Eillio Martin Imbasciati Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tom said: We will never know exactly. That’s what I love about this episode. It’s not exactly clear who was who and different options are possible around the 3 girls involved which was plotted by Glantz on purpose to conceal the kill with confusion. My perception was that Margo was the dead eyes only as Glantz said at the party. They killed Amy Rider on set and did not bother to film her eyes at this point. So they filmed it later. I think that's a strong possibility, which means that even the "dead eyes" evidence on tape isn't much evidence. That Glantz character was sure slippery and had his cheeks covered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 2 minutes ago, Tom said: We will never know exactly. That’s what I love about this episode. It’s not exactly clear who was who and different options are possible around the 3 girls involved which was plotted by Glantz on purpose to conceal the kill with confusion. My perception was that Margo was the dead eyes only as Glantz said at the party. They killed Amy Rider on set and did not bother to film her eyes at this point. So they filmed it later. Agreed...this is also one reason I love the episode as well. I always thought poor Amy was the dead-eyes they filmed when they killed her, then claimed it was Margo and Laurie Swan later. But, maybe Margo actually was the dead-eyes? Cool plot twists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 Just now, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said: I think that's a strong possibility, which means that even the "dead eyes" evidence on tape isn't much evidence. That Glantz character was sure slippery and had his cheeks covered. Exactly...Glantz himself said he was well connected and definitely had himself covered. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 What I also like here is Crockett’s attitude change throughout the episode like also In Good Collar and Milk Run. At first he does not buy it and reacts angrily on the person who he has to deal with but they further he dives into the case he realizes he might be wrong and changes from rejection to empathy for Knox as he did with Archie and the two boys in Milk run. That shows a high level of maturity to be able to differentiate between initially annoying characters and the real high class criminals and to adapt to that. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 6 minutes ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said: I think Margot was a cover, but I'm not 100% on that. I thought so too...but it’s all messing with the mind! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillio Martin Imbasciati Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 Just now, ViceFanMan said: Exactly...Glantz himself said he was well connected and definitely had himself covered. Yeah, so he'd probably be smart enough to not film the actual Amy as "dead eyes" (film is all about convincing and fooling people; movie magic:-), so just because Crockett said that she's dead on film simply could've been good acting. Filming the real death of Amy vaguely would keep Glantz in the clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 vor 1 Minute schrieb ViceFanMan: I thought so too...but it’s all messing with the mind! He said he filmed with Margo on the Bahamas. Of course these production sheets could be doctored as well but let’s assume that this was too much effort for him in this case amongst many other wrong trails. Her arrogant attitude and the fact that Glantz would never have flown Amy to the Bahamas for the kill on his expense let me believe that they really filmed with Margo on the Bahamas and NY and killed Amy in a fucked up place where nobody saw it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillio Martin Imbasciati Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 4 minutes ago, Tom said: What I also like here is Crockett’s attitude change throughout the episode like also In Good Collar and Milk Run. At first he does not buy it and reacts angrily on the person who he has to deal with but they further he dives into the case he realizes he might be wrong and changes from rejection to empathy for Knox as he did with Archie and the two boys in Milk run. That shows a high level of maturity to be able to differentiate between initially annoying characters and the real high class criminals and to adapt to that. I agree; in those examples, and in general, Crockett is able to adjust and adapt his opinions and stance on people and situations presented. I think it shows depth of character to be open to change and admit that his first impression was the wrong impression. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eillio Martin Imbasciati Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 3 minutes ago, Tom said: He said he filmed with Margo on the Bahamas. Of course these production sheets could be doctored as well but let’s assume that this was too much effort for him in this case amongst many other wrong trails. Her arrogant attitude and the fact that Glantz would never have flown Amy to the Bahamas for the kill on his expense let me believe that they really filmed with Margo on the Bahamas and NY and killed Amy in a fucked up place where nobody saw it. Yeah, that explanation tracks for me, especially since Glantz seemed to consider Amy a throwaway person (then again, I don't think a fella like him holds high-esteem for many, just a "means to an end" type). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 7 minutes ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said: Yeah, so he'd probably be smart enough to not film the actual Amy as "dead eyes" (film is all about convincing and fooling people; movie magic:-), so just because Crockett said that she's dead on film simply could've been good acting. Filming the real death of Amy vaguely would keep Glantz in the clear. 