As a fan of the og Dexter series, I recall there being a very clear message from the show runners that having a dark passenger leads to nothing but pain and tragedy. I think we see this very clearly from all of the innocent people that died as a result of Dexters actions - Rita, Deb, LaGuerta, Doakes, brother Sam, Zach Hamilton. There are other examples too - the breakdown of Deb’s and dexters relationship, innocent people dying directly at the hands of Dexter like Rankin, and people like Miguel, Lila and Deb becoming killers due to dexters influence. Given all of this and the fact that the finale has Dexter leaving Miami behind for a different kind of life, it seemed that the growth of Dexter as a character came from him leaving his dark passenger behind.
I guess my question would be, doesn't him continuing to kill in subsequent spinoffs fly in the face of everything that was intended to sort of be meaningful in the original Dexter series? What we as the viewers come to understand about dark passengers, and the growth Dexter himself had by leaving it behind?
i mean you're kinda right but i think the spinoffs exist because fans were SO mad about that lumberjack ending. like everyone wanted more Dexter content but the original finale was pretty universally hated
the whole "leaving dark passenger behind" thing didn't really land for most people watching back then. it felt more like bad writing than character growth tbh. so when they made New Blood they basically had to bring back killer Dexter because thats what people actually wanted to see
maybe it does mess with original message but i think that message got lost anyway when season 8 was such a mess. the spinoffs are more about giving fans what they wanted rather than staying true to some deeper meaning that got buried under terrible plot decisions
5
LordXenu45Apr 15, 2026
+3
Eh, not really. There's a specific reason he kills in New Blood. >!He actually hasn't in like a decade but someone really sets him off and he snaps,!< and there's still been ramifications from him being a killer in both NB and Resurrection just like in the original.
3
ThracianWarrior103Apr 15, 2026
+4
It’s a cash cow. They were bound to milk it. They’ve done a pretty good job of it, but yes it does dilute the original arc of his character.
4
Gullible_Somewhere_7Apr 15, 2026
+2
It's been a minute since I've seen the sequels but isn't the overarching theme that he's trying to help Harrison? I think he does leave his urges behind largely, or at least tries to, but Harrison sort of stirs things up for him.
2
sandrollerApr 15, 2026
+1
It's been a minute for me as well, but from what I recall it was Dexter trying to help Harrison, but in the nature of the character, Dexter misread the situation. Dexter saw Harrison's aggression and assumed he had a dark passenger, and wanted to pass on Harry's code. That part of the sequel worked so well for me - you see Dexter's ritual for cleaning up after a kill from Harrison's point of view, and it's horrifying and grotesque; up to then (from what I recall) the ritual has been treated differently ... Dexter is complex, likeable, but still a serial killer. I thought Dexter: New Blood - despite its many faults - handled this part of the story well. Dexter misreading a situation is a character trait ... of course he did it when Harrison came back.
1
wo0topiaApr 15, 2026
+1
I mean, yes they do. And I agree with your take. I think the way they ended new blood was worse than even the original ending. That being said resurrection has gone in a direction im less upset about and I cant lie, I am a sucker for Dexter so ill watch just about anything and just complain when its bad
1
JuunlarApr 15, 2026
+1
>the way they ended new blood was worse than even the original ending.
Mount Rushmore of horrid takes
1
wo0topiaApr 16, 2026
+4
I mean, they clearly agree since they retconned 90% of it.
4
JuunlarApr 16, 2026
What did they retcon?
0
wo0topiaApr 16, 2026
+2
Well first, he was definitely dead at the end. That was supposed to be the end. Showrunners confirmed that it was expected to be the final season. Then everything that was done by Dexter effectively just got swept under the rug by his gf from the series which apparently no longer cares he was the bhb. It obviously wasnt official cannon change, but they more or less said "the last two episodes of Dexter new blood didnt happen".
Dont get me wrong, everything outside those two episodes was peak Dexter, but everything from not having Bautista meet with dexter to dexter brutally killing a very innocent man, to him forcing his own son to kill him was a f****** terrible choice. Which is why they totally ignore it all in resurrection and its better for it.
2
JuunlarApr 16, 2026
-1
They purposefully didn't show him die on the chance it could be brought back.
Nothing was retconned. In fact, a large portion of resurrection was the healing of father and son.
You can dislike it, that's your opinion. But saying they retconned everything is just patently incorrect. The story just moved on.
-1
DampmaskinApr 15, 2026
+1
Not everything needs to have a clear and unambiguous moral message. I find that stories that are too consistent in their morality can easily become predictable and boring. The morally ambiguous ones tend to be more thought provoking.
Also, some artists talk way too much about their art. I think it's better when they leave something up to the audience.
Edit: I wasn't trying to say that you shouldn't prefer to be told what to think. I'm just expressing my own preference here, not trying to attack anyone. It's OK to have different preferences, if I can say so without causing offense.
12 Comments