Episode #8 "The Great McCarthy"

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

3 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

it's pretty obvious that if you give in to a person that behave towards you like a cat at first encounter, yeah there's probably eel under rock like we say here. Definitely suspicious

Yeah, I agree: things are rarely that easy in life, or with the development of relationships with other individuals. I mean, things can go sideways even if one gets to know someone, but I think Callie sent all the wrong kinds of signals out (like in that, "Hey, my friend is hurt back in that ally, can you check on them?" kind of way).

[ViceFanMan]

4 minutes ago, Eillio Martin Imbasciati said:

Of yes, I agree that Vanessa was bad news in bold print. McCarthy had drugs, but I think if one played it cool with him that a working relationship would be a possibility: but Vanessa, to me, was one always grabbing for something and liked to amuse herself by manipulating others. Gifford was definitely collateral damage, but I actually kind of liked him (I feel he wasn't a Vincent DeMarco-type, or a total sell-out weasel either, but a guy caught up in the fix). I think Vanessa needed her butt kicked by Alicia Austin (She's got to!).

Lol...agreed! I loved her Alicia Austin character & wish she’d of stayed around as Tubbs’ girlfriend. 

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

3 hours ago, Dadrian said:

 

Around 4:24

 

I actually found this video on YouTube a few weeks ago; now YouTube places it in one of those suggested mixes of theirs for me, and I accept that choice with enthusiasm!

[RedDragon86]

16 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

My own psychoanalysis tends to think probably very abusive...physically, or sexually, or psychologically, or all 3. But, with true sociopaths it’s hard to know? With no conscience, no sense of right or wrong, no feelings or emotions—towards others & sometimes not even really towards themselves (although for a while self-survival might be a way of operating)...they’re scary to me! 

I think this could be the case.

Real life crime figure Griselda Blanco from Cocaine Cowboys had an abusive upbringing (sexually abuse by her mothers boyfriend) and she was known as the "The Black Widow" as well had zero emotions towards people.

I do picture Callie as a this little rich kid growing up though and not a dirt poor like Blanco.

I would love to know what the backstory of her character was when Michael Ahnemann & Daniel Pyne created her, because I think there is always one but we don't get to know the original details.

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by RedDragon86

[ViceFanMan]

3 hours ago, RedDragon86 said:

I think this could be the case.

Real life crime figure Griselda Blanco from Cocaine Cowboys had an abusive upbringing (sexually abuse by her mothers boyfriend) and she was known as the "The Black Widow" as well had zero emotions towards people.

I do picture Callie as a this little rich kid growing up though and not a dirt poor like Blanco.

I would love to know what the backstory of her character was when Michael Ahnemann & Daniel Pyne created her, because I think there is always one but we don't get to know the original details.

 

Back in the 80s, especially since most crime shows at that time did not have continuing storylines and/or character arcs like they do now, I doubt they really created backstories for that many characters (other than what little we got to see for maybe the main stars). So, whether Vanessa or Callie...I think they just “made” the character like she was for that episode/moment without much thought into why. 

Everyone likes to psychoanalyze nowadays, whereas back then no one really did...you just watched & went with it. So, in all honesty we’re probably not really supposed to read that much into characters on older shows like MV.  But, it’s still kind of fun to think & create our own what-ifs based on what we are shown.  

With Vanessa I see her growing up in a rich environment & around those people & that world. She knew how to take advantage of people & situations...not to kill or destroy, but to financially & socially better herself & move up in the inner-circles—whether legally or illegally. Killing Gifford was a fluke, and not planned or something Vanessa had probably ever done before.

Callie was different. She was actually fatal. I don’t see a dirt poor upbringing...but I don’t picture rich & privileged either. I picture a lower class (maybe lower middle class) childhood where she was regularly abused (possibly in all ways). She hated men, or had no use for them. She learned to use her sex appeal to take advantage of them...to kill and destroy!

