Episode #21 "Evan"

[ViceFanMan]

8 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

Definitely this episode can be seen as a cautionary tale of how guilt that is never dealt with can lead one down a path of self-desruction as well as driving away one's friends. 

Sonny had never really dealt with his guilt either, although he had managed to repress it so that it hadn't ruined his life.  Later, after Caitlin is killed by Hackman, guilt over his role in that episode of his life actually does cause destruction of his personality, in a sense.

Good points! Sonny hadn’t truly dealt with his guilt...but I think Crockett figured out ways to live with it & actually deal with it in certain ways. I also don’t think he viewed his guilt as an excuse or reason to let it destroy his own life...let alone those of friends or family around him.

Later, with the turning into Burnett after the death of Caitlin & boat explosion thing ...that is still ridiculous to me. There could be guilt there, sure...but the Burnett saga angle was silly & unbelievable. 

[wolfie1996]

Just now, ViceFanMan said:

Yes, Evan would have known about the ankle gun...he was a cop & had been for probably the same number of years Crockett had.

Evan was supposedly working for Guzman, so to me he should have had a gun too...but I guess they had to add the “tragic drama” for the episode. I do think Sonny forgave Evan as he was dying...even without words. I actually think Sonny forgave him and moved in long ago...but Evan refused to forgive himself, and chose destruction instead. So it eventually “toxified” their friendship.

Evan could have chosen a different way to try and bring Guzman down & help C&T without “suicide”. Even if he thought it was some kind of redemption...it ultimately still caused more pain & hurt. 

No Evan's gun would have been taken away by the "police", didn't they disarm them when they were all leaning up against the boat? So no gun, I'm afraid. Guzman's was still in the car, so he could still get it. I don't think Sonny did forgive him a long time before, why else did Tubbs urge him to get it all out into the open while they were walking towards the rendezvous and Sonny answered "I can't."

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, wolfie1996 said:

No Evan's gun would have been taken away by the "police", didn't they disarm them when they were all leaning up against the boat? So no gun, I'm afraid. Guzman's was still in the car, so he could still get it. I don't think Sonny did forgive him a long time before, why else did Tubbs urge him to get it all out into the open while they were walking towards the rendezvous and Sonny answered "I can't."

True...maybe the “police” took Evan’s gun...but he should of had an ankle one too.

Tubbs urges Crockett to talk with Evan to get his feelings out in the open. But I think Sonny had already moved on from the Orgell situation years before...he didn’t hate or despise Evan. Evan just despised himself and refused to deal with it.

Crockett did forgive him at the end...even if words weren’t spoken. I think he would have forgiven him  before if Evan would have asked. But he chose self destruction instead, & eventually Sonny moved on. 

[wolfie1996]

Just now, ViceFanMan said:

True...maybe the “police” took Evan’s gun...but he should of had an ankle one too.

Tubbs urges Crockett to talk with Evan to get his feelings out in the open. But I think Sonny had already moved on from the Orgell situation years before...he didn’t hate or despise Evan. Evan just despised himself and refused to deal with it.

Crockett did forgive him at the end...even if words weren’t spoken. I think he would have forgiven him  before if Evan would have asked. But he chose self destruction instead, & eventually Sonny moved on. 

You're forgetting the scene in the conference room or whatever it was where Evan begged him in tears no less to say he forgave him, to "make him happy" and all Sonny could say was "C'mon Evan..." Not quite the same!! Evan knew he wasn't forgiven, hence the "bad chemistry" Tubbs sensed between them, when they were at Guzman's house. I think Sonny did lay it to rest when Evan died, maybe not a forgiveness  as such but an acceptance that it was over.

[ViceFanMan]

3 minutes ago, wolfie1996 said:

You're forgetting the scene in the conference room or whatever it was where Evan begged him in tears no less to say he forgave him, to "make him happy" and all Sonny could say was "C'mon Evan..." Not quite the same!! Evan knew he wasn't forgiven, hence the "bad chemistry" Tubbs sensed between them, when they were at Guzman's house. I think Sonny did lay it to rest when Evan died, maybe not a forgiveness  as such but an acceptance that it was over.

Evan wanted to hear the words, and Crockett should have said them...but the “not quite the same” comment was meaning I can’t just make you happy again. You have to want it and work towards it.

There was bad chemistry between them, but that was because Evan wouldn’t have it any other way...with everyone! I do believe Crockett forgave him at the end...or let Evan know he had by the actions & looks.

