Episode #89 "Deliver Us From Evil"

[Adrian321]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

In my opinion even if they had not done the gun scene, this still would not have been a “perfect” episode! It would still destroy the character of Crockett, and he wouldn’t be “legit” or “valid” anymore. He’d just be a whack-job killer with a gun...which he ended up becoming in the Burnett episodes. 

I know there are those fans that didn’t like the gun scene or that they made that decision, however I think the majority of fans are fine with it. It showed that after everything he’d been through Crockett still had some control...he was still sane to some degree. I know I am not alone, but personally I do not view this is some “goof” or mistake. I also do not view the fake Ferrari is that big of a deal, LOL. At the time they worked with what they had, and they made it work for sure! Most fans didn’t even know it at the time.  

We all have opinions. For me, even if it was destructive, wouldn't really matter, as both Crockett matched the show's current state. As a matter of fact, Hackman wasn't an innocent man at all and he deserved it throughtly after those 2 siggnificant murders. 

If the gun is not the goof, it means that the last 2, strongest lines are actually goofs and this episode shall not be considered worth of anything if it couldn't even offer consistency in its story.

Also, the fake Ferrari is a disgrace....... If they went cheap even when they had the money, it really shows the lazzines and greed of the producers........ if it was a real Daytona, I'd actually like it as much as the Testarossa. 

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Adrian321 said:

Unfortunately yes..... it is a canon thing, even if such a hurtful one.

The Burnett saga is another topic, but all those 3 episodes are top 10 of mine, (6th,7th,8th places). I actually don't mind them being over-the-top as you said, and I don't dissagree that they aren't, but personally, having 4 top 10 episodes in A ROW was a joy...... Is it neccesarily bad they were over-the-top ? Depends..... MV was kinda over-the-top, with our characters dodging so many bullets, that, by probabillity seems near impossible and other things, it isn't like it went from a silent, black and white series with '30s visuals to an over the top series, with many visuals and sounds and entertaining story, but, to be fair, it went through the entire roof with the new arc, and no one was expecting that.

That boat explosion seems a bit ridiculous, but it is what it is, ATLEAST we got something entertaining, unlike other weak episodes from S4, like that ###### Missing hours, The big thaw, God's work,etc. I remember the first time watching them, and remember being very pleased with this approach.

Also, I think the Burnett saga was good in the way that it squeezed the bit of the stuff the show could offer with its new writers. These really made me think that S4 and 5 really have some good stuff to offer, and, for me atleast, they did proove that. 5 episodes from my personal top 10 are from these 2 seasons alone.

MV could be over the top with different things, this is true, LOL! However, there is some thing about the Burnett episode that perhaps goes beyond over the top. They were just bizarre, destructive,  and in all honesty, obvious desperate attempts to bring back ratings, just like the Caitlin  episodes were.  They were so goofy or bizarre that it basically backfired on them. 

 However, everyone has their likes and dislikes, and opinions on episodes and seasons. It’s all good! 

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, Adrian321 said:

We all have opinions. For me, even if it was destructive, wouldn't really matter, as both Crockett matched the show's current state. As a matter of fact, Hackman wasn't an innocent man at all and he deserved it throughtly after those 2 siggnificant murders. 

If the gun is not the goof, it means that the last 2, strongest lines are actually goofs and this episode shall not be considered worth of anything if it couldn't even offer consistency in its story.

Also, the fake Ferrari is a disgrace....... If they went cheap even when they had the money, it really shows the lazzines and greed of the producers........ if it was a real Daytona, I'd actually like it as much as the Testarossa. 

 Perhaps the fake Ferrari seems more ridiculous now, but back then hardly anybody knew. It worked for what it was and when the show first started out. And they ultimately got two real Testarossas to use anyway.  I don’t think the gun was a goof, and the lines that they spoke were again more in sarcasm, as obviously Hackman was not unarmed...and he never would be at any time with anyone . Crockett knew that. 

[Robbie C.]

The only thing that's "canon" is that the gun was there. We can't say Hackman pulled it. We also can't say Sonny planted it. The episode doesn't show us one way or the other. It's just there. There is no point in that scene where we see Hackman alive with the gun in his hand. You can assume he pulled it, or you can assume Sonny planted it. But either action happened off camera. We don't see it. They're both assumptions. Nothing more or less.

