vicegirl85 Posted October 13, 2018 Report Share Posted October 13, 2018 I was never certain if Hackman already had the gun, or if Crockett actually planted a gun on him after killing him. I did actually think Hackman had the gun when Crockett found him--but in his colossal self-confidence, didn't he feel that he was safe? To me, this was another place where it was left ambiguous by the writer/director/producer. Viewers could decide whether Crockett was deliberately going against his code and then actually tainting the scene to make it look as if Hackman could have committed suicide, or whether he shot Hackman in self-defense after Hackman showed his gun. There are arguments to be made either way. I am not sure of the answer and wouldn't say anyone's conclusion is wrong! I do think he later felt some degree of guilt over taking vengeance into his own hands, and that contributed in some way to the amnesia that resulted from his head injury. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted October 13, 2018 Report Share Posted October 13, 2018 10 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said: I was never certain if Hackman already had the gun, or if Crockett actually planted a gun on him after killing him. I did actually think Hackman had the gun when Crockett found him--but in his colossal self-confidence, didn't he feel that he was safe? To me, this was another place where it was left ambiguous by the writer/director/producer. Viewers could decide whether Crockett was deliberately going against his code and then actually tainting the scene to make it look as if Hackman could have committed suicide, or whether he shot Hackman in self-defense after Hackman showed his gun. There are arguments to be made either way. I am not sure of the answer and wouldn't say anyone's conclusion is wrong! I do think he later felt some degree of guilt over taking vengeance into his own hands, and that contributed in some way to the amnesia that resulted from his head injury. I truly think Hackman already had the gun...a man in his position and mindset would always have a gun on hand...I think he had it hid under the magazine (picture below), and even though at first Sonny had gone there to kill Hackman (partly for revenge for killing Caitlin, partly to try and “right” a wrong he felt guilty for, for getting a psycho killer released from prison), if you watch Crockett he seems to struggle to shoot him...he’s so angry and wants to, but hesitates—contemplating the right&wrong aspects...until he notices the gun in Hackman’s hand. Crockett didn’t lean down or do anything with Hackman after shooting...so he didn’t plant the gun on Hackman. He just turns and walks away. I think Crockett feels guilt & has major depression & burn-out...but I think more from being the reason Hackman got out, not being able to save Caitlin, finding out she was pregnant and so his baby was killed as well, etc... But yes, I do think those contributed to his mind wanting to forget and be this other “identity” when he got the head injury from the boat explosion. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicegirl85 Posted October 13, 2018 Report Share Posted October 13, 2018 I go back and forth on this, and I prefer your scenario. The cynic in me wonders if the camera showed everything that happened, but I truly do think it's likely Hackman tried to pull his gun on Crockett before Crockett shot him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted October 13, 2018 Report Share Posted October 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said: I go back and forth on this, and I prefer your scenario. The cynic in me wonders if the camera showed everything that happened, but I truly do think it's likely Hackman tried to pull his gun on Crockett before Crockett shot him. I agree...Hackman wasn’t about to let Crockett take him back to the U.S. to go back to prison, nor would he be out anywhere sunbathing or doing anything else, without being armed, lol! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Ferrariman Posted October 13, 2018 Administrators Report Share Posted October 13, 2018 I had another thought on this. I definitely believe Crockett was burned out to the point that he would shoot Hackman in cold blood. Since it wasn't visible at first, I'm thinking the censors added the shot of the gun in Hackman's hand afterwards to avoid a flood of complaints to the network. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted October 13, 2018 Report Share Posted October 13, 2018 1 hour ago, Ferrariman said: I had another thought on this. I definitely believe Crockett was burned out to the point that he would shoot Hackman in cold blood. Since it wasn't visible at first, I'm thinking the censors added the shot of the gun in Hackman's hand afterwards to avoid a flood of complaints to the network. Interesting thought...it’s a possibility?? But, I actually think the idea of not showing Hackman’s gun immediately was done on purpose. This was to get fan’s/viewers’ attention fast...to wonder (possibly freak out for some) for a few moments: Did Crockett shoot him in cold blood out of revenge, or not? Then they ultimately give you the answer...by showing Hackman did indeed have a gun & had tried to secretly pull it on Sonny. I think Crockett had gone there to kill Hackman no matter what, but ultimately couldn’t immediately pull the trigger...until Hackman tried to pull his gun first. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators timm525 Posted October 14, 2018 Administrators Report Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 hour ago, ViceFanMan said: ...I think Crockett had gone there to kill Hackman no matter what, but ultimately couldn’t immediately pull the trigger...until Hackman tried to pull his gun first. I agree but I think it was Hackman flippant attitude that really pushed him over the edge and caused him to shoot. I think the gun was irrelevant but was probably put there after as Ferrariman said. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony D. Posted October 14, 2018 Report Share Posted October 14, 2018 I believe Crockett, no matter how burnt out & how much he hated Hackman, still couldn't kill in cold blood. He was still a law enforcement officer. He beat Hackman to the draw but this was kept from the audience until the very last moment. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted October 14, 2018 Report Share Posted October 14, 2018 1 hour ago, timm525 said: I agree but I think it was Hackman flippant attitude that really pushed him over the edge and caused him to shoot. I think the gun was irrelevant but was probably put there after as Ferrariman said. The gun was shown, after the shooting...but was relevant to show Crockett didn’t actually shoot Hackman in cold blood or just for revenge. He saw it and ultimately had to shoot. The gun wasn’t planted later by Crockett, and I don’t think by anyone else network wise. I don’t know that for sure, of course about the network...but it doesn’t come across to me as that, and if that had been a controversial issue at the time I think it’d have been mentioned or discussed in the years since the show. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted October 14, 2018 Report Share Posted October 14, 2018 7 minutes ago, Tony D. said: I believe Crockett, no matter how burnt out & how much he hated Hackman, still couldn't kill in cold blood. He was still a law enforcement officer. He beat Hackman to the draw but this was kept from the audience until the very last moment. I agree. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicefan7777 Posted October 17, 2018 Report Share Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/13/2018 at 6:29 PM, Tony D. said: I believe Crockett, no matter how burnt out & how much he hated Hackman, still couldn't kill in cold blood. He was still a law enforcement officer. He beat Hackman to the draw but this was kept from the audience until the very last moment. Makes sense to me. Keeping the audience in suspense is just good writing and editing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicegirl85 Posted October 17, 2018 Report Share Posted October 17, 2018 On 10/13/2018 at 9:36 PM, ViceFanMan said: The gun was shown, after the shooting...but was relevant to show Crockett didn’t actually shoot Hackman in cold blood or just for revenge. He saw it and ultimately had to shoot. The gun wasn’t planted later by Crockett, and I don’t think by anyone else network wise. I don’t know that for sure, of course about the network...but it doesn’t come across to me as that, and if that had been a controversial issue at the time I think it’d have been mentioned or discussed in the years since the show. I have seen discussion stating network censors insisted on the gun being shown to prevent viewers from concluding Crockett shot an unarmed man. Was it a decision that led to public controversy and debate at the time? No, but remember, no social media or online forums to hash over every scene's implications and unstated motivation. Today, especially with repeat viewings (on purpose, and not just because the show was in reruns for the summer), we all have an opportunity for reflection and micro-interpretation of every word and action of the beloved characters. The writers, directors, and actors at the time may not have given nearly as much thought to those things as we have now been able to give. I write fanfiction in another genre and this debate (by that I mean interpretation of character actions and motivations within canon, compared to fanfiction) is something of an ongoing debate. Some fanfic writers contend the original author provided enough background and character development that they (the fanfic writer) can really know the characters and how they will act in any given situation. Others (including me) believe that the writer of a children's series (my fanfic genre--that cost $1.00 per book and covered less than 2 years in the characters' lives) couldn't and didn't fully develop the characters to that extent and that much was left to be explored. In my opinion, Miami Vice was a groundbreaking TV show and the characterization of Crockett in particular was well-developed. But I still believe the creators and guiding forces of the show ultimately were producing disposable entertainment and that we as viewers and fans have the freedom to interpret some events that were left ambiguous in the show. