Episode #25 "Out Where The Buses Don't Run"

[vicegirl85]

13 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

this is not actually just gray. i mean cops go grey all the time, we all know this. this is about red, big red line. the line that is between cops, and structured society, and chaos, and anarchy. the line can be crossed. but if so Crockett good guy dies, and disappear. by acting like this Crockett is no better, than a criminal that will cold blood kill a kid. this is a big line. up to the fans to decide if Crockett is dumb enough to go that way. but if he does this Hackman wins, a big win. and it's a major defeat for Crockett. no, i respect any point of view out there, but you won't make be swallow that a guy like crockett is a cold blood killer. no, this is N.O.T. P.O.S.S.I.B.L.E.

I agree with this to an extent.  The deliberate execution of Hackman (as I saw it) showed Sonny was willing to step over the line.  I think he justified that step in his own mind, because of the heinous things Hackman had done.  Still, it was a violation of his ethical code as a police officer.  Did it make him equal to the criminals he chased?

Like Robbie, I see this decision and action in shades of gray, in a noir style.  I don't see him as completely innocent; he had been pushed to the wall but according to the code he professed (even if he didn't always live it), in killing Hackman he took the law into his own hands, which could not be justified.  He would have to live with the decision, and I think that decision, that act, contributed something to his actions as Burnett after the boat explosion.  Perhaps subconsciously, but he had taken a step that couldn't be reversed. 

[mjcmmv]

14 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

I agree with this to an extent.  The deliberate execution of Hackman (as I saw it) showed Sonny was willing to step over the line.  I think he justified that step in his own mind, because of the heinous things Hackman had done.  Still, it was a violation of his ethical code as a police officer.  Did it make him equal to the criminals he chased?

Like Robbie, I see this decision and action in shades of gray, in a noir style.  I don't see him as completely innocent; he had been pushed to the wall but according to the code he professed (even if he didn't always live it), in killing Hackman he took the law into his own hands, which could not be justified.  He would have to live with the decision, and I think that decision, that act, contributed something to his actions as Burnett after the boat explosion.  Perhaps subconsciously, but he had taken a step that couldn't be reversed. 

Very well said! 

And when I watch Season 5 and see how much Sonny Crockett had changed from previous seasons, I'm reminded of this very thing. He took a step he couldn't reverse and was changed forever! 

Some say that in Season 5, DJ's acting was lack-luster. He seemed bored and disinterested in the show. I see it as DJ giving a top-notched performance as a cop who has lost the will to fight, maybe even to live. If he had been the Sonny of Season 3, or even 4, it would have been ridiculous.

DJ got it right. After he killed Hackman, the Sonny Crockett we knew and loved, was gone. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by mjcmmv

[Robbie C.]

But let's get back to J-50 shall we?

I don't know that Hank was really racked with remorse about what he did to Arcaro. I think what bothered him more was not being able to take down the entire organization. Once he did that (though some judicious use of OCB), his purpose was gone. At that point...why not take credit for taking out Arcaro? He had nothing left to do, and he knew the system well enough to know he'd just go back into treatment or something if anyone went after him.

The newspaper indicates the body was staged. That's not an accident. And why take someone you want to interrogate all the way to a new construction site? Hank may be crazy, but he's also smart and cunning. If he really wanted to work over Arcaro and then kill him, the swamps are perfect. So are the docks or any number of industrial spots. He was a cop...he'd know all the tricks. There may have been some deeper significance to the site we never learn about. Did it remind him of the house he likely lost when his wife left (in the draft script it's described as a doll house)? Or was it one of Arcaro's developments and he thought it would be a great joke to wall the man in one of his 'investments'? We don't know. But it wasn't an accident and he wasn't interrogating Arcaro. He was brought there to die there and be walled up there.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Robbie C.

[mjcmmv]

2 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

But let's get back to J50 shall we?

I don't know that Hank was really racked with remorse about what he did to Arcaro. I think what bothered him more was not being able to take down the entire organization. Once he did that (though some judicious use of OCB), his purpose was gone. At that point...why not take credit for taking out Arcaro? He had nothing left to do, and he knew the system well enough to know he'd just go back into treatment or something if anyone went after him.