She usually chose rich ones to get as much money and material things out of them as she could. Then when she “tired” of them, she sent Charlie in to get rid of them. They were a team...but Callie was in charge. She called the shots. Charlie was in it strictly for the money. Callie, I think, was in it more for the twisted “high” of the destruction & kill! She liked the money & ‘stuff’ (as she probably didn’t have any of it growing up)...but she enjoyed destroying and killing them even more! 

Edited July 9, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Eillio Martin Imbasciati]

1 hour ago, ViceFanMan said:

Back in the 80s, especially since most crime shows at that time did not have continuing storylines and/or character arcs like they do now, I doubt they really created backstories for that many characters (other than what little we got to see for maybe the main stars). So, whether Vanessa or Callie...I think they just “made” the character like she was for that episode/moment without much thought into why. 

Everyone likes to psychoanalyze nowadays, whereas back then no one really did...you just watched & went with it. So, in all honesty we’re probably not really supposed to read that much into characters on older shows like MV.  But, it’s still kind of fun to think & create our own what-ifs based on what we are shown.  

With Vanessa I see her growing up in a rich environment & around those people & that world. She knew how to take advantage of people & situations...not to kill or destroy, but to financially & socially better herself & move up in the inner-circles—whether legally or illegally. Killing Gifford was a fluke, and not planned or something Vanessa had probably ever done before.

Callie was different. She was actually fatal. I don’t see a dirt poor upbringing...but I don’t picture rich & privileged either. I picture a lower class (maybe lower middle class) childhood where she was regularly abused (possibly in all ways). She hated men, or had no use for them. She learned to use her sex appeal to take advantage of them...to kill and destroy!

She usually chose rich ones to get as much money and material things out of them as she could. Then when she “tired” of them, she sent Charlie in to get rid of them. They were a team...but Callie was in charge. She called the shots. Charlie was in it strictly for the money. Callie, I think, was in it more for the twisted “high” of the destruction & kill! She liked the money & ‘stuff’ (as she probably didn’t have any of it growing up)...but she enjoyed destroying and killing them even more! 

Yeah, I think Vice had more evolution of characters than shows typically did at the time, but I do wonder about the backstories of some of the people featured in episodes. Heck, I wonder about Charlie: was he a child of the streets, and start his criminal career off as some kind of street bandit (Ha, I'm referencing statements both Don Johnson & Sonny Crockett have made at one point)? I'd also like to know what made Tim Duryea such a bozo (he strikes me as a guy who gave out wedgies in school).

Griselda Blanco, what a rough character she seemed to be, to put it mildly. I think just hearing about her ways would scare any outsider interested in dabbling in the drug trade (maybe Crockett should've told the story about her to Louis & Eddie in 'Milk run', although the finger sewn into mouths story was suitably gruesome!). Cocaine Cowboys indeed, and with exclamation points.

[pahonu]

6 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Back in the 80s, especially since most crime shows at that time did not have continuing storylines and/or character arcs like they do now, I doubt they really created backstories for that many characters (other than what little we got to see for maybe the main stars). So, whether Vanessa or Callie...I think they just “made” the character like she was for that episode/moment without much thought into why. 

Everyone likes to psychoanalyze nowadays, whereas back then no one really did...you just watched & went with it. So, in all honesty we’re probably not really supposed to read that much into characters on older shows like MV.  But, it’s still kind of fun to think & create our own what-ifs based on what we are shown.  

 

I think you’re right on both counts.  It’s certainly fun to consider these deeper character motivations and backstories, but writers of that era gave little thought to these things.  As has been well documented here, the writers didn’t even keep the main character’s backstories straight.  Any argument about guest star’s backgrounds is completely based on opinion.  

[ViceFanMan]

43 minutes ago, pahonu said:

I think you’re right on both counts.  It’s certainly fun to consider these deeper character motivations and backstories, but writers of that era gave little thought to these things.  As has been well documented here, the writers didn’t even keep the main character’s backstories straight.  Any argument about guest star’s backgrounds is completely based on opinion.  