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted October 17, 2018 Report Share Posted October 17, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, vicegirl85 said: I have seen discussion stating network censors insisted on the gun being shown to prevent viewers from concluding Crockett shot an unarmed man. Was it a decision that led to public controversy and debate at the time? No, but remember, no social media or online forums to hash over every scene's implications and unstated motivation. Today, especially with repeat viewings (on purpose, and not just because the show was in reruns for the summer), we all have an opportunity for reflection and micro-interpretation of every word and action of the beloved characters. The writers, directors, and actors at the time may not have given nearly as much thought to those things as we have now been able to give. I write fanfiction in another genre and this debate (by that I mean interpretation of character actions and motivations within canon, compared to fanfiction) is something of an ongoing debate. Some fanfic writers contend the original author provided enough background and character development that they (the fanfic writer) can really know the characters and how they will act in any given situation. Others (including me) believe that the writer of a children's series (my fanfic genre--that cost $1.00 per book and covered less than 2 years in the characters' lives) couldn't and didn't fully develop the characters to that extent and that much was left to be explored. In my opinion, Miami Vice was a groundbreaking TV show and the characterization of Crockett in particular was well-developed. But I still believe the creators and guiding forces of the show ultimately were producing disposable entertainment and that we as viewers and fans have the freedom to interpret some events that were left ambiguous in the show. There could have been network involvement with the gun scene...I had just never read that before and the scene itself comes across as “purposeful anticipation” to whether Crockett shot him unarmed or not. But I know back then sensors were definitely more concerned about how to portray a character, than today. Plus, when a show continually goes through new writers, like sadly MV seemed to, then characters always seemed to be changing or evolving & not always for the better either. There can be lots of inconsistencies. However, Magnum, p.i. a couple/few years before this, already did the ‘shoot an unarmed bad guy for revenge/retribution’ in a 2-Part episode called “Did You See the Sunrise?” It was big and somewhat controversial at the time...but ultimately Magnum became one of the most popular crime shows as well. It didn’t hurt it’s ratings. MV pushed the proverbial envelope (with violence, sex, drugs, and even character “flaws”) a lot more than even Magnum did, too at the time! So I can’t believe the networks would really freak out that much about having Crockett supposedly shooting Hackman unarmed or not. Plus then they turn around and have Crockett lose his mind and memory and go around killing people for drug lords, LOL! Whatever the case, they ultimately had Hackman with the gun, and Crockett did not shoot him in cold blood out of revenge or any other reason. It ultimately was justified with self-defense. Edited October 17, 2018 by ViceFanMan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicegirl85 Posted October 17, 2018 Report Share Posted October 17, 2018 10 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: (snipped) Plus, when a show continually goes through new writers, like sadly MV seemed to, then characters always seemed to be changing or evolving & not always for the better either. There can be lots of inconsistencies. (snipped) Agree, this was sadly true! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul1 Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 yeah could be self defense, or simply could be a cr..y episode like J. Brown one as well. i mean if it wasn't in self defense it's just shocking 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 1 hour ago, jpm1 said: yeah could be self defense, or simply could be a cr..y episode like J. Brown one as well. i mean if it wasn't in self defense it's just shocking It was in self defense...Hackman is shown with a gun he’d tried to pull on Crockett. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, jpm1 said: yeah could be self defense, or simply could be a cr..y episode like J. Brown one as well. i mean if it wasn't in self defense it's just shocking 10 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: It was in self defense...Hackman is shown with a gun he’d tried to pull on Crockett. jpm1, this is...funny? Edited November 13, 2018 by ViceFanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul1 Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 yeah Crockett sacralization for some out there is pretty funny . i mean it's impossible to tell what happened. but you tend to affirm that Crockett canno't go wrong 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt5 Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 6 hours ago, jpm1 said: yeah