crudest black-and-white kind on the show that had up to that point been an example of intelligent, complex, shades-of-grey storytelling about politics, religion and war?

As I saw it, the show overall was a story telling how this black/white contrast was created in the first place and was motives were involved. The politics was dealt with, the War was over and all that was left to conclude was the religious aspect of things, which they did.

[*]villains who don't have anything even approaching a believable motivation, and are there just to be eeeeevil (the Pah-wraiths) so the Prophets would look better by comparison?

I think you missed something in the overall story if that's how you view them.

[*] a character who used to be a truly great villain, reduced into a cartoonish puppet of the above mentioned eeevil spirits, and acting as a plot device rather than true to his earlier characterization - so Sisko would look better by comparison?

I don't see that either. The reason why Dukat wasn't like what he started out to be probably has to do with losing his power, losing his station, losing bajor, everybody hating him, having his daughter killed in front of him by his most trusted officer, fracturing the relations between Cardassia and the Dominion by losing DS9..... he had nothing going for him anymore, nobody respected him, nobody liked him.... and when you hit rock bottom like that, I'm sure most would lose their marbles and just resort to making everybody suffer as much as possible and enact revenge on those who made your life a living hell.

Let's not forget that the way other's viewed him was very important to Dukat. He was all about his own ambitions and popularity.

[*] a lot of screentime wasted during the show's "Final Chapter" on a storyline that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot of the Dominion War, and ends up doing nothing in the grand scheme of things, except providing a rather lame reason for Sisko to die/disappear/whatever?

If you think the main issue/story of DS9 was all about the Dominion War, then once again, I don't think you truly understand the overall story that was trying to be told.

It's not an issue of whether he was evil. I think he was always evil, but the thing is, he was realistically evil, he was a convincing, well-written, complex, interesting villain. Until Behr and others decided to turn him into a one-dimensional sneering comic book villain, just because they thought the viewers were idiots who needed to be literally told which characters are good and which are bad. And their idea of showing that Dukat was a bad man was to have him go insane, then get possessed by evil spirits and do some dumb shit that makes no sense and has nothing to do with the main plot of the series, and finally laugh maniacally and wrestle with Sisko over a cliff that's supposed to represent hell. :rolleyes:

Well even in one of the episodes after Dukat went nuts and before he went all religious with the Pah-W's.... he said that everything they've tried to do to defeat the Federation and control the wormhole was foiled because of the Prophets and for so long now, everybody on their side of the war passed off the Prophets as mere spiritual mumbo jumbo that wouldn't have any serious effect.... until they lost their entire gamma quadrant fleet.

So in order to control the worm hole, in order to defeat the bajorans, in order to beat the federation, and to beat Sisko, they needed to take out the Prophets..... nothing else was working.

Then once he decided to become possessed, that's when he took that extra step towards insane and jumped right into the whole one dimensional attitude of your typical villain, because the Pah-W's were feeding off his already existing rage, anger and vengeance.

At least they should have decided if they wanted Dukat to be insane, or "pure evil"! Because an insane person is not responsible for their actions, so if you make him insane, you've pretty much denied yourself the chance to condemn his as "pure evil" for any action he undertakes while being mentally ill. Way to shoot yourself in the foot.

Maybe that was the whole point. From the very beginning, Dukat was continually made complicated in his character so that for the longest time, it was difficult to pin him as a good guy, bad guy, or neutral.... because he did everything. You grew to like him and even admire him at times.... respect him even.... then when he went nuts and was obviously a bad guy, you're still left somewhat sympathizing with his character and everything he's gone through, as if you can understand why he's the way he is.

But the DS9 writers apparently wanted to have their cake and eat it, so they just couldn't decide whether he should be insane or rational.

The worst kind of villain is the one that's both.... and why can't he be both? Why does he have to be "Black and White" ~ Insane or Rational?

So first he's insane in Sacrifice of Angels and Waltz...

Well as I saw it, Dukat was sane right up until the Defiant came back out of the wormhole.... he was still a little normal then and was perfectly fine, because all that really mattered to him was his daughter, whom even when she told him she betrayed him, he still cared for her and forgave her.... then she was shot and killed right in front of him and the last thing holding him together was lost..... and that's when he went nuts.

As for Waltz, that was the first episode that exposed exactly how damaged Dukat really was and how he was losing control between maintaining the life & reputation he once had and allowing vengeance and anger to take over to make others suffer for his pain.

and we get one of the most absurd moments in DS9 - Sisko declaring the ravings of a lunatic as a proof of "true evil". Well if Dukat is true evil, then Sisko should have concluded that based on the things Dukat had actually done (and he did them while he was rational). But apparently Sisko didn't think so, and only realized that Dukat was "pure evil" in Waltz, based on Dukat's insane rambling? :vulcan:

It's complicated. :lol: It wasn't just ramblings, that's how he dismissed his justifications that contradicted. Dukat went from trying to rationally justify the occupation and the things he did because he cared and loved the Bajorans, then Sisko trapped him in his own reasoning to the point where he ended up admitting he hated Bajorans and they should all have been wiped out, which was supposed to be the proof of how he cared and loved the Bajorans.

He wasn't just insane, he still held a decent level of rationalization (although flawed) which made him more dangerous.

And then post-Waltz, all signs of insanity disappear, except for the fact that his plans don't make sense. It is so convenient - and so lazy - to write a villain who is supposedly insane: whenever he does something that doesn't make sense, just because it is convenient to the plot, we can just say "oh, but he is insane, so it doesn't have to make sense"!

Even the things that were supposed to be insane still made sense to me.

It may have seemed that all signs of insanity disappeared based on how he acted, and for the most part, most of his insanity did.... but that's because he brought direction, focus, and an objective for him to accomplish into his life once again, which was vengeance and suffering through using the Pah's, which ended up using him and his now weak frame of mind.

He acted sane, because he had something insane to strive for and thus redirected his insanity to work for him.

I dunno if that makes any sense, but we are talking about insanity here, lol.