Exactly...any ideas or theories on backstories & pasts of guest-stars are totally just that...theories. Back in the 80s crime or mystery shows didn’t usually have continuous storylines or character arcs that lasted more than an episode or 2, if it was a 2-parter.

And, you’re right...the writers couldn’t even seem to keep the main star’s backgrounds straight or consistent, let-alone a one-episode guest character.   

[RedDragon86]

8 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Back in the 80s, especially since most crime shows at that time did not have continuing storylines and/or character arcs like they do now, I doubt they really created backstories for that many characters (other than what little we got to see for maybe the main stars). So, whether Vanessa or Callie...I think they just “made” the character like she was for that episode/moment without much thought into why. 

Everyone likes to psychoanalyze nowadays, whereas back then no one really did...you just watched & went with it. So, in all honesty we’re probably not really supposed to read that much into characters on older shows like MV.  But, it’s still kind of fun to think & create our own what-ifs based on what we are shown.  

With Vanessa I see her growing up in a rich environment & around those people & that world. She knew how to take advantage of people & situations...not to kill or destroy, but to financially & socially better herself & move up in the inner-circles—whether legally or illegally. Killing Gifford was a fluke, and not planned or something Vanessa had probably ever done before.

Callie was different. She was actually fatal. I don’t see a dirt poor upbringing...but I don’t picture rich & privileged either. I picture a lower class (maybe lower middle class) childhood where she was regularly abused (possibly in all ways). She hated men, or had no use for them. She learned to use her sex appeal to take advantage of them...to kill and destroy!

She usually chose rich ones to get as much money and material things out of them as she could. Then when she “tired” of them, she sent Charlie in to get rid of them. They were a team...but Callie was in charge. She called the shots. Charlie was in it strictly for the money. Callie, I think, was in it more for the twisted “high” of the destruction & kill! She liked the money & ‘stuff’ (as she probably didn’t have any of it growing up)...but she enjoyed destroying and killing them even more! 

I am not sure they would have created Callie as a "Oh well that character will do" "Action!", there has to be some sort of backstory creation to a the character like hers. @Robbie C. what do you think? this is your field 

Edited July 10, 2021 by RedDragon86

[ViceFanMan]

5 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

I am not sure they would have created Callie as a "Oh well that character will do" "Action!", there has to be some sort of backstory creation to a the character like hers. @Robbie C. what do you think? this is your field 

No...actually there doesn’t have to be any backstory, especially back then. Nowadays lots of times a guest character’s past has to do with the plot of crime show episodes...so they include more past elements & reasons why they are the way they are. They didn’t do that back in the 80s, it wasn’t the style or the way they did crime shows yet. Psychology/sociology is sort of my field with what I do. But, any psychoanalysis we all come up with now, on an older show like MV, is just fun-for-thought...a bunch of what-ifs. 

But, back then writers & producers would just make a character a certain way for that episode, without any real thought or effort put into a backstory or a past of why. 

[pahonu]

14 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

I am not sure they would have created Callie as a "Oh well that will do character" "Action!", there has to be some sort of backstory creation to a the character like hers. @Robbie C. what do you think? this is your field 

I would agree that something motivated the writer to create the character.  That’s the nature of writing itself. Perhaps it was a news story or an anecdote from a friend.  Perhaps there was even more detail, but the point is that the writers really only provided the viewer enough information about the character to move the plot along and little else.  That was the norm in that era of television. That’s less acceptable among viewers today, I think.

Edited July 10, 2021 by pahonu

[ViceFanMan]

8 minutes ago, pahonu said:

I would agree that something motivated the writer to create the character.  That’s the nature of writing itself. Perhaps it was a news story or an anecdote from a friend.  Perhaps there was even more detail, but the point is that the writers really only provided the viewer enough information about the character to move the plot along and little else.  That was the norm in that era of television. That’s less acceptable among viewers today, I think.