Ambiguity. Vice loved it, and if the gun was forced on them by the network they managed to work it in and preserve that ambiguity.

[Adrian321]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

MV could be over the top with different things, this is true, LOL! However, there is some thing about the Burnett episode that perhaps goes beyond over the top. They were just bizarre, destructive,  and in all honesty, obvious desperate attempts to bring back ratings, just like the Caitlin  episodes were.  They were so goofy or bizarre that it basically backfired on them. 

 However, everyone has their likes and dislikes, and opinions on episodes and seasons. It’s all good! 

I agree that they were truly weird. Though, even Brother's keeper is a bit over the top too, and yet, I find it EVEN better.Though, you said it well, we have our own likes and dislikes.

 

Just now, ViceFanMan said:

 Perhaps the fake Ferrari seems more ridiculous now, but back then hardly anybody knew. It worked for what it was and when the show first started out. And they ultimately got two real Testarossas to use anyway.  I don’t think the gun was a goof, and the lines that they spoke were again more in sarcasm, as obviously Hackman was not unarmed...and he never would be at any time with anyone . Crockett knew that. 

If the gun isn't a goof, then why do the fans like those 2 lines so much ? If they are said in "sarcasm", doesn't this ruin the whole point of the episode, Crockett getting  ice cold revenge on his nemesis ? Also, Hackman could be theoretically unarmed in the presence of a person like Crockett who went berserk to save a supposed "innocent" man, don't you think ?

 

[Adrian321]

6 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

The only thing that's "canon" is that the gun was there. We can't say Hackman pulled it. We also can't say Sonny planted it. The episode doesn't show us one way or the other. It's just there. There is no point in that scene where we see Hackman alive with the gun in his hand. You can assume he pulled it, or you can assume Sonny planted it. But either action happened off camera. We don't see it. They're both assumptions. Nothing more or less.

Ambiguity. Vice loved it, and if the gun was forced on them by the network they managed to work it in and preserve that ambiguity.

Well......... something that's cannon can, unfortunately be a huge mess. A huge goof, the 2nd biggest in the entire series for me, since it affects the way you view the things that happen and will happen in the next episodes.

Also, a very good point is that we don't even know if CROCKETT planted it......... if so, then it won't be a goof, it will just be enough proof to say "Oh......... he pulled a gun on me" Also, Crockett takes a lot to take the courage and shoot, so if it was truly in self defence and Hackman wanted to shoot, it would be fast, it seems logical, doesn't it ?

Edited February 18, 2021 by Adrian321
error

[ViceFanMan]

The gun scene is canon...as it was shown, after they first made you think he’d shot Hackman in cold blood...but then your shown he didn’t. That was the point of the gun being shown...there is no point to the gun, if it was supposedly still being left up to possible vigilantism.

 The gun very well may have been forced by the network, but it is there and that was the point of it. Again, trying to make it or twist it into anything else is just personal preferences or wishes. There is nothing wrong with those, but they’re not actually what was shown and portrayed in the episode...they’re not canon. I’m not “siding” with either way...I’m just acknowledging what was, regardless. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Adrian321]

8 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

The gun scene is canon...as it was shown, after they first made you think he’d shot Hackman in cold blood...but then your shown he didn’t. That was the point of the gun being shown...there is no point to the gun, if it was supposedly still being left up to possible vigilantism.

 The gun very well may have been forced by the network, but it is there and that was the point of it. Again, trying to make it or twist it into anything else is just personal preferences or wishes. There is nothing wrong with those, but they’re not actually what was shown and portrayed in the episode. I’m not “siding” with either way...I’m just acknowledging what was, regardless. 

Then, you innevitably lead yourself to the conclusion that it's a goof....... If it was in self defence, why did Crockett take so long to shoot ? Why did they tell those lines ? If Hackman really pulled the gun, wouldn't that ruin the hole point of this episode ? If it was an ice-cold revenge for those 2 signifficant people in his life, the Burnett saga seems more plausible, doesn't it ? Also, as Robbie pointed out, we don't even know if Crockett planted the gun to have some evidence in case it turns up later.

Do you think the producers would make so many fundamental goofs, just in order to place a stupid gun because of those regulations ? There is ONE single point of the gun: To sattisfy the network. Not even a single more. If it is, then you get many messes in the whole episode and the next ones too...... Also, the burnout finale also seems more "Acceptable" if this event took place in cold blood.