The newspaper indicates the body was staged. That's not an accident. And why take someone you want to interrogate all the way to a new construction site? Hank may be crazy, but he's also smart and cunning. If he really wanted to work over Arcaro and then kill him, the swamps are perfect. So are the docks or any number of industrial spots. He was a cop...he'd know all the tricks. There may have been some deeper significance to the site we never learn about. Did it remind him of the house he likely lost when his wife left (in the draft script it's described as a doll house)? Or was it one of Arcaro's developments and he thought it would be a great joke to wall the man in one of his 'investments'? We don't know. But it wasn't an accident and he wasn't interrogating Arcaro. He was brought there to die there and be walled up there.

Lots of interesting things to consider here. MV had such interesting characters. And the background for these stories need to be told!!!! Ahem!!!! 

[vicegirl85]

4 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

But let's get back to J50 shall we?

I don't know that Hank was really racked with remorse about what he did to Arcaro. I think what bothered him more was not being able to take down the entire organization. Once he did that (though some judicious use of OCB), his purpose was gone. At that point...why not take credit for taking out Arcaro? He had nothing left to do, and he knew the system well enough to know he'd just go back into treatment or something if anyone went after him.

The newspaper indicates the body was staged. That's not an accident. And why take someone you want to interrogate all the way to a new construction site? Hank may be crazy, but he's also smart and cunning. If he really wanted to work over Arcaro and then kill him, the swamps are perfect. So are the docks or any number of industrial spots. He was a cop...he'd know all the tricks. There may have been some deeper significance to the site we never learn about. Did it remind him of the house he likely lost when his wife left (in the draft script it's described as a doll house)? Or was it one of Arcaro's developments and he thought it would be a great joke to wall the man in one of his 'investments'? We don't know. But it wasn't an accident and he wasn't interrogating Arcaro. He was brought there to die there and be walled up there.

Yes, lots of interesting points here.  Agree that Weldon wasn't racked with remorse over killing Arcaro, but on some level he wanted to be found out/ be recognized.  Hard to be sure which it was, as I think his thinking was a bit scrambled.  But I do think he felt some inner conflict over his actions in taking justice into his own hands vs the rule of law.

Agree the newspaper indicates he staged the body.  Your suggestion that the location may have one of Arcaro's developments is interesting.  But if this was a "new construction" site, I have a hard time believing Weldon would deliberately wall Arcaro up inside one of the building walls.  Even harder to believe is that his partner, Marty Lang, would help him build the wall right there.  Hank was mentally unhinged, but Marty wasn't.  Just seems like it would have been very likely Arcaro would have been discovered much, much sooner if this was new construction, even if the particular development was abandoned after Arcaro's disappearance.  It seems (to me) like he would have had partners who would have either continued the build or sold the property.  Of course if he was a part-owner, maybe the other partners couldn't sell the property while his status was in limbo.

I always interpreted it as a property that was run down and gradually deteriorated to the point that maybe by the time Weldon led Crockett and Tubbs to the site, the wrecking ball was about to take it out.  Maybe Weldon knew it was slated for destruction, and if he didn't lead the police to the body, no one would ever recognize the fact that he was the one who took out Arcaro.

Lots of possibilities!

Also I always thought Weldon referred to the building as a "dollhouse" was because it was missing an outer back or front wall, like a dollhouse.

[mjcmmv]

9 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

 

I always interpreted it as a property that was run down and gradually deteriorated to the point that maybe by the time Weldon led Crockett and Tubbs to the site, the wrecking ball was about to take it out.  Maybe Weldon knew it was slated for destruction, and if he didn't lead the police to the body, no one would ever recognize the fact that he was the one who took out Arcaro.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense. 

[Robbie C.]

Don't forget there's a significant time gap between Arcaro being walled in and Hank leading them to the body. Like I said, I think he wanted to "claim" the kill. No question. But he wanted to finish the rest of the job first. And walling a body in would be difficult no matter if the construction was new or existing. I need to rewatch this one to get some of the details in, but I do think there would be a reason Hank chose this particular site. Nothing he did was really random, so why would this one thing be? And Marty does confess to helping him build the wall. Maybe in some corner of his mind he hoped "walling in" Arcaro would bring his old partner back. I don't know. Lang is not a well-developed character in that sense. But he clearly didn't feel much remorse, considering he kept the secret all those years.

The draft script I have is the 11th revision and noted as a rewrite. They identify the place Arcaro's body is in as a two-story house that had been abandoned for a time (but they don't say how long). They also have the body being found during the day. And, like I said, they don't mention the newspaper at all. That's unusual, since Vice scripts usually contain camera direction to important points. 