Exactly...the writers probably had a certain kind of character they had to create for that episode...but any real past or backstory was not usually considered important or relevant to the episode plot. We only saw what the character did ‘now’, but not much on what happened to them as children to make them become what they did. In today’s TV audience, more psychology & backstory is looked for & expected to help explain things. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, RedDragon86 said:

I am not sure they would have created Callie as a "Oh well that character will do" "Action!", there has to be some sort of backstory creation to a the character like hers. @Robbie C. what do you think? this is your field 

I'll dip into this from the writing perspective. Frankly, just about any time a writer comes up with something other than "man with a newspaper" or "redneck one of three in the rusty pickup" there's at least some backstory going on. It doesn't have to reach the screen, but having done this for many, many years I can tell you that when you come up with a character that's intended to resonate or have some kind of impact there's a backstory. It may not be fleshed out to any major extent, but it's there. Claiming that there isn't, to me, shows ignorance of the writing process.

And while it may not explicitly show up on the screen, the implied backstory helps viewers connect with the characters, even in the supposedly primitive TV world of the '70s and '80s. It's called creating an authentic or relatable voice, and to do that you need more than a trope for a character. Gunsmoke was pretty good at creating minor characters with depth clearly indicating a backstory of some kind, as was Hill Street Blues. Other shows didn't bother as much...hence the "redneck one of three in the rusty truck" you saw so often in CHiPs (to give one example).

[Robbie C.]

4 hours ago, pahonu said:

I think you’re right on both counts.  It’s certainly fun to consider these deeper character motivations and backstories, but writers of that era gave little thought to these things.  As has been well documented here, the writers didn’t even keep the main character’s backstories straight.  Any argument about guest star’s backgrounds is completely based on opinion.  

However, that doesn't mean a particular writer didn't have a specific character story in mind when the script was created. Given Vice's production failure when it came to backstories, and Mann's own shifting stances on what he thought the show was doing, just about anything said about the show is based on opinion.

[pahonu]

26 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

However, that doesn't mean a particular writer didn't have a specific character story in mind when the script was created. Given Vice's production failure when it came to backstories, and Mann's own shifting stances on what he thought the show was doing, just about anything said about the show is based on opinion.

I agree.  As I wrote previously, the writer almost certainly had something of the character’s motivation and backstory in mind when creating the script.  The difference seems to be the extent to which those details are included in the script.  That’s what I think has changed over the decades, the expectation by viewers for writers to include a greater level of character complexity both within an episode and in larger story arcs.  The debates on this forum about character motivation are therefore more speculative than in recent series where much more character detail is provided.  

[ViceFanMan]

33 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

I'll dip into this from the writing perspective. Frankly, just about any time a writer comes up with something other than "man with a newspaper" or "redneck one of three in the rusty pickup" there's at least some backstory going on. It doesn't have to reach the screen, but having done this for many, many years I can tell you that when you come up with a character that's intended to resonate or have some kind of impact there's a backstory. It may not be fleshed out to any major extent, but it's there. Claiming that there isn't, to me, shows ignorance of the writing process.

And while it may not explicitly show up on the screen, the implied backstory helps viewers connect with the characters, even in the supposedly primitive TV world of the '70s and '80s. It's called creating an authentic or relatable voice, and to do that you need more than a trope for a character. Gunsmoke was pretty good at creating minor characters with depth clearly indicating a backstory of some kind, as was Hill Street Blues. Other shows didn't bother as much...hence the "redneck one of three in the rusty truck" you saw so often in CHiPs (to give one example).

 

30 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

However, that doesn't mean a particular writer didn't have a specific character story in mind when the script was created. Given Vice's production failure when it came to backstories, and Mann's own shifting stances on what he thought the show was doing, just about anything said about the show is based on opinion.

I’ve written some things before, and I agree...usually when you create a character, you as the writer have an idea of who they are and depending on what part they play in the story, they may have a interesting past or backstory.