Crockett sacralization for some out there is pretty funny . i mean it's impossible to tell what happened. but you tend to affirm that Crockett canno't go wrong Great episode and acting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 9 hours ago, jpm1 said: yeah Crockett sacralization for some out there is pretty funny . i mean it's impossible to tell what happened. but you tend to affirm that Crockett canno't go wrong Now, that is funny! There’s no “sacralization”, and there were times Crockett did plenty wrong. However, this episode and scene were not one of those times. It’s not only possible, but shown what happened! Scroll back up a ways and you’ll see a pic that was posted of the scene where Hackman had a gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul1 Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 how do you know Crockett didn't put a gun into that trash hand 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airtommy Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, jpm1 said: how do you know Crockett didn't put a gun into that trash hand I'm watching the scene right now and 100% for certain the implication is that the gun was there all along. Crockett shoots, turns, and heads away before the camera cuts to him walking away. It is conceivable that during the camera cut Crockett turned back around and planted the gun before again heading away. But there is no way that the director wanted anyone to think that. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 13 minutes ago, jpm1 said: how do you know Crockett didn't put a gun into that trash hand The possibility of that has been mentioned before...but ultimately dismissed, as when Crockett shoots he doesn’t bend down or do anything with Hackman’s body. He just lowers his gun and walks away. This was to shock the viewers for a few moments into thinking Crockett had shot him in cold blood...then it shows Hackman dead, but with gun in hand. Ultimately, letting us know Hackman had indeed tried to pull his gun first, but Sonny was quicker. Crockett was not “perfect”...as just a few episodes later he loses his mind and starts killing people for drug lords! But, with Hackman it was justified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul1 Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: The possibility of that has been mentioned before...but ultimately dismissed, as when Crockett shoots [scene cut] he doesn’t bend down or do anything with Hackman’s body (<-- pure ViceFanMan speculation ). He just lowers his gun and walks away. This was to shock the viewers for a few moments into thinking Crockett had shot him in cold blood...then it shows Hackman dead, but with gun in hand. Ultimately, letting us know Hackman had indeed tried to pull his gun first, but Sonny was quicker. Crockett was not “perfect”...as just a few episodes later he loses his mind and starts killing people for drug lords! But, with Hackman it was justified. please see above. you forgot something quite important. yeah i agree on the fact that the thing is made to made you think he killed in self defense. but i'm sorry i just rewatched the thing, you can't affirm it. and there's something that goes in my direction. during that critical moment Hackman starts sunbathing and closes his eyes. personnally if i had to kill someboby in such a critical moment, if i was in Hackman place, i would do the opposite. i wouldn't let down the guy with the eyes to quick grab the good moment. but again i agree this is speculation too Edited November 13, 2018 by jpm1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted November 13, 2018 Report Share Posted November 13, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, jpm1 said: please see above. you forgot something quite important. yeah i agree on the fact that the thing is made to made you think he killed in self defense. but i'm sorry i just rewatched the thing, you can't affirm it. and there's something that goes in my direction. during that critical moment Hackman starts sunbathing and closes his eyes. personnally if i had to kill someboby in such a critical moment, if i was in Hackman place, i would do the opposite. i wouldn't let down the guy with the eyes to quick grab the good moment. but again i agree this is speculation too I literally just watched the whole scene again right now. NOT MY SPECULATION AT ALL...IT’S FACT! I stand totally by what I stated before: “When Crockett shoots he doesn’t bend down or do anything with Hackman’s body. He just lowers his gun and walks away.” I’m sorry, but if you have watched and understood the episodes with Hackman, and the kind of person he was, then you would know that he totally would be someone to act all calm like he was going to just sit back and sunbathe & do nothing...all the while he has a gun hidden under the magazine. He made it look like his eyes were closed, but the whole time he kept them slightly open enough to try and shoot Crockett first...after all, Sonny was standing right in front of him. But, Crockett saw or noticed the gun and was able to get a shot off first before Hackman got him. Edited November 13, 2018 by ViceFanMan 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.