[ViceFanMan]

7 hours ago, Bren10 said:

I'll leave it with this: if Hackman doesn't pull his gun do you think Sonny'd just slap him around like he did Glantz? Or give him a sinister speech like he did evil banker J.B. Johnston? I don't think so. He sure can't arrest him being out of jurisdiction. He may as well arrest himself if he goes that route. You say it can only be supposition on this point, Vice Fan, but I counter with there can only be but a few possibilities, most of which are very unlikely except for the one we ultimately saw-Sonny killing Hackman. I don't know why people have such a problem with this when the entire point is the fact that Sonny crosses the line as a segue to the Burnett saga.

Again...I think Crockett had first went there to kill Hackman. But, ultimately he didn’t/couldn’t do it. He couldn’t go through with it, like sadly Weldon did with Arcaro. He hesitates...stops. It’s only after he suddenly sees Hackman with a gun, that he feels justified to shoot. We don’t know what or how Crockett would have done or handled it if Hackman hadn’t pulled a gun? What we do know is writers & producers ultimately & purposely had him not be able to shoot him in cold blood.

I don’t know why some people are so determined to try and make Crockett a cold blooded killer...when #1 that’s not what happened or was shown, and #2 that would totally destroy and ruin the character of Crockett and what he stood for??   I think the writers knew that and that’s why they did not have him become that.

I know a lot look at this as the beginning or lead-way into the Burnett saga...but I disagree with that. He was burnt out and depressed, by all means...but he still wasn’t a psycho or a killer—that Weldon sadly had become. It was the next episode where Sonny injures his head in the boat explosion that causes him to lose his memory & who he was. That starts the whole Burnett-crap.  

7 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

Except Weldon was placed on medical before Arcaro was released. He was off the reservation well before he killed Arcaro. Vice was never about good and evil. Like all Noir it was about shades of gray. If you miss that point, you miss a great deal of what made Vice unique for its time. 

Actually...no, I believe Weldon was put on medical leave and eventually “forced” out of the force after he’d killed Arcaro—which is what made him lose-it and is what caused him to leave the proverbial reservation. He was probably struggling before that I’m sure, but making the choice to kill Arcaro is what finally drove him over the edge...creating the false reality that Arcaro was still alive, so he didn’t have to face what he’d done/become.

I don’t miss anything about what makes MV unique—or noir.  You are correct...MV is definite neo-noir, and there are shades of some gray for sure. But not all noir is everyone goes ‘wrong’ and psycho. A lot of noir also has characters that attempt to do what’s right, even when making some mistakes along the way, there’s still certain lines they won’t cross. This was Crockett...despite his gray areas, he ultimately had lines even he didn’t cross—even if at one point he thought he might.

6 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

this is not actually just gray. i mean cops go grey all the time, we all know this. this is about red, big red line. the line that is between cops, and structured society, and chaos, and anarchy. the line can be crossed. but if so Crockett good guy dies, and disappear. by acting like this Crockett is no better, than a criminal that will cold blood kill a kid. this is a big line. up to the fans to decide if Crockett is dumb enough to go that way. but if he does this Hackman wins, a big win. and it's a major defeat for Crockett. no, i respect any point of view out there, but you won't make be swallow that a guy like crockett is a cold blood killer. no, this is N.O.T. P.O.S.S.I.B.L.E.

Exactly...if Crockett had made the destructive choice to just blatantly shoot Hackman out of revenge (like Hank Weldon did with Tony Arcaro) then there is no more hero or respectable character. He’s now just a psycho that is no better than Arcaro or Hackman! But I think the writers and producers knew this ...and that’s why (regardless of all the supposition and what-if theories) it ultimately did not happen!   

Edited October 10, 2019 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

Obviously some of us disagree. There’s far too much evidence in the show that Crockett’s ethics and remorse were very situational, but that’s for another thread. 
And Weldon was off the force or on leave by the end of 1978. Arcaro was killed in February 1979. Did it ever occur to you that Weldon would have started coming apart during the trial and been put on leave then? I think it was the thought that Arcaro would not only get away with what he did but be able to keep doing it that sent Hank over the edge. And given how he used Arcaro to trick OCB into rounding up the rest of his crew, maybe he tried that earlier and it didn’t work as well. 