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Adrian321
Forgot something

[ViceFanMan]

13 minutes ago, Adrian321 said:

Then, you innevitably lead yourself to the conclusion that it's a goof....... If it was in self defence, why did Crockett take so long to shoot ? Why did they tell those lines ? If Hackman really pulled the gun, wouldn't that ruin the hole point of this episode ? If it was an ice-cold revenge for those 2 signifficant people in his life, the Burnett saga seems more plausible, doesn't it ? Also, as Robbie pointed out, we don't even know if Crockett planted the gun to have some evidence in case it turns up later.

Do you think the producers would make so many fundamental goofs, just in order to place a stupid gun because of those regulations ? There is ONE single point of the gun: To sattisfy the network. Not even a single more. If it is, then you get many messes in the whole episode and the next ones too...... Also, the burnout finale also seems more "Acceptable" if this event took place in cold blood.

 

I don’t view it as a “goof”, necessarily...and it probably could have been handled or done better. 

Crockett did go there initially to kill Hackman...but, you’re right, he hesitates for a few seconds. Then shoots. Then you’re shown Hackman had a gun he’d tried to pull out. This is more interpretation...but Crockett appears to hesitate at the last second because he ultimately just couldn’t end up becoming a crazy vigilante.  He was still in control of his mind, and ultimately he was a cop.

He’s only able to shoot once he sees Hackman’s gun coming out. The lines were “used” for sarcastic humor (“dark” humor) because Hackman was not unarmed & he never would be. Even if Crockett hadn’t shown up and Hackman was just sitting out there enjoying the tropical weather, he still would’ve had a gun on him somewhere. He was a psychopath that would never feel comfortable unless he was armed, as he always knew that someone might show up at some point to try to kill him for whatever reasons. 

[Adrian321]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

I don’t view it as a “goof”, necessarily...and it probably could have been handled or done better. 

Crockett did go there initially to kill Hackman...but, you’re right, he hesitates for a few seconds. Then shoots. Then you’re shown Hackman had a gun he’d tried to pull out. This is more interpretation...but Crockett appears to hesitate at the last second because he ultimately just couldn’t end up becoming a crazy vigilante.  He was still in control of his mind, and ultimately he was a cop.

He’s only able to shoot once he sees Hackman’s gun coming out. The lines were “used” for sarcastic humor (“dark” humor) because Hackman was not unarmed & he never would be. Even if Crockett hadn’t shown up and Hackman was just sitting out there enjoying the tropical weather, he still would’ve had a gun on him somewhere. He was a psychopath that would never feel comfortable unless he was armed, as he always knew that someone might show up at some point to try to kill him for whatever reasons. 

You put some good points, as you can interpret this in many ways......... HOWEVER, if you take this approach, then you have too many issues shoved under the carpet: It kinda ruins the ending, the next episodes are less plausible, less sattisfactory, turn iconic lines in "simple sarcasm", it contributes less to the burnout, shows that Crockett's wife and old partner were not THAT important to actually murder for.

I hold the "Ice cold killer" approach, because it solves all these problems, with a simple explanation that is much more likely, also it would also be the official end, if it wasn't for that stupid regulation.

I consider a "goof" a flaw/something that better wasn't there.

[ViceFanMan]

4 minutes ago, Adrian321 said:

You put some good points, as you can interpret this in many ways......... HOWEVER, if you take this approach, then you have too many issues shoved under the carpet: It kinda ruins the ending, the next episodes are less plausible, less sattisfactory, turn iconic lines in "simple sarcasm", it contributes less to the burnout, shows that Crockett's wife and old partner were not THAT important to actually murder for.

I hold the "Ice cold killer" approach, because it solves all these problems, with a simple explanation that is much more likely, also it would also be the official end, if it wasn't for that stupid regulation.

I consider a "goof" a flaw/something that better wasn't there.

The producers could have handled the gun thing better, and in some ways it probably does make some things “off” for the Burnett episodes.

But, and this is opinion & preference, I think that’s why I like this episode better than the Burnett saga...I don’t really like the idea of Crockett going psycho...then he’s just another Hackman. Then it ruins the character, and when he shows back up later & everything is supposed to be ‘hunky-dory’ again...it’s just ridiculous! 

To me a “goof” is an actual mistake that somehow was not noticed & left in the episode. The gun scene was done on purpose...even if done in a poor manner. A “wrong or bad decision” for an episode plot/character is probably more what you’re referring to.