So then we get:

[*] Dukat forgiving Damar and blaming Sisko :cardie: for Ziyal's death. (WTF? What did Sisko have to do with it? At least if he blamed Kira or Garak or anyone who was either a) at the station at the time of the Dominion Occupation, or b) was close to Ziyal, it could have made some convoluted sense - at least you could say that he blamed that person for influencing her and making her "betray" him. But Sisko?) It is clearly just a plot device just in order to set up a Sisko/Dukat conflict.

Well Dukat couldn't blame Damar for doing his duty, which was the execution of a traitor to Cardassia, which I'm sure Dukat has done a few times in his past. He blamed Sisko because Sisko & the Prophets was responsible for the elimination of the Dominion reinforcements, attacked the station and forced them all to leave.

The key is that Dukat could never accept responsibility for his own actions and when something went wrong, it was always someone else's fault.

• It was the resistance that was at fault for the Bajorans not liking him
• It was the civilian government's fault for him losing the station and the Bajoran occupation.
• It was the Klingon's fault for him having to join with the Dominion.
• It was Sisko's fault for losing the station the second time around.

He could never once accept his own faults of over confidence and bad decision making and blaming the death of his daughter on Sisko is just another example of how far he would twist the truth to shift the blame from himself.

[*] sealing the wormhole in Tears of the Prophets while saying with a straight face that this would help the Dominion and hurt the allies. As Weyoun said: "How does that help us?" And you have to wonder why they are letting him do all that stuff. especially if he is known to be insane.

We the viewer knew he was insane.... Sisko and probably everybody else in the Federation knew he was insane, but I don't think the Dominion were totally in the loop over his insanity, because he was also still somewhat rational.

At the time of his idea, I believe the Dominion was already working on Alpha Quadrant Jem'Hadar and had new white facilities, so reinforcements from the Gamma Quadrant were not as important as they were previously. And since the fleet from the Gamma quadrant was wiped out, getting reinforcements from there weren't all that likely anyways at the time.

Cutting Bajor and Sisko from the Prophets was important in the fact that it removed an important tool at their disposal and a key ally, ie: the Prophets.

[*]and there we come to another problem - Dukat was the man who aligned Cardassia with the Dominion and practically started the war, he was instrumental in the war and occupation - but now he gets some weird storyline that has nothing to do with the Dominion war; and suddenly he is showing no interest whatsoever in the war, in Cardassia, in Terok Nor, or even in his 7 Cardassian children, which he used to mention all the time without any provocation? He shows up to talk to Damar and urges him to be a great leader of Cardassia, but it's hard to figure out what he thinks about Cardassia and Dominion or anything else that's going on.

For one thing, he screwed himself with the Dominion and Cardassia because of his over confidence and losing the most important piece of real estate in the Alpha quadrant and the key to winning the war.... his input was irrelevant as far as the Dominion was concerned.... he was captured by the Federation, thus he lost his position as leader of Cardassia, which then fell on Damar..... besides all that, he was well beyond maintaining his reputation and stature in Cardassian society.... he was out for revenge.... and if he couldn't keep and maintain power through his own people and the alpha quadrant through military might, he'd do it by using "Gods."

Which of course blew up in his face.

And, you know, Dukat (or his pairing with Winn) is certainly not the only problem of this storyline. If we disregard him, I still hate the Pah-wraiths storyline alltogether, and I equally hate the unnecessary and unfortunate retcon of Sisko as Space Jesus and his Prophet mom. The latter only made the Prophets look ultra-creepy. Both the Prophets and the Pah-wraiths had possessed people and used them for their own ends before, but Kira at least was voluntarily possessed. But now we learn that the Prophets used a woman's body, made her have sex and live with a man and conceive and give birth, regardless of her will? :eek: And they manipulated a man into thinking that he was in love with a person who basically ever even existed, before she left him and he never learned why?

He wasn't manipulated into thinking he loved her, he really did love her.

But from what I gathered from the whole Space Jesus concept, was that it was a logical and possible explanation on how current religions we believe in could exist.

It didn't make me a believer, but it's still possible.

So, we want a black-and-white battle of Good and Evil, but the Prophets don't really seem all that good, what do you do? You make their enemies look as bad as possible. So, it wasn't enough for the Pah-wraiths to just have a a rational motivation, like having a long-standing conflict with the Prophets and wanting to get back to the Celestial Temple; no, suddenly we learn that they want to... end all life? :wtf::wtf::wtf: Eh, what? Why? What is their problem? It doesn't matter, all that matters is that they are eeeeevil enough.

Sounds like Dukat and his intentions at the end.

The story could have worked if it was only written differently. The Prophets and the Pah-wraiths could have just been two warring factions of aliens, with believable motives.

That's what I gathered from it all....

If you want to portray the Prophets as being the better of the two, try to make the Prophets genuinely seem good (rather than just "better than those other guys who are really evil") - maybe by showing some interest in the non-linear world other than helping Sisko after he's begged them for it. Or, alternatively, make both the Prophets and the Pah-wraiths basically indifferent to everything but their own conflict, but aligned with different sides in the Dominion war.

Well they were indifferent to everything but their own conflicts.... that's why both sides used people to do their bidding, which in the end was either in the interests of the Prophets, or the interests of the Pah-Wraiths.

The only good the Prophets really held to was that they were "Of Bajor" and thus had an interest somewhat to what happened to the planet and the people..... as far as I know, they didn't give much of a damn about anything else other then themselves and Bajor.

Meanwhile the Pah-Wraiths who were once occupants of the Temple and eventually dubbed "False Prophets" (aka: another alien force like the Prophets, but not, aka: Klingons and Humans) and their only care was to take over the Temple again, destroy the prophets who locked them away for so long and destroy all those who supported them.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Dukat aligning himself with the Pah-wraiths because Sisko is aligned with the Prophets, would have worked much better if Dukat had still been the leader of Cardassia and aligned with the Dominion when he did it. Dukat would be rational in that scenario, and would be trying to win the war by countering the power of Sisko's allies, the Prophets, with powerful godlike aliens of his own, believing that he could use them to his own ends, just as they wanted to use him (pretty much the same reason Dukat had aligned Cardassia with the Dominion). Then the whole Prophets vs Pah-wraiths arc would actually be connected to the main storyline, rather than sticking like a sore thumb.