[jpaul1]

16 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Obviously some of us disagree. There’s far too much evidence in the show that Crockett’s ethics and remorse were very situational, but that’s for another thread. 
And Weldon was off the force or on leave by the end of 1978. Arcaro was killed in February 1979. Did it ever occur to you that Weldon would have started coming apart during the trial and been put on leave then? I think it was the thought that Arcaro would not only get away with what he did but be able to keep doing it that sent Hank over the edge. And given how he used Arcaro to trick OCB into rounding up the rest of his crew, maybe he tried that earlier and it didn’t work as well. 

i really need to rewatch that thing. because there are a bunch of things you're refering to, i don't recall at all. like the pre-disease, and the accurate dates

concerning Crockett, yeah it's maybe OT, but your second sentence is crazy. i mean what you're describing there is simply not a cop. i have to strongly disagree with this

[ViceFanMan]

2 hours ago, Robbie C. said:

Obviously some of us disagree. There’s far too much evidence in the show that Crockett’s ethics and remorse were very situational, but that’s for another thread. 
And Weldon was off the force or on leave by the end of 1978. Arcaro was killed in February 1979. Did it ever occur to you that Weldon would have started coming apart during the trial and been put on leave then? I think it was the thought that Arcaro would not only get away with what he did but be able to keep doing it that sent Hank over the edge. And given how he used Arcaro to trick OCB into rounding up the rest of his crew, maybe he tried that earlier and it didn’t work as well. 

Everyone has their opinions, and sometimes people disagree. But there really isn’t that much “evidence” that Crockett was only by situation. He had lots of gray areas, but there were lines and even values/morals he wouldn’t cross—even when he thought he might, or was “tested”...he ultimately didn’t do it, whereas Weldon did.

The only time Crockett went psycho-killer was when he supposedly got the head injury and lost his memory—hence the whole Burnett “ridiculousness”.  I did not care for that whole storyline and found it silly and way too over-the-top...even for MV. But, at that point they were trying desperately trying to recapture ratings and viewers. That’s usually when shows go pretty wild with their storylines, and it ends up backfiring. 

Did it state that Weldon was off the force by ‘78? I’ll be honest and say I don’t remember that part. I remember that Arcaro was  let off in 1979, and that’s when he disappeared. But I didn’t remember the year ‘78 being mentioned. Either way, Hank probably had pretty much lost-it before Arcaro was let off...but I think the ultimate act that truly pushed him over the edge was killing Arcaro. Before that he was probably mentally unstable...but that final act is what truly caused him to go fully insane.  He couldn’t deal with what he had done and/or become, and so he created the bizarre reality where he was still the hero trying to capture a still alive Arcaro. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

2 hours ago, jpaul1 said:

i really need to rewatch that thing. because there are a bunch of things you're refering to, i don't recall at all. like the pre-disease, and the accurate dates

concerning Crockett, yeah it's maybe OT, but your second sentence is crazy. i mean what you're describing there is simply not a cop. i have to strongly disagree with this

I have one of the draft scripts for this episode. Those provide solid, accurate dialog and often a glimpse into the intent of the episode. And yes, Crockett had very situational ethics and feelings of remorse. That’s why I consider him more of an avatar than a character. Some people want him to always be on a white horse, and that’s fine. But wanting it doesn’t make it true. 

[jpaul1]

45 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

I have one of the draft scripts for this episode. Those provide solid, accurate dialog and often a glimpse into the intent of the episode. And yes, Crockett had very situational ethics and feelings of remorse. That’s why I consider him more of an avatar than a character. Some people want him to always be on a white horse, and that’s fine. But wanting it doesn’t make it true. 

sometimes the path between draft, and final is very long. and can go literally from black to white. plus a series called Miami vice, and in the end the Vice squad goes criminal makes no sense. there's no point in going that way. i mean who would be interested into such plot. where is the interest of creating a series, where after several seasons the evil wins in the end. this is non sense. i totally agree with VFM when he says these 'grey' moments were made when the series was loosing speed, and in a desesperate attempt to revigorate it

Weldon was an exceptional cop (according to Crockett). men of this calibre don't kill in cold blood. when they do, it's only by accident. and this is IMO all the episode epicentre. that when you go grey (kidnapping), it can end black lightning fast. whoever you are, and how smart you are. don't cross the line, or the consequences can be disastrous. this is how i see that episode, and why personnally i think it's so great

Edited October 10, 2019 by jpaul1

[ViceFanMan]

26 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

I have one of the draft scripts for this episode. Those provide solid, accurate dialog and often a glimpse into the intent of the episode. And yes, Crockett had very situational ethics and feelings of remorse. That’s why I consider him more of an avatar than a character. Some people want him to always be on a white horse, and that’s fine. But wanting it doesn’t make it true. 

