Is Gul Dukat the most likable "bad guy" on a TV series?

Omar Little is the correct answer.

Omar is a great choice.

Another nominee: NoHo Hank from Barry

Yes, Garak killed the last Weyoun clone, at least according to the television continuity (there were others in the DS9 relaunch novels and the STO timeline), and survived the Battle of Cardassia. He became the Cardassian ambassador to the Federation in the DS9 relaunch novels. (Might even have eventually become Castellen; I don’t remember).

Garak has my favorite scene of all DS9. He’s torturing Odo for information on the Founders. It is NEVER clear whether Garak is torturing Odo just to save his own life and is genuinely disgusted and distressed or if he is just doing a bang up job of playing good cop.

I’ve been stalled at the end of Season 2 for the last ten years. I had been binge-watching up to that point, but taking in all that 1990s-era set design and inferior CGI at once proved more than I could handle. Maybe the right way of approaching the series is to take in one episode a week and follow all the contemporaneous Usenet threads, including the posts from jms himself.

I think it was genuine Critical Psychoanalysis Failure. And he was so distressed by it that he never told anyone what was said. (But he remembered, and that’s why he was so alarmed when Odo wanted to link with the Female Changeling at the end of the series).

So we know you disagree with everyone’s suggestions. It is not like you to not have a well supported affirmative opinion on just about ANY topic! :smiley:

How about Ben Linus from Lost?

The man is a murderous, manipulative, Machiavellian bastard, but mostly thanks to Michael Emerson’s work - which was as good as any performance mentioned in this thread - he was compelling enough and juuuuust sympathetic enough that you couldn’t keep your eyes off him. Every other word out of his mouth was a lie, and yet you still found yourself wanting to believe him.

Incidentally, I just finished watching the show again, for the first time since it came out, and it mostly still holds up. If you go into it with… realistic expectations, you can really appreciate how well written, produced and acted the show really was.

I vote for Garek. He’s very likeable, and he’s definitely a bad guy. He just happened to be on “our” side for most of the show’s run. Even when he murdered all those people in In the Pale Moonlight.

I still don’t see how that makes someone likeable. As you say, he’s set up as an arrogant and unrepentant former dictator. A glimmer of hope that he might change into someone more likeable isn’t the same thing as actually becoming likeable. I would expect that the audience isn’t liking him so much as waiting for the shoe to drop.

People don’t have to like someone to find them interesting to watch. In fact, the best bad guys are the ones we love to hate. You posited that Gul Dukat is likable, and I just don’t see it. Garak is likeable. Dukat is someone we love to hate.

And, yes, I know Garak isn’t really a villain. I’ve been trying to think of a Trek villain I actually find likable, but none come to mind. I also agree that Q isn’t really a villain–he’s a trickster imp whose actions can cause trouble. But he is definitely likable in a way Dukat isn’t. People don’t love to hate him—they genuinely love the character. Even if they do occasionally want to punch him in the face (i.e. the most satisfying part of the game Star Trek: Borg)

Edit: The post above me says that Garak is a “bad guy,” which I don’t entirely disagree with. But he’s not a villain. He is someone who uses his past bad stuff to help the good guys. He’s more akin to the anti-hero trope—though he’s not a hero.

How about Khaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan?

Khan is not a likable villain. Charismatic, yes. But he had very old-fashioned ideas about women that were outmoded even in the 1960s when the series was filmed and would have been terrible in the 1990s where he was from, let alone the 23rd century where he found himself.

Like Chekov said, Captain Kirk was his host, and he repaid his hospitality by trying to steal his ship and murder him.

I maintain that for all of B5’s faults, the Londo/G’Kar character arcs are among the best in television.

There are some parallels between G’Kar and Garek in their outlooks. G’Kar says, early on in B5: “Stop seeing things in such absolute terms. The universe is run by the interweaving of three elements: Energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest.” That’s how Garak operates - he’s got his own agenda (for himself and Cardassia) that is neither surrender to the Federation nor this “Cardassia Uber Alles” thing that Dukat believes in, neither permanent exile nor clawing for power for power’s sake. Like G’kar (who, when offered anything he wanted by the Shadows, only wanted to keep his planet safe), Garak understands exactly where all the moral boundaries are and which ones he can cross to achieve his agenda and to be safe on a safe homeworld.

< looks at forum >

:zipper_mouth_face:

For the regulars in camp, yeah, they pretty much know the score about Al, but remember in the beginning, a lot of his scams involved selling fake claims to newcomers, like Alma Garrett’s husband. He’d come across as very likeable and personable, as part of the classic conman routine. He’d be all “Hail fellow and well met!” until it became necessary to kill you.

Al Swearengen who doesn’t think he can con you out of anything would be fun to hang out with. Al Swearengen who sees money on the line is a different matter.

NoHo Hank definitely has potential, if Barry lasts long enough as a show. A crime lord who admits he’s a crime lord, but also just wants to be buddies, and help each other do crimes and realize everyone’s full potential, okay?

Brom (Alma Garrett’s husband) is not the sharpest pickaxe in the hardware store. I don’t think Alma, even in her laudanum-addled state, is particularly taken with him, and clearly both Seth Bullock and Charlie Utter see through him immediately. (‘Calamity’ Jane, in vino veritas, actually thinks he’s elemental evil.) Al is a savvy businessman, and we see secretly redeeming aspects to him such as his charity toward Jewel (even if he is openly a complete dick to her) but I wouldn’t describe him as inherently likable.

I think Ian McShane is very charismatic actor who seems like the kind of guy who is probably and endless fount of entertaining stories, and his performance gives credence to the greater depths to the character of Al Swearengen than just being a villain, but Al is cantankerous, mercurial, and duplicitous. Which is what makes him the most compelling character in the show because you never know how he is going to respond to a new problem.

Stranger

B5 was known for its five-season arc without a reset button. Things happen, the universe changes, people change. Season two is far too early to come to a conclusion about any character. You will see.

I just came across the Deep Space Nine Bible—that is, the internal production notes distributed to the show’s writers to enforce a measure of consistency in the setting and characterizations. It describes Gul Dukat as “deceptively amiable”. So even if, as some posters here argue, he is not a likeable character, the showrunners did initially intend for him to have a veneer of story-internal likeability.

I’ve been watching American Gods, and watching Ian McShane play Mr. Wednesday is genuinely scaring me. He’s such a smooth operator, even able to win over sworn enemies. He has a grand plan, even though he looks like he’s making things up as he goes along. He makes bets with his companions, making them think they will surely win, then comes back years later to collect his winnings.

It’s like he makes a jigsaw puzzle one piece at a time, then assembles it over the course of centuries. He has an instinct for ferreting out vulnerabilities and desires and exploiting them. Even when he gets caught red-handed, he charms his way out of trouble, because his victims know they’re in for a wild, thrilling ride if they stick with him. Once they serve their purpose, he arranges their demise in such a way to avoid responsibility.

Is he a bad guy? He’s definitely a manipulator, and has no qualms about killing, but he can justify that as a means of winning wars. You would probably prefer to have him on your side at any rate.

Londo Mollari from Babylon 5. He’s absolutely adorable—and genocidal (although he does eventually try to back out).

I feel the same way about Londo as I do about Dukat - the writers are so clearly signaling to me that this is supposed to be an ambiguous villain, but they’ve made them so clearly morally deficient that that just doesn’t work (for me). It doesn’t help that I resent being railroaded.

Londo’s fun, but he’s not likeable. He’s an asshole. Look at how he treats Vir.

Now Bester, there was a more ambiguous B5 villain.