Well I don't really see why Dukat needed to still be the leader of Cardassia for it all to work..... There simply wasn't a need to seek the spiritual side of things, because he originally thought all he needed was the Dominion to win.... he didn't leap to the Pah-Wraiths until he lost everything and eventually escaped from the federation, which at that point, the entire situation went well beyond just personal.

That’s not how it went.

That's exactly how it went, I'm going through the DS9 series from start to finish for the third time right now, my memory is very vivid on the details at this time and how Dukat's character unfolded over the seasons.

You’re giving far too much credit to the writers, as if they actually had some grand plan from the beginning.

Do you have evidence stating otherwise?

In fact, they were just making stuff up as they went, just like in most TV shows. Dukat was at first meant to be just a one-dimensional villain/antagonist, but Marc Alaimo (who had been typecast in villain roles for far too long, for whatever stupid reason) took every opportunity the writers gave him to play his character as multi-faceted, and as he made Dukat charismatic and popular with the DS9 fans and had a good chemistry with Nana Visitor, the writers took that up and wrote more and more such scenes and storylines (Ziyal, his children, etc.). But then Behr – by his own admission – became worried that Dukat had become too popular with the fandom, and that some fans were finding excuses and justifications for him, so he decided to send the character on a path that should have proved once and for all that he was “true evil”.

I'd be interested in finding some sources for those claims.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

You really can't think of any other reasons why someone could dislike that storyline? Seriously? :cardie:

You don't think that someone could possibly have a problem with:
[*]magic books and red-eye demon possessions on a show that had up to that point been showing that religion and SciFi can mix perfectly?

I don't see a conflict here. The whole Science/Religion ties have been throughout the entire DS9 series and it's pretty much the backbone for everything important that happened. Much of the things that occurred involving the Prophets and Pah-W's involved religious/spiritual/magical attributes. Heck even Dukat did a few magic tricks to get possessed and kill Dax.... now suddenly because it was part of the season finale, it crosses the line?
Eh, no. It was already completely ridiculous in the season 6 finale. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was only referring to the Final Chapter or What You Leave Behind... but I'm pretty sure I did not, since I specifically mentioned several things that happened in Waltz and Tears of the Prophets.

[*]good/evil dualism of the crudest black-and-white kind on the show that had up to that point been an example of intelligent, complex, shades-of-grey storytelling about politics, religion and war?
As I saw it, the show overall was a story telling how this black/white contrast was created in the first place and was motives were involved. The politics was dealt with, the War was over and all that was left to conclude was the religious aspect of things, which they did.
:wtf:

I think you've missed my point.

If I thought the show was a black and white story, I'd have gone and read a comic book instead.

I think you missed something in the overall story if that's how you view them.
I think the overall story missed a lot of things that would enable me, or anyone, to view them otherwise.

If you know something I don't, please explain.

If you think the main issue/story of DS9 was all about the Dominion War, then once again, I don't think you truly understand the overall story that was trying to be told.
Well, why don't you explain it to me then? What was the show about? Some thousand years old conflict between the Prophets and the Pah-wraiths? If that's the case, then the show has failed completely. Both of those groups together were only featured or mentioned in something like 5% of the show's episodes (not to mention that the Pah-wraiths were introduced very late into the show), and - unlike Cardassia, Bajor, or the Dominion, neither of those two groups were ever properly fleshed out, explained, made relatable in any way, and as far as I am aware, the audience was never made to actually care about either of them.

The worst kind of villain is the one that's both.... and why can't he be both? Why does he have to be "Black and White" ~ Insane or Rational?
:cardie: :vulcan:

I really love villains who are insane and rational at the same time. I also love those who are thin and fat at the same time. :bolian:

<snip>
I dunno if that makes any sense, but we are talking about insanity here, lol.
I don't think mental illness is something that comes and goes whenever the plot demands it.

Far too often - and IMO this is one such case - "insanity" in fictional villains is just an excuse for them to do all sorts of absurd things that the plot demands.

He could never once accept his own faults of over confidence and bad decision making and blaming the death of his daughter on Sisko is just another example of how far he would twist the truth to shift the blame from himself.
If you find it convincing, fine. I find it as far-fetched and unlikely as Shinzon's motives in Nemesis. (Now I'm sure the next person will post that his motives made perfect sense, too.)

We the viewer knew he was insane.... Sisko and probably everybody else in the Federation knew he was insane, but I don't think the Dominion were totally in the loop over his insanity, because he was also still somewhat rational.
If the Dominion was so ill-informed and out of the loop, I wonder how they ever managed to conquer anything.

He wasn't manipulated into thinking he loved her, he really did love her.
Loved who? Sarah, or the Prophet who possessed her?


But from what I gathered from the whole Space Jesus concept, was that it was a logical and possible explanation on how current religions we believe in could exist.

It didn't make me a believer, but it's still possible.
I don't understand what you mean here.

Sounds like Dukat and his intentions at the end.
Well, that's the point.

Well they were indifferent to everything but their own conflicts.... that's why both sides used people to do their bidding, which in the end was either in the interests of the Prophets, or the interests of the Pah-Wraiths.

The only good the Prophets really held to was that they were "Of Bajor" and thus had an interest somewhat to what happened to the planet and the people..... as far as I know, they didn't give much of a damn about anything else other then themselves and Bajor.

Meanwhile the Pah-Wraiths who were once occupants of the Temple and eventually dubbed "False Prophets" (aka: another alien force like the Prophets, but not, aka: Klingons and Humans) and their only care was to take over the Temple again, destroy the prophets who locked them away for so long and destroy all those who supported them.

Seems pretty clear to me.
How does "ending all life" fit into all this?