However, television writing (unlike novels or even movies) back in the 80s wasn’t necessarily like that. If a writer was given a character idea to put into an episode, then they usually just went with that idea up to how it worked for that episode in the present.

By all means that writer may create somewhat of a backstory or past for that character in their own minds...but that didn’t always work for the episode itself, and wasn’t usually included. I doubt they were given much time to elaborate on the character’s past or background (unless that was part of the plot, and needed to be included), as they probably had to “pop” out multiple episodes by a certain time. 

I also agree...MV’s continual changing of writers & production problems didn’t work well for consistency of the few character arcs, that the show did have...and unless it was actually stated or shown, they left a lot “open” or for opinion. But, it’s not “ignorance” of writing to say that characters like Vanessa or Callie had no real backstory...because they didn’t! Backstories or pasts weren’t shown or even alluded to much at all. The writers wrote them to how they fit into their specific episodes. Any ideas on their pasts are just opinions & theories. 

 As I’ve stated before, I don’t think we are really supposed to read that much into their characters beyond what we saw in the episodes. Although I like to psychoanalyze for fun ...I seriously doubt the MV writers in the 80s had any clue we’d all be here 37 years later plus, digressing all the episodes & characters like they were episodes of Criminal Minds.  MV was about entertainment and “fun”...don’t try and dive in too deep, just go with it and enjoy!  

[Robbie C.]

To each his own. I prefer the deep end. The shallow end feels too crowded.

[pahonu]

I see the enjoyment in thinking more deeply about these characters and their motivations.  I also see that doing so is far more opinion-based and speculative in this case than in more recent programming.  With less detail included, what the viewer brings to the interpretation of these minor characters seems much more than what the writer actually provides regarding backstory.  This is true in literary analysis through any lens, but to a greater extent when less actual detail is provided.

[ViceFanMan]

58 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

To each his own. I prefer the deep end. The shallow end feels too crowded.

As far as entertainment goes, both can offer aspects that are appealing or serve a purpose. It just depends on the show, and what the purpose of that show is. 

[ViceFanMan]

22 minutes ago, pahonu said:

I see the enjoyment in thinking more deeply about these characters and their motivations.  I also see that doing so is far more opinion-based and speculative in this case than in more recent programming.  With less detail included, what the viewer brings to the interpretation of these minor characters seems much more than what the writer actually provides regarding backstory.  This is true in literary analysis through any lens, but to a greater extent when less actual detail is provided.

Exactly...especially with older shows & episodes. Newer or more recent shows tend to offer more depth and background to characters.

Edited July 10, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Christine]

Am 8.7.2021 um 21:53 schrieb ViceFanMan:

Sadly abused people don’t have to be under the influence of something to allow themselves to be used as a “punching bag”. In this bizarre case, I see Charlie as being under the “influence” of Callie...she was the sociopathic mastermind calling the shots. The beating Charlie gave her (at her request) was no where near fatal. It was purposely just enough to give her facial bruises to keep Crockett on the proverbial hook.

She seemed used to abuse, and had no trouble using forms of it to get her way & play out her sick/twisted fantasy of setting men up to be killed..and they were none the wiser until it was too late. This tends to make me think she was probably abused by most of the men in her childhood and/or life. 

We just landed in the completely wrong episode, but I have to disagree with you, ViceFanMan. I'm not sure if Callie was really the driving force and Charlie was just the executive. I think they were a very good fit because they were both sociopathically inclined and their method had probably made them a lot of money so far.
Maybe Callie experienced a lot of violence in her childhood, but I always find it difficult when everything that goes wrong in a person's life is always blamed on just a bad childhood.
Of course, it happens often enough and is terrible, but I know people who had to endure bad things in their childhood without becoming criminals. It's the same with people who get behind the wheel drunk, run over someone else and are given mitigating circumstances in court because they were drunk. That's exactly why I would punish them twice, because nobody accidentally drinks too much and if they misjudged, they shouldn't get behind the wheel.
Callie and Charlie were a well-oiled team, and for the money they ended up with, Callie was willing to put up with a slap or two to look believable.