[wolfie1996]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

Evan wanted to hear the words, and Crockett should have said them...but the “not quite the same” comment was meaning I can’t just make you happy again. You have to want it and work towards it.

There was bad chemistry between them, but that was because Evan wouldn’t have it any other way...with everyone! I do believe Crockett forgave him at the end...or let Evan know he had by the actions & looks.

Did you know that the direction in the original script was that Sonny kissed Evan on the forehead when he died? Though obviously they didn't do this in the final version. I think that director was known for his male bonding scenarios so was well fitted for this one. I'm surprised he didn't include the kiss!

[ViceFanMan]

6 minutes ago, wolfie1996 said:

Did you know that the direction in the original script was that Sonny kissed Evan on the forehead when he died? Though obviously they didn't do this in the final version. I think that director was known for his male bonding scenarios so was well fitted for this one. I'm surprised he didn't include the kiss!

Didn’t know that...interesting! I didn’t need the kiss, but it probably could have made the end more heartfelt. 

[wolfie1996]

Just now, ViceFanMan said:

Didn’t know that...interesting! I didn’t need the kiss, but it probably could have made the end more heartfelt. 

Oh I don't know, I think I'd have liked it  And it would. What a sad episode really, but as we've demonstrated by this vigorous discussion, endlessly interesting  psychologically!

[ViceFanMan]

27 minutes ago, wolfie1996 said:

Oh I don't know, I think I'd have liked it  And it would. What a sad episode really, but as we've demonstrated by this vigorous discussion, endlessly interesting  psychologically!

Definitely! 

[sdiegolo78]

On 3/14/2021 at 5:18 PM, Tom said:

Yes, but in all fairness they did not let Tubbs having remorse for Zito either .And Crockett did also not show remorse for the death of Tubbs´ family in Sons and lovers. And there was not much remorse for Lou Rodriguez either. Thus, I would not pinpoint that show´s failure specifically on Zito´s death, but rather on a general failure to have character and story continuity and to black out or introduce feelings of main characters at the wrong time. (e.g. Crockett wants to talk with Gina about his proposal to Caitlin up front after he practically "ignored" her feelings for him for 70+ episodes),

MV was episodic in nature and with many different writers used from time to time. There wasn't much room for continuity in that respect.

[Robbie C.]

There was...they just chose not to do it. The episodic thing, in my view, is just an excuse. There are plenty of examples from other episodic series of this being done. And really...any show with continuing characters isn't truly episodic. Something like The Twilight Zone is episodic.

[ViceFanMan]

15 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

MV was episodic in nature and with many different writers used from time to time. There wasn't much room for continuity in that respect.

I agree to an extent...most crime shows at the time didn’t have storylines continue in more than one episode (nowadays it’s different). Back then, Dallas was really the first prime time show to have continuing storylines. 

But, MV did have a few continuations...such as the Calderone & Lombard sagas. So, despite the multiple writers, if they were going to do more than one episode on the same plot and/or characters, then whoever was doing the episode needed to make sure what they wrote/created wasn’t contradicting past episodes, or leaving storylines “hanging” that they never resolved or returned to. 

[wolfie1996]

7 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

But, MV did have a few continuations...such as the Calderone & Lombard sagas. So, despite the multiple writers, if they were going to do more than one episode on the same plot and/or characters, then whoever was doing the episode needed to make sure what they wrote/created wasn’t contradicting past episodes, or leaving storylines “hanging” that they never resolved or returned to. 

They also needed to stay true to characters  and situations once they were created and built on, though. Not just plot lines. Scripts that failed to do that should have been discarded or amended.

[Tom]

vor 9 Stunden schrieb sdiegolo78:

MV was episodic in nature and with many different writers used from time to time. There wasn't much room for continuity in that respect.

Yes there was and there is. Because usually in such situations which are normal for episode TV, the show runner uses a "story book" (or similar name), which is a summary reference for new or non-regular weekly writers where they can (i.e. must read before start writing) reference the past of main characters or their main characteristics exactly for that reason. And with every main development of the characters this story book goes longer. E.g. Crockett´s marriage and girl friends and their names would have been added in such a book and also the Crockett-Gina relationship in order to not make any contradicting mistakes later in new stories. But VICE either decided NOT to use such a tool or the writers ignored it sometimes. 

[sdiegolo78]

4 hours ago, Tom said:

. But VICE either decided NOT to use such a tool or the writers ignored it sometimes. 

That was more or less the point i was trying to get across. When it comes to continuity they made the mistakes highlighted in other posts and threads. And i didn't know about the story book. Thanks for the insight.