Early script for “Buses”? That’d be interesting, if so. But, with whatever episode...sometimes scripts originally have ideas or scenarios that ultimately don’t end up being used or done. Regardless of what’s in a script, what ultimately is shown in the actual episode is what is. 

Crockett was not on a white horse...he had flaws and made mistakes! There were certain things he was willing to do to keep his cover. But, killing people wasn’t one of them. He was not some “avatar”...he was a character created for the show, and despite the ups & downs he ultimately tried to make the right choice. He might get off track...but for whatever reason he eventually found his way back. His character was supposed to be imperfect but still trying to do the right thing.  

For what ever reason I’ll never understand, people wanting to try and make him into a psycho doesn’t make it any more true either …because that just wasn’t there (not considering the Burnett-saga, as that supposedly wasn’t Crockett—who eventually “found” himself again, anyway)...it didn’t happen. 

[ViceFanMan]

12 minutes ago, jpaul1 said:

sometimes the path between draft, and final is very long. and can go literally from black to white. plus a series called Miami vice, and in the end the Vice squad goes criminal makes no sense. there's no point in going that way. i mean who would be interested into such plot. where is the interest of creating a series, where after several season the evil wins in the end. this is non sense. i totally agree with VFM when he says these 'grey' moments were made when the series was loosing speed, and in a desesperate attempt to revigorate it

Weldon was an exceptional cop (according to Crockett). men of this calibre don't kill in cold blood. when they do, it's only by accident. and this is IMO all the episode epicentre. that when you go grey (kidnapping), it can end black lightning fast. whoever you are, and how smart you are. don't cross the line, or the consequences can be disastrous. this is how i see that episode, and why personnally i think it's so great

Exactly! Having main characters go off the deep end was done for pure shock value...to try and get people to watch again. It didn’t work. It “tarnished” Crockett and the show, to an extent. It backfired and ultimately cost them more fans/viewers.

[Robbie C.]

You’re both welcome to your opinions. And the draft I have is the 11th revision and was the point where a total rewrite was done. You can dismiss it because you don’t agree with it. That’s fine. But you ignore the writer’s vision at your own peril.

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, Robbie C. said:

You’re both welcome to your opinions. And the draft I have is the 11th revision and was the point where a total rewrite was done. You can dismiss it because you don’t agree with it. That’s fine. But you ignore the writer’s vision at your own peril.

Of which episode is this script you’re talking about? And again, revisions and rewrites are fine...but what is ultimately decided on & actually done in the episode is what counts and is. If it’s not in the actual episode I don’t have to accept/dismiss or agree/disagree with it...because it never was.  Like it or not, Crockett was never a psycho like Weldon. There were times when he almost gave in to that...but ultimately was able to stop himself before it went that far.

Edited October 10, 2019 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

Like it or not Crockett was never a fully formed character. That’s just how it is. And calling Hank a psycho misses the point of the episode. But that’s fine, too. Subtext isn’t for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. 

[ViceFanMan]

31 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Like it or not Crockett was never a fully formed character. That’s just how it is. And calling Hank a psycho misses the point of the episode. But that’s fine, too. Subtext isn’t for everyone. Nothing wrong with that. 

Crockett had many facets to his character...but like it or not he had some lines he wouldn’t cross. Some aspects to who he was were set in place. Being a cold blooded killer is one he did not cross, nor become. 

Calling Weldon a “psycho” was using a slang term...however, the meaning behind what psycho means sadly still applies. The point of the episode was the tragedy of the mental degradation of Hank, and what the choices he’d made had done to him. I don’t look for subtexts that aren’t really there...even if I want them to be. 

[vicegirl85]

I think it's OK if we don't put the same interpretation on an ep or a character.  I've said a lot, and sometimes I think I change my mind too often, too.  But going to try one more time to explain my thoughts about Weldon and Crockett, and the killings of Arcaro and Hackman (as far as a comparison).