4 minutes ago, Tom said: He said he filmed with Margo on the Bahamas. Of course these production sheets could be doctored as well but let’s assume that this was too much effort for him in this case amongst many other wrong trails. Her arrogant attitude and the fact that Glantz would never have flown Amy to the Bahamas for the kill on his expense let me believe that they really filmed with Margo on the Bahamas and NY and killed Amy in a fucked up place where nobody saw it. Very plausible explanations, and could very well be! I always thought that the dead eyes were probably Amy’s and Glantz claimed it was a combo of Laurie & Margo in the film (hoping no one would know about Amy), and Margo was actually a lie or cover—and possibly had never taken part in the film itself. But, the sister & Crockett realized it was actually Amy...as the eyes were of an actual dead person. However, it could very well have been Margo. Wild! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 2 hours ago, vicegirl85 said: Eh, I don't know that it was unrealistic or goofy. Glantz was considered an avant-garde artiste (perhaps!) but really? someone who makes snuff films would seem to be operating in a very shady area and I would not think that seriously powerful politicians would want to be associated with the action of "going to bat" for him. Crockett performed some vigilante justice and if it had been done with the knowledge of Castillo or other superiors I feel that he may have gotten a suspension. But again I feel that Glantz was in a shaky position and would have been well-advised to lay low for some time, rather than to file a complaint about police harrassment. I think the whole point of the slapping was for Crockett to emasculate Glantz. Hence the "pimp slap" beat down he lays on. In '80s code, Glantz isn't a real man based on what he did to Amy, so Crockett didn't treat him like one and slapped him down like a pimp would slap down his girls. That's the point of the sequence, which is glaringly obvious if you take it in the '80s context. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 18 minutes ago, Robbie C. said: I think the whole point of the slapping was for Crockett to emasculate Glantz. Hence the "pimp slap" beat down he lays on. In '80s code, Glantz isn't a real man based on what he did to Amy, so Crockett didn't treat him like one and slapped him down like a pimp would slap down his girls. That's the point of the sequence, which is glaringly obvious if you take it in the '80s context. I agree...I think the point was to “emasculate” Glantz to an extent, and treat him like he thought of people. It just came off strange that Crockett made a special trip over to Glantz’s in the middle of the night just to do that. I’d understand (pardon the language) if Crockett had bitch-slapped or hit him in anger when he was already there before, but the way they had him do it was...odd. Glantz was also not some scuzzy porno shop person, or street drug dealer/pimp. Regardless of how terrible, sleazy & perverted his life/career was, Glantz had connections and clout with power-people. Whatever the reason or manner used to beat him up, in reality Glantz would have pressed charges and gotten Crockett either fired or demoted. If you know the right people with the right connections & power, you can have pretty much anything happen to anyone...and it can be handled privately and/or under the guise of something else. I get what writers/producers were probably trying to convey...it just was done strangely. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 Not really. If scandal broke around Glantz his powerful friends (if they actually existed) would disappear. The way they did this wasn’t strange at all. It fit perfectly with the episode and helped showcase Crockett’s increasing burnout as has been mentioned before. There’s nothing strange about this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 12, 2021 Report Share Posted July 12, 2021 5 minutes ago, Robbie C. said: Not really. If scandal broke around Glantz his powerful friends (if they actually existed) would disappear. The way they did this wasn’t strange at all. It fit perfectly with the episode and helped showcase Crockett’s increasing burnout as has been mentioned before. There’s nothing strange about this. Maybe the burnout...I understand that to an extent. But, Glantz wasn’t on trial for anything (as that would have been public and then maybe political friends might have disappeared)...there wouldn’t have been any publicity by having them take care of Crockett for him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 I don't know why you keep hanging up on this. Crockett had run-ins with any number of powerful people who could have gotten his badge lifted without breaking a sweat (like a certain corpse-like banker in NYC or Maynard who was seriously connected) well before this episode. Glantz was VERY small fry compared to some of those people. And I seriously doubt if any of them owed Glantz so much as a cup of coffee, let alone a favor. So they have his paintings on the wall? He'll be out of fashion next year (or next week) and the next artiste will take his place. They gain NOTHING by helping him and stand to lose something if they do. The powerful trade in power, and Glantz had none to offer them. Remember the old saw: "I know the governor!" "Maybe, but does he know you?" Just accept he was a little punk who got slapped around by Crockett in a way that made total sense for the episode and had some interesting metaphorical connotations at the same time (if Glantz was an attention or media whore, Crockett pimp-slapping him gains added dimension). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 5 hours ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said: I agree, Proverb was more of a guy who fit in a certain niche; he had a following, but he didn't seem quite national yet. With the Jorgensen clan, that's finance, and not everyone in the world pays attention to financial folks, or are aware of, for example, who the heck people like Ivan Boesky (Boesky beat? no, not a Smalltown Boy) or Mike Milken (Got Milken? Milken good) are. But money is the fuel of politics, and if a finance person wanted to get rid of Crockett, it would be a simple thing to host a fundraiser or two and then call in the favor. In terms of Proverb, he could "mobilize the faithful" and get a publicity campaign going that might force the politicians who run most police departments to sacrifice Crockett to calm things down. Both of those individuals would have been a much bigger threat to Crockett's career than an artist, especially in the '80s. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Robbie C. said: I don't know why you keep hanging up on this. Crockett had run-ins with any number of powerful people who could have gotten his badge lifted without breaking a sweat (like a certain corpse-like banker in NYC or Maynard who was seriously connected) well before this episode. Glantz was VERY small fry compared to some of those people. And I seriously doubt if any of them owed Glantz so much as a cup of coffee, let alone a favor. So they have his paintings on the wall? He'll be out of fashion next year (or next week) and the next artiste will take his place. They gain NOTHING by helping him and stand to lose something if they do. The powerful trade in power, and Glantz had none to offer them. Remember the old saw: "I know the governor!" "Maybe, but does he know you?" Just accept he was a little punk who got slapped around by Crockett in a way that made total sense for the episode and had some interesting metaphorical connotations at the same time (if Glantz was an attention or media whore, Crockett pimp-slapping him gains added dimension). Crockett didn’t necessarily regularly deal with high influential or politically connected people. He mostly dealt with drug dealers and pimps...rich as they might be. Sometimes he had dealings with big-wigs, but not that much, and he also didn’t smack/beat them around either. But, sadly a lot of politicians, judges, senators, actors, artists, musicians, sports players, etc...are into porn and sick kinds of perversion. Glantz was not a “little punk”. He was politically connected and had high influential friends (or had them in his pocket) that would not want that public. They would have lots to lose if Crockett continued his investigation into Glantz, his “world”, and the death of Amy Rider. They would not have had any problem getting Crockett “removed” from the situation & Glantz, to try and hush the whole thing up. Edited July 13, 2021 by ViceFanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 Glantz didn't have anyone in his pocket. Your evaluation of the episode's ending stands on nothing more than you don't like it, which is fine. But just say that. You don't need to twist the whole episode to support something that isn't there. And go ahead and have the last word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Robbie C. said: Glantz didn't have anyone in his pocket. Your evaluation of the episode's ending stands on nothing more than you don't like it, which is fine. But just say that. You don't need to twist the whole episode to support something that isn't there. And go ahead and have the last word. I’m not twisting anything...I’m going by what Glantz said, what is shown, and what reality is compared to that. If standing by that is “having the last word”...so be it. I love the episode, the ending is not that big of a deal...just something I (and I’m not the only one by any means) felt was a little strange & unrealistic. But, it was the 80s & MV...not everything was by reality, and I know (and remember) you are supposed to just watch & go with it. Edited July 13, 2021 by ViceFanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 vor 9 Stunden schrieb Robbie C.: I don't know why you keep hanging up on this. Crockett had run-ins with any number of powerful people who could have gotten his badge lifted without breaking a sweat (like a certain corpse-like banker in NYC or Maynard who was seriously connected) well before this episode. Glantz was VERY small fry compared to some of those people. And I seriously doubt if any of them owed Glantz so much as a cup of coffee, let alone a favor. So they have his paintings on the wall? He'll be out of fashion next year (or next week) and the next artiste will take his place. They gain NOTHING by helping him and stand to lose something if they do. The powerful trade in power, and Glantz had none to offer them. Remember the old saw: "I know the governor!" "Maybe, but does he know you?" Just accept he was a little punk who got slapped around by Crockett in a way that made total sense for the episode and had some interesting metaphorical connotations at the same time (if Glantz was an attention or media whore, Crockett pimp-slapping him gains added dimension). Fully agree and argumented the same but he will just ignore all counter examples and just pretend that Glantz was Donald Trump. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 1 hour ago, Tom said: Fully agree and argumented the same but he will just ignore all counter examples and just pretend that Glantz was Donald Trump. Trump? No...but had the right political connections in that area for that time? Yes. Again...just going by what was said & shown. As much as I like the character of Crockett, he wasn’t 007 either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 (edited) Probably one of the most bizarre, perverted, whacked-out announcers/speakers I’ve ever seen! Do we know why Trudy & Gina were at the porn awards convention to begin with? Was it just to check out possible under age girls or prostitution...or drug usage? Edited July 13, 2021 by ViceFanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadrian Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 2 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: Was it just to check out possible under age girls or prostitution...or drug usage? I’ve always assumed something along those lines. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 1 minute ago, Dadrian said: I’ve always assumed something along those lines. I figured it was probably something like that, but it was never really stated. But, maybe they were into Glantz’s films? Just kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDragon86 Posted July 13, 2021 Report Share Posted July 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: Probably one of the most bizarre, perverted, whacked-out announcers/speakers I’ve ever seen! Do we know why Trudy & Gina were at the porn awards convention to begin with? Was it just to check out possible under age girls or prostitution...or drug usage? Cringey, corny and cheesy all rolled into one. It is actually quite unbearable watching that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.