[RedDragon86]

11 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

I'll dip into this from the writing perspective. Frankly, just about any time a writer comes up with something other than "man with a newspaper" or "redneck one of three in the rusty pickup" there's at least some backstory going on. It doesn't have to reach the screen, but having done this for many, many years I can tell you that when you come up with a character that's intended to resonate or have some kind of impact there's a backstory. It may not be fleshed out to any major extent, but it's there. Claiming that there isn't, to me, shows ignorance of the writing process.

And while it may not explicitly show up on the screen, the implied backstory helps viewers connect with the characters, even in the supposedly primitive TV world of the '70s and '80s. It's called creating an authentic or relatable voice, and to do that you need more than a trope for a character. Gunsmoke was pretty good at creating minor characters with depth clearly indicating a backstory of some kind, as was Hill Street Blues. Other shows didn't bother as much...hence the "redneck one of three in the rusty truck" you saw so often in CHiPs (to give one example).

This is exactly what I thought and expected, even though I don't know how characters are created/written or the process of it.

Thanks for this.

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2021 by RedDragon86

[RedDragon86]

8 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

Exactly...especially with older shows & episodes. Newer or more recent shows tend to offer more depth and background to characters.

The thing is though how can there be so much depth to certain characters in Vice if there isn't a backstory.

Gretsky for example, you can feel the chemistry between him a Marty on screen and Jackie in LMD is so damaged you can sense her life story just by observing her for 5 minutes.

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, RedDragon86 said:

The thing is though how can there be so much depth to certain characters in Vice if there isn't a backstory.

Gretsky for example, you can feel the chemistry between him a Marty on screen and Jackie in LMD is so damaged you can sense her life story just by observing her for 5 minutes.

There were certain characters that were “deeper” than others, depending on the episode...but the thing is, the depth was only for the episode. What little pasts or backstories revealed for those two characters mentioned above, were only in the episode. Jackie is the closest to saying anything about her past and/or childhood.

Again, the characters were meant to be impactful for the episode...but you weren’t necessarily supposed to put much thought into them beyond that. We can psychoanalyze for fun...but that wasn’t what MV writers had in mind back then. Anything we come up with is just supposition & theory. A lot of shows today do focus on backstories & pasts...but that’s not how shows were done back then. It’s basically trying to watch an 80s show with a 2021 mindset. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

6 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

There were certain characters that were “deeper” than others, depending on the episode...but the thing is, the depth was only for the episode. What little pasts or backstories revealed for those two characters mentioned above, were only in the episode. Jackie is the closest to saying anything about her past and/or childhood.

Again, the characters were meant to be impactful for the episode...but you weren’t necessarily supposed to put much thought into them beyond that. We can psychoanalyze for fun...but that wasn’t what MV writers had in mind back then. Anything we come up with is just supposition & theory. A lot of shows today do focus on backstories & pasts...but that’s not how shows were done back then. It’s basically trying to watch an 80s show with a 2021 mindset. 

I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty what the writers had in mind unless you talk to one of them specifically. Just because something doesn't make it to the screen doesn't mean it wasn't done as part of the writing process. The original Star Trek writers' guidelines are out there somewhere (don't feel like hunting for the link right now, but I have posted it before), and they did give guidelines for both standing characters and how to develop extras. Just because a character only appeared in one episode doesn't mean some thought didn't go into a backstory (even if it's a brief one to help the writer frame the character's voice).

Hill Street Blues was an '80s show, but it backgrounded quite a few characters. So did Magnum PI. Simon and Simon did to some degree, and there were others. Not all '80s TV was like Knight Rider or CHiPs (and even then CHiPs did delve into backstories for some secondary characters from time to time). One-off characters like Callie are often memorable because the writer did take the time to work out some background and motivational stuff...even if it doesn't make the screen.