If the only issue was a conflict between the Prophets and the Pah-wraiths and neither of them had any interest in the affairs of the Alpha and Delta Quadrant, and neither of them was helping the Dominion, either... the obvious question is: why should we care?

Well I don't really see why Dukat needed to still be the leader of Cardassia for it all to work..... .
Because then we'd have a reason to care. (Without something absurd like "they want to end all life").

That's exactly how it went, I'm going through the DS9 series from start to finish for the third time right now, my memory is very vivid on the details at this time and how Dukat's character unfolded over the seasons.

You’re giving far too much credit to the writers, as if they actually had some grand plan from the beginning.
Do you have evidence stating otherwise?

In fact, they were just making stuff up as they went, just like in most TV shows. Dukat was at first meant to be just a one-dimensional villain/antagonist, but Marc Alaimo (who had been typecast in villain roles for far too long, for whatever stupid reason) took every opportunity the writers gave him to play his character as multi-faceted, and as he made Dukat charismatic and popular with the DS9 fans and had a good chemistry with Nana Visitor, the writers took that up and wrote more and more such scenes and storylines (Ziyal, his children, etc.). But then Behr – by his own admission – became worried that Dukat had become too popular with the fandom, and that some fans were finding excuses and justifications for him, so he decided to send the character on a path that should have proved once and for all that he was “true evil”.
I'd be interested in finding some sources for those claims.
Yep. Straight from the horse's mouth.

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=SdNrK8202hgIc&mailtofriend=1

  • In the May 2002 issue of Star Trek: The Magazine, former DEEP SPACE NINE executive producer Ira Steven Behr talks at length about the decisions behind the development of Marc Alaimo's 'Gul Dukat', the major villain throughout the series's run.
Behr remembers how in the pilot, the character was originally played by another actor: "Let's just say we all agreed that perhaps we had made a less than perfect choice and that the part had to be recast. Someone said 'What about Marc Alaimo?' because he had done TNG, and there you go... From that point on my model for Dukat was Alaimo. That's a real compliment; He presented us with so many opportunities."
Behr explains that the character as he conceived him was to be ruthless and without sympathy, a characterization difficult to maintain through the seven seasons: "The problem I find with a lot of writers, including myself, is that once you get involved with a character you start to get to know him and you humanize him. Michael Piller did the rewrite of 'Defiant' where he had Dukat talk about his children; My reaction was, 'Uh oh, we've crossed the line.' I realized that he was going to lose all credibility as a villain; we were going to shower him with our usual writerish empathy, and, like all good liberals, we'd see him as neither fish or fowl." "I really responded against that. Here was the guy who had been in charge of Bajor, and right away we were looking for excuses for him."
Behr continues, saying there was always a tension between romanticizing 'Dukat' as a villain and paintaing him as a sort of war-criminal: "I had certainly done my bit in making Dukat a kind of swashbuckling villain, but I always thought the Cardassians were horrific; I think anyone who doesn't is obviously confused. They did a horrible thing, and I have little sympathy for that."
But actor Marc Alaimo, who had become quite popular with the show's fans, had a different view of the character, seeing him as ultimately redeemable. Behr explains how this actually helped feed into creating the character the way he wanted: "What made it perfect, what made it beautiful, and that no writer could have conceived of, was that Alaimo took it in his head that he was the hero of the series - that Dukat was really just misunderstood; that he was sweet and kind.
"Whenever I think of the character, I think of Renoir's line from 'The Rules of the Game': 'The tragedy of life is that every man has his reasons.' Dukat could logically explain away everything he did, he could find justifications for all of it, and that's the horror; that's the thing Alaimo and I were always in disagreement about. His attitude was, 'We all have this inside of us, we're all many different people, and no one is truly evil.' Then I'd say, 'OK, if you take that to its conclusion, then no one has to stand accountable for their actions.'"
Much to the producer/writer's chagrin, many fans began to see the character and the Cardassians as "sexy" rather than horrific: "We'd sit in the writers room and laugh about it sometimes. We'd get the Cardassian newsletter and look at it and think, 'What has gone wrong?' of course it's science fiction; you put makeup on and suddenly it's OK. If it's Idi Amin or Pol Pot no one's thinking of spending a romantic weekend in his arms; but you give him a bony neck and a rubber outfit, and it's a whole different thing."
In the latter seasons, as the writers began mapping out how the Cardassians would eventually overthrow the Dominion's yoke, Behr says he intentionally steered away from the temptation to valorize 'Dukat' and turn him into the hero that evetually became of actor Casey Biggs's 'Damar'.
"We were able to have a guy (Damar) who had been pushed too far. That was something you could never really get from Alaimo's character, because he would never allow himself to be subjected to that kind of treatment in the first place. I couldn't accept that Dukat would become the savior of Cardassia," he said. "I'm sure his fans would have adored it, and Alaimo would have loved it, but there were too many instances where he was false. It wasn't credible, and I know the man who had to be there at the very end to speak for Cardassia was Garak, as the true outsider.
"If it had been Dukat, it would have been too romantic. We went that way with Damar to an extent, which is why we killed him the way we did - fast, and before the end of the show. I know people felt that he deserved something better, but that was a very calculated move. Imagine if we'd done that with Dukat? I mean, forget it."
In the end, Behr says he's mostly pleased with how the character met his end fittingly: "I think he got what he deserved, let me put it like that. I can't say I feel sorry for him, I really don't. He and Wynn were two characters I just could not sympathize with. Though we tried in all fairness to give them their points of view and give them their attitudes, they were very deluded, and they did horrible things."
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

^

Yup, Behr is completely out to lunch in his views and handling of Dukat. I say Behr is confused, not the fans who adore Dukat.

What they put on-screen until Behr's conscious decision to indulge in character assasination in Waltz is not at all in line with Behr's claims such as that Dukat "did horrible things" or "was like Pol Pot." :rolleyes:

Behr's idea that Dukat should be a one-dimensional evildoer is crazy. Behr should know better. I do not get why Behr can do such great things with other aspects of DS9, but his views on Dukat are whacked. Those views are fitting for a character on a typical, lesser show than DS9, but not DS9.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

Yep. Straight from the horse's mouth.