Weldon and Arcaro:  I do think Weldon used his detective skills to track down Arcaro after Arcaro was released.  I think he met him at the "dollhouse" property, either arranging a meet under some pretext or because Arcaro was at the location for some reason and Weldon isolated him there.  I don't see Weldon "kidnapping" Arcaro b/c Arcaro would be likely to have some henchmen/ bodyguards/ protection around him and Weldon couldn't have captured him alone, or even with Marty Lang as backup.  In a frustrated and heated spirit of vengeance for the verdict he killed Arcaro.  All these years I had *assumed* Arcaro had the newspaper before he was killed, as a way to gloat over his acquittal.  I only thought about Hank planting the newspaper in the past couple of days.  Anyway, I felt Hank experienced some degree of remorse after his act of frontier justice, and that guilt contributed to his mental breakdown.  He called Marty Lang, who agreed to come and help him wall up Arcaro.   I need to rewatch the ep myself to try to clarify the timeline of his medical discharge, etc. from the force.  My impression has always been that his breakdown occurred after Arcaro disappeared, but that could be wrong.  I don't see his killing of Arcaro as what I would call "cold-blooded."  However, I have to admit it must have been planned and it obviously wasn't in self-defense.  Again, some of this is my own deduction based on what I see in the episode as broadcast.  Many things in Vice are left up to the viewer's judgment rather than being clearly stated.

Crockett and Hackman:  Again, Crockett used his skills and probably some contacts to ferret out Hackman's hidey-hole on the island.  This island doesn't seem to be in a US jurisdiction, so Crockett didn't go there to arrest Hackman or take him into custody for any reason, even if there was evidence to tie him to Caitlin's murder, which I don't know if there was or not.  He went there with one idea in mind, which was to let Hackman know that he (Crockett) knew what Hackman had done.  I felt that he hadn't necessarily decided to kill Hackman, but he wanted to let Hackman know that he (Crockett) would be watching and ready to take him down at any time (same way he told the banker in Prodigal Son:  "You're dirty, Ace, and I'm patient.")  Executing Hackman in revenge for Caitlin's death as well as for his past crimes wasn't necessarily in his plan, but he was going to be prepared for whatever Hackman's response might be, and was not ruling out any action.  At this time, Crockett was under a tremendous amount of mental and emotional stress.  Hackman laughed at him and goaded him.  He did everything he could to try to get Crockett to draw his gun.  In his fragile emotional state, Crockett made a decision to take Hackman's life, but he hesitated and his hand even shook from the inner conflict of whether to violate his oath as a police officer.  He then did make the decision to shoot and kill Hackman.  I don't believe we know/ it was never definitively shown that Hackman pulled a gun on Crockett.  So was it self-defense?  ViceFanMan believes it was (if I understood correctly).   I have always accepted the view that the network censors insisted on showing that Hackman had a gun.  Either that or I actually thought Crockett might have planted the gun on Hackman.  This doesn't actually seem very likely but I think it's possible. 

I don't think that killing Hackman under the setting of severe emotional duress makes Crockett psychotic or a criminal.  I wouldn't call it a cold-blooded killing, even though I don't interpret it as self-defense.  However, if he did plant the gun, it certainly puts a different spin on his character.  In any case, my impression was that Caitlin's death broke something inside of Crockett.  He felt tremendous guilt over the fact that he obtained Hackman's release from prison because of Hackman's deception, and thus Hackman was free to kill Caitlin, knowing that would destroy Crockett emotionally.  Making the decision to kill Hackman and then carrying it out changed Crockett.  It didn't make him evil but it exposed another side of him that he'd never acknowledged and that went against his ideals and values.  He could never fully regain that idealism or see himself in the same way, even if he never admitted to anyone else what he had done.

Sometimes Crockett justified his "situational ethics" as necessary to gain a just goal, but generally I felt he tried to toe a certain line.  I never saw him quite as flexible in his ethics as RobbieC does, LOL.  But he's certainly a flawed character and not a perfect white-horse hero.   He doesn't always make the right decision and in this case, I think the decision to kill Hackman affected and changed him.

[ViceFanMan]

36 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

I think it's OK if we don't put the same interpretation on an ep or a character.  I've said a lot, and sometimes I think I change my mind too often, too.  But going to try one more time to explain my thoughts about Weldon and Crockett, and the killings of Arcaro and Hackman (as far as a comparison).