[Tom]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb sdiegolo78:

That was more or less the point i was trying to get across. When it comes to continuity they made the mistakes highlighted in other posts and threads. And i didn't know about the story book. Thanks for the insight.

OK, sorry if I misunderstood you, but I read your post differently: like that these continuity mistakes are natural part of the episodic TV game and can´t be avoided with changing writers. 

As said: normally, if you want to write for such a series, you have to read the "story or series styleguide" first. This can be 1-100 pages depending on the series. Usually you have chapters for the main characters and their key lifelines, a "red line fast forward" through what has happened in the series before (new key developments have to be added of course over time) or what special topics you have to understand about characters so you can write an episode that fits into the overall concept and character development and not a herd of other writers is needed to write "teleplays" for it....

For Castillo you would have e.g. "lived 5 years in Laos and Cambodia/Thailand and worked for the CIA". Then you would not write a story like Peter Lance (who only wrote in season 4) for "Rising sun of death" where Castillo is an expert on Japan too and speaks Japanese fluently....

Edited April 18, 2021 by Tom

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, sdiegolo78 said:

That was more or less the point i was trying to get across. When it comes to continuity they made the mistakes highlighted in other posts and threads. And i didn't know about the story book. Thanks for the insight.

They can also be called series bibles, and on occasion are packaged as detailed writers' guidelines (as was the case for the original Star Trek).

It just gets back to the original point that Vice as packaged by Mann was more interested in visuals and occasionally plot line impact and not so much characters. That they had good characters was in part a legacy of Yerkovich, the capability of the actors (some more than others), and occasionally writers who were thoughtful enough to dip back into the show's "past" or were just good. Contrast Vice's looseness with characters in just the first two seasons with Crime Story and you can see what Mann can do with plot and characters when that's his real focus.

[sdiegolo78]

4 hours ago, Tom said:

Then you would not write a story like Peter Lance (who only wrote in season 4) for "Rising sun of death" where Castillo is an expert on Japan too and speaks Japanese fluently.

that's what you get for having writers who disregard the characters storylines

Edited April 18, 2021 by sdiegolo78

[Robbie C.]

41 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

that's what you get for having writers who disregard the characters storylines

And production teams who do the same thing.

[ViceFanMan]

10 hours ago, sdiegolo78 said:

that's what you get for having writers who disregard the characters storylines

Exactly! And if you’re going to write an episode that includes something about a main characters past, or a past storyline, you might want to go back and check to see what’s already been done if you don’t already know.  

[RedDragon86]

I am always impressed with the way Al Israel character Guzman died. The way his arms went all limp and with him sliding into the car door, his death was as real as it gets.

[Dadrian]

6 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said:

I am always impressed with the way Al Israel character Guzman died. The way his arms went all limp and with him sliding into the car door, his death was as real as it gets.

He is really good at dying!
 

Edited June 11, 2021 by Dadrian

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, RedDragon86 said:

I am always impressed with the way Al Israel character Guzman died. The way his arms went all limp and with him sliding into the car door, his death was as real as it gets.

It was “interesting”...but to me seemed somewhat odd. To me, in reality, he would have slid on down to the ground...not ‘hooked’ his arms on the door to hold himself there, as he was no longer alive to use his arm muscles to do that & his whole body would have been limp. But, good dramatic & tragic episode.  

[GoombayPunch]

An excellent episode (9/10) in all aspects (especially the interplay between Evan and Sonny) but also for addressing social issues at the time that probably weren't talked about much in prime time tv. The use of the word "f****t) now would certainly be a no-no now, but it was around a lot in the 80s and added to the realism of the conversation between Sonny and Tubbs. I absolutely loved the slo-mo walk away at 45:30 with "Biko" laid over the top of the tension-filled scene. That filming was way ahead of its time. Top notch and tough to beat.

[wolfie1996]

43 minutes ago, GoombayPunch said:

An excellent episode (9/10) in all aspects (especially the interplay between Evan and Sonny) but also for addressing social issues at the time that probably weren't talked about much in prime time tv. The use of the word "f****t) now would certainly be a no-no now, but it was around a lot in the 80s and added to the realism of the conversation between Sonny and Tubbs. I absolutely loved the slo-mo walk away at 45:30 with "Biko" laid over the top of the tension-filled scene. That filming was way ahead of its time. Top notch and tough to beat.

It seems to be far and away the most popular episode overall (strange when you think of what MV mainly consists of) and I think it's partly the complex relationship between Sonny and Evan and partly the tragic inevitability of the ending. Brilliant and memorable.