I actually agree with a number of points you are making, however I think your original comment mischaracterizes the concern that Behr is expressing in that interview.

What he is trying to get at is that this guy oversaw the brutal exploitation of a planet and its entire population: forced labor, slavery, millions dead. Yet he is able convince himself that he was the Bajorans' benefactor, practically a savior of sorts because he managed to make their servitude slightly less inhumane than under previously rulers (by his own calculations), and because he didn't mistreat his Bajoran comfort women. This is delusional, simply put, and needs to be recognized as such.

Now all this is fiction. It would be perfectly possible to write a character who was involved in those crimes and remained "a good guy at heart" or whatever. Except this would be creatively bankrupt. You don't oversee forced labor camps where millions die without being scarred psychologically in some way, or without losing some piece of your humanity. In Dukat's case, he was convinced of his victims' inferiority and derived a perverse satisfaction from their degradation and his power over them. At least that is what his behavior suggests.

Behr is worried that the writers had gone too far toward sterilizing Dukat's background and treating his involvement in heinous crimes as basically no big deal. This would be akin, as he suggests, to portraying Pol Pot or Hermann Göring as sympathetic individuals who were just tragically misunderstood. I could write a script that portrayed them that way, but what would that say about my script? At the very least it would say that I'm not delving very deeply into what it means for an individual to be involved in implementing suffering on that scale.

Much of what happens to Dukat post-Waltz strikes me as a sort of panic attack on Behr's part: it's like he took a look back at how Dukat had evolved and thought, "wow, we've become apologists for a mass murderer and brutal dictator." Suffice it to say, he over-reacted. But there was a real danger there. Some of the issues dealt with in Waltz, for example, needed to be dealt with openly: Dukat's patronization of the Bajorans would necessarily be rooted in the conviction of their inferiority, for example. How else could he participate in their degradation while convincing himself that he was their benefactor? Similarly, Dukat's jealousy of Sisko's relationship with the Bajorans is related to his own desire to be their messiah, a sort of god to be worshiped and feared (hence the affinity with the Pagh-Wraiths). These possiblilities needed to be explored. I would rather the writers had done so in a more subtle manner, however.
 
Last edited:
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

I never really liked the Winn character until she became evil. It was the proper culmination of what they had been building the character as all those years. I also thought it was strong statement about sacrificing for the sake of religion and the dying of religious faith if you feel that sacrifice isn't recognized by your god. I really believe Winn wanted to serve the Prophets all her life, and she probably did feel being Kai was the best way, but felt her honest service was intensionally shunned by the Prophets who had chosen certain "pet people" to reward long ago. I thought it was a cop out to have her turn against Dukat at the end and trivialized an important message.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

I understand why Behr felt that way, but that interview is full of misguided notions (IMO) that make me roll my eyes, especially as they come from a writer.

"We tried in all fairness to give them their point of view..." Oh gosh, you tried? In all fairness? He makes it seem like it's such an unusual, extraordinary idea that every character has a realistic motivation and a point of view, rather than being a cartoonish moustache-twirling villain.

All through the interview, he sounds like he actually wanted to have a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, that he a only reluctantly allowed Dukat to become a fully fleshed out, multi-dimensional character, and that he really regrets it. It makes me wonder how DS9 turned out as good as it did, if he favors the sledgehammer-subtle approach to storytelling - EXPLAIN TO THE VIEWERS WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK- HIT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT IF YOU NEED TO.

And where does the idea come from that the only possible direction a character like Dukat can have are a) a 'redemption' arc and 2) becoming the evil-spirit possessed dark messiah. Why? Why does everyone have to have a 'redemption' arc, or be confirmed as 'absolute evil'? Why couldn't he just stayed a complex, but completely human (well, Cardassian - but you know what I mean; aliens are just the stand-ins for humans anyway) villain? If you're going to compare fictional villains from your show to the real-life war criminals, dictators and such - then why not keep it true to life? In real life, most of the people who have committed horribly evil acts don't achieve 'redemption', but they don't go crazy and get possessed by 'evil spirits' either. They just remain the way they are.

The two quotes that really epitomize all that is wrong with his attitude are:

The problem I find with a lot of writers, including myself, is that once you get involved with a character you start to get to know him and you humanize him. Michael Piller did the rewrite of 'Defiant' where he had Dukat talk about his children; My reaction was, 'Uh oh, we've crossed the line.' I realized that he was going to lose all credibility as a villain; we were going to shower him with our usual writerish empathy, and, like all good liberals, we'd see him as neither fish or fowl." "I really responded against that. Here was the guy who had been in charge of Bajor, and right away we were looking for excuses for him."
Um... no. :rolleyes: Showing that Dukat loves his children has absolutely nothing to do with making excuses with him. It has absolutely nothing to do with the occupation of Bajor. What is Behr saying? That you are only responsible of a crime if you are some sort of inhuman monster? That if a person does not hate the entire world, if they are 'normal people' with families, wives and children - that this 'excuses' their racismand crimes against a group of people they consider inferior? :cardie: I can't even begin to tell how completely wrong this is. :vulcan:

And you know what - in REAL LIFE, the majority dictators and despots, higher and lower ranked war criminals, colonial masters, vicious slave-owners, and so on, are also "good family men" who love their children or love their dogs and who can charm people and inspire loyalty in their and subordinates. Hitler did not get up in the morning looking to drown puppies and choosing which one of his assistants;s head he's going to chop off.

"usual writerish empathy", "good liberals" I can only :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

...that's the thing Alaimo and I were always in disagreement about. His attitude was, 'We all have this inside of us, we're all many different people, and no one is truly evil.' Then I'd say, 'OK, if you take that to its conclusion, then no one has to stand accountable for their actions.'"
What?! :cardie: :wtf: :vulcan: If you're not "absolutely evil" while other people are absolutely pure and free of any evil thoughts, you aren't accountable for your actions?! That doesn't make any sense.