Weldon and Arcaro:  I do think Weldon used his detective skills to track down Arcaro after Arcaro was released.  I think he met him at the "dollhouse" property, either arranging a meet under some pretext or because Arcaro was at the location for some reason and Weldon isolated him there.  I don't see Weldon "kidnapping" Arcaro b/c Arcaro would be likely to have some henchmen/ bodyguards/ protection around him and Weldon couldn't have captured him alone, or even with Marty Lang as backup.  In a frustrated and heated spirit of vengeance for the verdict he killed Arcaro.  All these years I had *assumed* Arcaro had the newspaper before he was killed, as a way to gloat over his acquittal.  I only thought about Hank planting the newspaper in the past couple of days.  Anyway, I felt Hank experienced some degree of remorse after his act of frontier justice, and that guilt contributed to his mental breakdown.  He called Marty Lang, who agreed to come and help him wall up Arcaro.   I need to rewatch the ep myself to try to clarify the timeline of his medical discharge, etc. from the force.  My impression has always been that his breakdown occurred after Arcaro disappeared, but that could be wrong.  I don't see his killing of Arcaro as what I would call "cold-blooded."  However, I have to admit it must have been planned and it obviously wasn't in self-defense.  Again, some of this is my own deduction based on what I see in the episode as broadcast.  Many things in Vice are left up to the viewer's judgment rather than being clearly stated.

Crockett and Hackman:  Again, Crockett used his skills and probably some contacts to ferret out Hackman's hidey-hole on the island.  This island doesn't seem to be in a US jurisdiction, so Crockett didn't go there to arrest Hackman or take him into custody for any reason, even if there was evidence to tie him to Caitlin's murder, which I don't know if there was or not.  He went there with one idea in mind, which was to let Hackman know that he (Crockett) knew what Hackman had done.  I felt that he hadn't necessarily decided to kill Hackman, but he wanted to let Hackman know that he (Crockett) would be watching and ready to take him down at any time (same way he told the banker in Prodigal Son:  "You're dirty, Ace, and I'm patient.")  Executing Hackman in revenge for Caitlin's death as well as for his past crimes wasn't necessarily in his plan, but he was going to be prepared for whatever Hackman's response might be, and was not ruling out any action.  At this time, Crockett was under a tremendous amount of mental and emotional stress.  Hackman laughed at him and goaded him.  He did everything he could to try to get Crockett to draw his gun.  In his fragile emotional state, Crockett made a decision to take Hackman's life, but he hesitated and his hand even shook from the inner conflict of whether to violate his oath as a police officer.  He then did make the decision to shoot and kill Hackman.  I don't believe we know/ it was never definitively shown that Hackman pulled a gun on Crockett.  So was it self-defense?  ViceFanMan believes it was (if I understood correctly).   I have always accepted the view that the network censors insisted on showing that Hackman had a gun.  Either that or I actually thought Crockett might have planted the gun on Hackman.  This doesn't actually seem very likely but I think it's possible. 

I don't think that killing Hackman under the setting of severe emotional duress makes Crockett psychotic or a criminal.  I wouldn't call it a cold-blooded killing, even though I don't interpret it as self-defense.  However, if he did plant the gun, it certainly puts a different spin on his character.  In any case, my impression was that Caitlin's death broke something inside of Crockett.  He felt tremendous guilt over the fact that he obtained Hackman's release from prison because of Hackman's deception, and thus Hackman was free to kill Caitlin, knowing that would destroy Crockett emotionally.  Making the decision to kill Hackman and then carrying it out changed Crockett.  It didn't make him evil but it exposed another side of him that he'd never acknowledged and that went against his ideals and values.  He could never fully regain that idealism or see himself in the same way, even if he never admitted to anyone else what he had done.

Sometimes Crockett justified his "situational ethics" as necessary to gain a just goal, but generally I felt he tried to toe a certain line.  I never saw him quite as flexible in his ethics as RobbieC does, LOL.  But he's certainly a flawed character and not a perfect white-horse hero.   He doesn't always make the right decision and in this case, I think the decision to kill Hackman affected and changed him.

Interesting thoughts! 

I actually think Weldon got a hold of Arcaro after the trial...they said he was last seen driving away in his limo & never seen again. I think Hank was already unstable before hand, but Tony getting off snapped him. He kidnapped him somehow, and killed him...how we don’t truly know? He then contacted Marty Lang and they took the body to the abandoned building and walled it up...newspaper in hand. But, Hank couldn’t deal with his choice and it caused him to completely go insane...& to be able to deal with himself, he created an alternate reality where Arcaro was still alive & he was still the hero cop trying to finally catch him.