It is actually exactly the opposite. If there was such a thing as evil by nature, then wouldn't it excuse a person - if you're evil by nature, you can't help doing evil things, can you? But I believe that there is no such thing. I happen to agree that we all have this inside of us, more or less. Everyone has a potential for good or evil. The question is, how it develops and what you do with it. A lot depends on upbringing, experiences, environment... but ultimately, it is most of all, a matter of the choices we make. We are all capable of doing good or evil - and it's our choices that make the difference.

But the capacity for both good and evil is there in everyone. And that's what is trully scary and disturbing. It's so much easier to think that evil is done by some inhuman monsters. But in fact, it can be one of our friends or relatives, it can be our nice next-door neighbour. I've heard my relatives, co-workers, kids at a school I used to teach in, people at the library I visit - all nice, sweet, normal people with families and friends and ordinary jobs - utter horrible, racist, atrocious statements that could have come out of the mouth of some war criminal. Whatever the reason - brainwashing by the media? ignorance? influence of the environment? - who says that they couldn't cross the line, in some other circumstances, and slaughter people? At the very least, they are able to support it.

But ultimately it is all about the choices we make. We may be lovely people in other regards, we may be charming and attractive, intelligent and artistic, we may be great friends and love our parents, spouses and children, we may be loyal and even idealistic. It doesn't excuse us in any way if we commit a crime or an evil deed. We are all responsible and accountable for all actions and our choices.

The things that really irked me the most about that interview is a couple of moments that are borderline unprofessional, coming from a producer/showrunner. He is essentially dissing an actor for trying to give a better performance by looking for something relatable about his character and trying to play him as a three-dimensional person, rather than 'oh look at me, I'm evil'. I always see those articles and posts where people write things like "Marc Alaimo was quoted saying that he saw Dukat as the hero of DS9" and make him look like a nutcase, but as far as I am aware, the only source of that is claim is this interview by Behr (also quoted on Memory Alpha) and his statement which I'd take with a grain of salt. I'd be very concerned if we had a policy on the forum to "quote" people by repeating what the people who disagreed with them said about their opinions. I've never seen a single interview with Alaimo or a convention report or anything where he said anything like that, most of the time he tried to branch out emotionally and play Dukat as a multi-faceted character, and that he enjoyed playing the character for all 7 seasons. No whining, no attacks on the producers or writers. These are very one-sided.

Then there is the way in which Behr basically insulted a portion of his audience. It's unclear if he had more of a problem with people who thought Dukat's actions was justified, or with people (i.e. for the most part, women) who found him sexy. "We'd get the Cardassian newsletter and look at it and think, 'What has gone wrong?' of course it's science fiction; you put makeup on and suddenly it's OK. If it's Idi Amin or Pol Pot no one's thinking of spending a romantic weekend in his arms; but you give him a bony neck and a rubber outfit, and it's a whole different thing." Well, guess what? Your show is FICTION. You might try to make it as realistic as possible, but it's not real life, and different rules apply. Never heard of villains becoming popular, or villains becoming sex symbols? Fans think Dart Vader is cool, and adore Hannibal Lecter. People jerk off to Sharon Stone's serial killer in Basic Instinct or Natasha Henstridge's deadly alien in Species - over women who are killing and abusing men, the kind of women they'd probably run a hundred miles away from in real life. Tricia Helfer's genocidal Cylon Six was the designated sex symbol of the show from day one, way before she was softened and made more sympathetic, and how about all the heartless femme fatales of film noir and erotic thrillers, or deadly 'hawt chick' robots of SF, how about the Borg Queen, how about the Intendant smooching girls in the MU episodes? These were not meant to titillate? It's the double standard that really pisses me off: nobody ever gets gets their nickers in a twist over a female villain being a sex symbol for the straight male audience. I haven't seen any public outrage over the fact that so many men drool over any other evil, murderous fictional woman. I don't remember anyone comparing all the men who drooled over Stone in Basic Instinct to people who want to marry serial killers. But female fans are apparently subjected to higher, stricter standards, they are only allowed to drool over the characters that the producers deem acceptable. :shifty:
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

It makes me wonder how DS9 turned out as good as it did, if he favors the sledgehammer-subtle approach to storytelling

He doesn't favor that approach: DS9 as a whole is proof of that. Perhaps that was all a mistake, but a simpler explanation is that you are misinterpreting or, in certain cases, over-interpreting his statements in that particular interview.

You put a lot of emphasis, for example, on the notion that he was scandalized by the fans' reaction, but that's not the gist of his statement. What he's trying to get at is the writer's responsability to live up to the premise that this individual was capable of committing heinous crimes against sentient beings on a planetary scale with no remorse, and even with a sense of pride at his accomplishment. That's evil and delusional. If that's going to be your premise, then you need to explore the nature of that mentality. DS9 didn't do that with Dukat in the early seasons.

Why wasn't this a problem? Because none of his crimes were perpetrated on screen and because they are fictional, so there is no reference-point in reality. This would be comparable to portraying Göring as a capable military commander and charismatic individual with a sense of honor who loves his family, without ever dealing directly with the fact that, oh by the way, he conceived of the final solution. With Göring, you wouldn't be able to do that because of the real world reference, but it is still a failing on the part of the writers to have let the darker side of Dukat's personality slip into the background. The point being, Behr is concerned with what he sees as a failing on the part of the people making DS9, not on the part of the fans reacting to it.

He could have been more clear on this point, but this is not a prepared statement, so it's not surprising that it meanders a bit. Also, he is describing how he came to realize that a mistake had been made (as he perceived it), and the fans' reactions were a part of that. What I glean from that, though, is not that he was incensed at how the fans reacted: on the contrary he makes it clear that their reaction was natural given how Dukat had been portrayed. What he is concerned with is that DS9 had shown that Pol Pot (to use his analogy) loved his family and was charismatic and forceful at times, without ever showing that, oh by the way he was a mass murderer.

In other words, it's not showing the human side he's objecting to: DS9 as a whole shows that he is perfectly comfortable with ambiguity. What he's trying to explain is that Dukat's portrayal had not been ambiguous enough: too much of the sympathetic qualities, not enough exploration of the original premise that he was a mass murderer and dictator. This is a problem because he remained an unrepentant mass murderer and dictator: this part of the character's past was left unexplored for the most part, but not erased.

Basically everything from Waltz onward that deals with Dukat is overcompensation for this perceived deficiency. I don't think it was necessary to panic and turn Dukat into a "purely evil" being, but I understand where his reaction is coming from. Sure, bloody tyrants love their families. Whoop-dee-doo. They're also bloody tyrants. You need to show both.

As far as Behr's statments impacting perception of Alaimo, that is unfortunate if it has occurred, but mostly that would be the result of quoting out of context: Behr talks as much about the writers' responsability as Alaimo's.
 
Last edited:
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

He could have been more clear on this point, but this is not a prepared statement, so it's not suprising that it meanders a bit. Also, he is describing how he came to realize that a mistake had been made (as he perceived it), and the fans' reactions were a part of that. What I glean from that, though, is not that he was incensed at how the fans reacted: on the contrary he makes it clear that their reaction was natural given how Dukat had been portrayed. What he is concerned with is that DS9 had shown that Pol Pot (to use his analogy) loved his family and was charismatic and forceful at times, without ever showing that, oh by the way he was a mass murderer.

In other words, it's not showing the human side he's objecting to: DS9 as a whole shows that he is perfectly comfortable with ambiguity. What he's trying to explain is that Dukat's portrayal had not been ambiguous enough: too much of the sympathetic qualities, not enough exploration of the original premise that he was a mass murderer and dictator. This is a problem because he remained an unrepentant mass murderer and dictator: this part of the character's past was left unexplored for the most part, but not erased.

Basically everything from Waltz onward that deals with Dukat is overcompensation for this perceived difficiency. I don't think it was necessary to panic and turn Dukat into a "purely evil" being, but I understand where his reaction is coming from. Sure, bloody tyrants love their families. Whoop-dee-doo. They're also bloody tyrants. You need to show both.
But if the intention was to explore that, they went a completely wrong way about it. To take the Pol Pot example: that would be like saying "It is sad that some people are unaware of the crimes Pol Pot is responsible for. But I'll set them straight. I know people who can testify that he went totally crazy after he was ousted from power, this man tells me that he said that anyone who disagreed with him should be killed; and I have on good authority that he started worshipping Satan. So, you see, that proves that he was evil." Um, no, actually that's completely irrelevant as it tells us nothing about the Khmer Rouge regime and all the crimes they committed. You'd do better to focus on all the ample evidence about those millions of victims of that regime.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

Its funny, as far as the development of the Dukat/Winn characters, I'm almost surprised there's been so much debate on Dukat- personally, I thought what they did with him was reasonable enough, even if the Pah-Wraith storyline was kinda lame- and not on what I saw as a glaring about-face as far as Winn goes.

Season 5 brings about massive changes that have Winn questioning everything she believes in and how she's behaved throughout the series. In "Rapture", she begins doubting whether her opposition to Sisko was wise when he uncovers B'Hala. She's even given a great scene with Kira where for the first time, we find out that Winn played a role in the Bajoran resistance too, just not as a terrorist. The intent here really seemed to make her more sympathetic and kind of bring her character around.
Then in "In The Cards" and "Call To Arms", this is played out even further, as her and Sisko actually start getting along, even if it is just because of the Dominion threat.

This was fantastic character development, but what happens the next time we see Winn? In "The Reckoning", she's right back to her old self, being a complete bitch to Sisko for the sake of being a bitch practically, and goes right back to a two-dimensional "whaaaa the Prophets dont speak to me whaaaa everyone likes the Emissary more than meeee, i'm threatened" character.

To me, this was the worst (though probably only note-worthy) example of character regression on DS9.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

But if the intention was to explore that, they went a completely wrong way about it. To take the Pol Pot example: that would be like saying "It is sad that some people are unaware of the crimes Pol Pot is responsible for. But I'll set them straight. I know people who can testify that he went totally crazy after he was ousted from power, this man tells me that he said that anyone who disagreed with him should be killed; and I have on good authority that he started worshipping Satan. So, you see, that proves that he was evil." Um, no, actually that's completely irrelevant as it tells us nothing about the Khmer Rouge regime and all the crimes they committed. You'd do better to focus on all the ample evidence about those millions of victims of that regime.

I agree there are numerous problems with the final Dukat/Pagh-Wraith storyline, the most egregious ones being the vacillation of Dukat's mental state and the underdevelopped and unconvincing portrayal of the Pagh-Wraiths themselves.

However, a lot of the animosity towards this direction has to do with the fact that fans liked Dukat before and couldn't really go on liking him afterward. Here's the problem: many of the ugly truths expressed in Waltz are implicit from the beginning. Dukat had internalized a racist ideology to the point that he perceived his apparently slightly less brutal implementation of that ideology as benevolence. Dealing explicitly with Dukat's megalomania and contempt for his victims certainly makes him less likable, but that is precisely what Behr is getting at in this interview.

Portraying the Pol Pots and Hermann Görings of this world or any world as sympathetic without dealing with the ugly and, yes, evil side of their natures is profoundly dishonest. That doesn't erase the problems with the final arc, but it does correctly identify some shortcomings of the early seasons as far as Dukat's portrayal is concerned. Thankfully Nana Visitor at least kept her eye on the ball or we probably would have ended up with a "Hermann Göring seduces a resistance fighter whose friends and family died in Auschwitz" storyline because she just couldn't resist his seductive charms and anyway it had been a few years since the Holocaust so all is forgiven right ?!?!?!?! :wtf:

Somebody needed a dose of cold water and it wasn't Damar.
 