I for the most part agree with your thoughts on Crockett and Hackman...except about the gun.  It was never shown or implied that a gun was “planted”. It was shown that Crockett did not shoot when he first had the gun on Hackman...it was only after he sees Hackman has a gun out that he shoots. It was not done in cold blood. No matter how some try and try to get around that...you can’t. Whether I want it to be that way, or agree with it, or not doesn’t matter. What happened in the episode is what is.  

Edited October 11, 2019 by ViceFanMan

[vicegirl85]

2 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

I for the most part agree with your thoughts on Crockett and Hackman...except about the gun.  It was never shown or implied that a gun was “planted”. It was shown that Crockett did not shoot when he first had the gun on Hackman...it was only after he sees Hackman has a gun out that he shoots. No matter how some try and try to get around that...you can’t. Whether I want it to be that way, or agree with it, or not doesn’t matter. What happened in the episode is what is.  

I agree it was never shown that a gun was planted.  Implied?  I don't know that it can be ruled out.  It was something that *I* thought could have happened because we also weren't shown that Hackman had a gun before Crockett shot him.  I'm not saying he didn't draw on Crockett.  I don't know.  I don't know if Crockett saw that Hackman had a gun--but it wasn't shown in the scene that Hackman had a gun before he was shot by Crockett.  For me, the conviction that Crockett only fired his gun after seeing that Hackman had a gun falls into the same category as deciding that Crockett might have planted a gun on him after shooting him.

Crockett didn't shoot when he first aimed his gun at Hackman--true.  For me, that was because he was still in an inner conflict about his decision to violate his oath.  Hackman goaded him and ultimately (for me) drove Crockett to a decision to pull the trigger.

In short, I don't believe we were shown enough evidence in the scene to say with 100% certainty that Hackman had a gun and pointed it at Crockett before he was killed.  The writers/director left an ambiguous ending for viewers to interpret. 

You believe differently and are 100% convinced that Hackman pulled a gun on Crockett before he was shot.  I'm OK that you feel that way and I'm acknowledging it's possible.  But the scene doesn't show that. 

[ViceFanMan]

31 minutes ago, vicegirl85 said:

I agree it was never shown that a gun was planted.  Implied?  I don't know that it can be ruled out.  It was something that *I* thought could have happened because we also weren't shown that Hackman had a gun before Crockett shot him.  I'm not saying he didn't draw on Crockett.  I don't know.  I don't know if Crockett saw that Hackman had a gun--but it wasn't shown in the scene that Hackman had a gun before he was shot by Crockett.  For me, the conviction that Crockett only fired his gun after seeing that Hackman had a gun falls into the same category as deciding that Crockett might have planted a gun on him after shooting him.

Crockett didn't shoot when he first aimed his gun at Hackman--true.  For me, that was because he was still in an inner conflict about his decision to violate his oath.  Hackman goaded him and ultimately (for me) drove Crockett to a decision to pull the trigger.

In short, I don't believe we were shown enough evidence in the scene to say with 100% certainty that Hackman had a gun and pointed it at Crockett before he was killed.  The writers/director left an ambiguous ending for viewers to interpret. 

You believe differently and are 100% convinced that Hackman pulled a gun on Crockett before he was shot.  I'm OK that you feel that way and I'm acknowledging it's possible.  But the scene doesn't show that. 

The writers/producers wanted you to think for a second that Crockett did just out-right shoot him. It was for shock value. Then they show you that Hackman did have a gun...and that’s why Sonny ultimately shot him. There is no implication or visualization of a plant. All of that is shown and right there in the episode. You cant get around it.

It’s  not about if I agree or disagree...it’s there and that’s what is. Any other theories or suppositions are just that. It’s okay to create them as a what-if scenario for fun...but they’re not supported or shown in the episode. They’re not what actually happened. They’re more creating “alternate plot ideas or endings” for discussion, rather than focusing on what actually did happen. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by ViceFanMan

[ViceFanMan]

Going back to the episode topic...I know some have compared “Buses” to Poe. Was this episode a homage of sorts to a story by Poe (as Love at First Sight was MV’s own version of Hitchcock’s Psycho)?  Just curious...

[Dadrian]

@ViceFanMan “Cask of the Amontillado“ was briefly alluded to by Robbie and myself somewhere in this thread. It’s hard to deny the similarities.