Last edited:
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

^ I never understood the argument that they had to make Dukat a worshipper of Pah-wraiths to show the viewers that he was evil. :cardie: It is silly, and it has nothing to do with the whole issue of his crimes against Bajor and others - and this is what it was supposed to be all about, right? Like I said, "we have to show that Herman Göring was evil, so we'll show that he went insane and became a Satan worshipper" would be just stupid and absurd, and completely missing the point - since the point should be the crimes he committed as an official of the Third Reich.

Besides, I thought that, between Cardassians, the Occupation flashback episodes (especially Things Past and Wrongs Darker...), By Inferno's Light, Ties of Blood and Water, and the Dominion occupation arc, they had already shown ample evidence of Dukat's evil actions.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

^ I never understood the argument that they had to make Dukat a worshipper of Pah-wraiths to show the viewers that he was evil.

I see it as overcompensation. To extrapolate from that interview and other comments by those involved, somewhere around season 4 or so Behr seems to have been very gung-ho about Dukat as a seductive villain whose conflicts with the Bajorans and the Federation were mostly a matter of perspective. Then at some point, maybe around the time Nana Visitor was telling him in no uncertain terms that there was no way in hell Kira would ever be seduced by someone she perceives as basically Hitler, Behr took a step back and thought to himself: wow, I've talked myself into relating with a character I created basically as an alien Pol Pot or similar mass murderer.

And yeah, on some level, I can see how he might have been bothered by that. Lots of things are a matter of perspective, but mass murder and enslavement are not among those things. I would have preferred a more subtle adjustment in Dukat's portrayal, however, with more emphasis on what it would actually mean for an individual to be involved in implementing a brutal and racist ideology, and less emphasis on trying to show explicitly that he is evil.

A lot of the ideas dealt with in Waltz, for example, needed to be brought to light, but not within the context of a nervous breakdown involving hallucinations, all of which just obscured the important issues being raised in that episode.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

Winn and Dukat on their own the first 6 seasons were good bad guys because you understand their motivations. From season 6 on they might as well been different characters because they aren't the same as the ones from the first 6 seasons. They are basically completely evil and you don't understand them. Yes ST had a villain that just wanted to take over the alpha quadrant but that's all the true villain the show needed. And that villain gets dumbed down in the seventh season with the Breen. I mean what the hell was with the Breen? They added nothing. So did Vic Fontaine. And I kinda like him as a character. Still added nothing. We already had a bar where everyone hangs out just fine for 6 seasons. A 50s bar really made no sense.

But back to the Winn/Dukat thing before I ranted about how bad season 7 was. It's like those 2 characters came out of nowhere to be complete evil and had to go against their characters over the first 6 seasons to become evil. Winn was a true believer. She was just real ambitious but she was a true believer. Why did she suddenly decide the Pah-rates were better than the Profits. There really was no reason for the change. And then Dukat getting into Bajoran religion is comical too. Then we see Bajorans convert to the Pah-rates for no real reason. That entire story line about the Bajoran faith makes no sense.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

It makes sense in an oldschool kind of way.
Think of "Forbidden Planet". The PW are the evil side of the Prophets, that they cast out of heaven.

Of course, it could have been more than that, maybe even leading to a situation where the Prophets suddenly become dangerous villains.
But for some reason, they neglected the Bajoran religion for too long. So making them PWs evil was the safest, easiest way. The only way in fact to reach a satisfying conclusion.
Two "neutral" factions fighting for heaven would have needed more B'Halla, more prophecies, more details about the Bajoran Religion.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

only way in fact to reach a satisfying conclusion.

But it didn't make a satisfying conclusion.

The only way to make a satisfying conclusion would have been to either:

a> not do the story at all

b> have the wormhole aliens be evil and the Pah-Wraiths be good

c> have the wormhole aliens and Pah-Wraiths both be evil

d> have the wormhole aliens and Pah-Wraiths both be good
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

The only way to make a satisfying conclusion would have been to either:

a> not do the story at all

b> have the wormhole aliens be evil and the Pah-Wraiths be good

c> have the wormhole aliens and Pah-Wraiths both be evil

d> have the wormhole aliens and Pah-Wraiths both be good

I think until "Covenant", b,c and d would theoretically still have been possible, but it would have required outstanding writing, without shifting the focus away too much from the war. Maybe linking the two storylines together more closely.
But why can't the PW be the bad guys? It's less interesting for sure.

All I'm saying is if they wanted to make this more complex, they should have worked more with the Bajoran religion, and much much earlier too.
We saw the occasional Emissary episode, we got the political scheming. But the prophecies, the PW/Prophets relationship and "history" never formed a real mosaic.
After the pilot, the celestial temple was also basically always the DS9 ops with one Prophet impersonating Kira. They seldom did anything real cool with the Prophets or the Religion.

It's also not something to play around with in the final chapter. That boat had long sailed.
Revealing the Prophets as the bad guys in the final episode is not something I would have liked to see.
 
Re: How much weight should the objective viewer put on S7 Dukat/Winn s

I have no problem with establishing Dukat as apure 'bad guy' again. They basically did that in the Dominion Occupation arc. It was well done.

The problem is that afterwards he lost everything that made him an interesting character. Go watch the cave scene of WYLB... he's a cartoon. Even Voyager would be embarrassed at the cartoonishness of this villain and that's saying something. The Pagh Wraith stuff was a huge mistake. however, the scenes where he's "seducing" Winn are very well done, and show the slimy layers and charisma of Dukat (while still keeping him evil). I wish there was a way to do that without all the Pah Wraith garbage. Maybe if there was a more practical reason for him to want to corrupt Winn.

I do wonder if Damar's redemption arc was originally intended for Dukat, but maybe they realized they had already established Dukat as too hitler-esque to run the storyline with? Damar was an arrogant dick but we saw little to imply that he was out sending bajorans to death camps during the occupation.

Anyways to put the whole issue simply:

the fire cave "climax" of the ENTIRE SERIES is fucking stupid.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top