I realize there are different opinions, personal preferences, what-ifs, likes & dislikes, wishes, etc... And those are all cool & I respect them for that. But, NONE of that ultimately matters with what was shown & what they did do. We have to acknowledge that & go with that, even if we think it’s stupid or a bad thing. I could pretend that the Burnett episodes were all just Crockett’s bizarre dream/nightmare...and didn’t really happen.  But, we know that’s not true...that’s not what was shown nor what they did with the plot/character. I have to acknowledge the Burnett saga happened in actual “canon”.

[Adrian321]

22 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

The producers could have handled the gun thing better, and in some ways it probably does make some things “off” for the Burnett episodes.

But, and this is opinion & preference, I think that’s why I like this episode better than the Burnett saga...I don’t really like the idea of Crockett going psycho...then he’s just another Hackman. Then it ruins the character, and when he shows back up later & everything is supposed to be ‘hunky-dory’ again...it’s just ridiculous! 

To me a “goof” is an actual mistake that somehow was not noticed & left in the episode. The gun scene was done on purpose...even if done in a poor manner. A “wrong or bad decision” for an episode plot/character is probably more what you’re referring to.

I realize there are different opinions, personal preferences, what-ifs, likes & dislikes, wishes, etc... And those are all cool & I respect them for that. But, NONE of that ultimately matters with what was shown & what they did do. We have to acknowledge that & go with that, even if we think it’s stupid or a bad thing. I could pretend that the Burnett episodes were all just Crockett’s bizarre dream/nightmare...and didn’t really happen.  But, we know that’s not true...that’s not what was shown nor what they did with the plot/character. I have to acknowledge the Burnett saga happened in actual “canon”.

Well........ true, we do have diffrent opinions, and, sure, that is cool. I don't have a problem with that. That is why I am here in the first place.

You say it could've been done better...... hmmm.... ok, I'd like to hear what you think about this. How could it be better ? Not modifying the context of the episode, and the next implications much, just the ending I mean.

This is sort of a goof though, even by your deffinition. It is a mistake, that could've been left out, and even make the episode better without it. Doesn't really change its status if it was intentional or not, as we all know, it was put there just to sattisfy the network, it wasn't even a choice initially. Also, Crockett planting the gun still remains a valid option, as it doesn't contradict the cannon, yet keeps most of the elements of the episode that make it so good.

Well, if Crockett just revenged for what Hackman did, it doesn't mean he's become one. Hackman killed 2 people that had a huge impact on the character. It would be justice, as it isn't like he executed 100 guards and Hackman. Hackman also killed that family at the beggining of the episode, not to mention he was already supposed to be executed a season and a half ago, and as you mentioned he is a psycho, who knows what he did in the time between Forgive us our debts and Deliver us from evil ?

The Burnett saga is another topic I will approfundate, HOWEVER, it is not as "connected" to Deliver us from evil, as the Calderone saga back in S1 (Brother's keeper, Hit List, Calderone's demise are VERRY connected, and ABSOLUTELY neccesary to make the story good, while Deliver us from evil is not AN ABSOLUTE neccesity), though it is connected enough, so that a goof of this size can impact many following aspects.

I don't see how some well deserved justice somehow destroys Crockett's character. Also, Hackman mentioned his "involvement" with the local judge and police, "which involves their pensions ha ha", so Crockett had all the reason and incentive to do it, as not even the judicial system could serve "justice" anymore. The main reason Crockett went for Hackman with the intention of executing him, is the assasination of his 2nd wife after that concert.

How do you interpret Crockett going to Hackman's island if it wasn't for this reason- and the other murders ? I don't think the writers tried to say Crockett went to serve some coffe there or tea.

Also, if something was shown, it doesn't mean that was supposed to be there initially at all.... I am 1000% sure that the gun scene would have not existed at all if it wasn't for the regulation. This was forced, it wasn't supposed to be at all there. Also, this makes sense when we consider the following Burnett saga (it was designed after the "ice cold" revenge).

Edited February 18, 2021 by Adrian321

[Bren10]

Killing Hackman does not make Crockett into a Frank Castle-type psycho, nor does it turn him into Hackman. It is not an either/or scenario. There are degrees between. Sonny is a man pushed to the edge by this one person and crosses the line because it became personal as he himself warned Tubbs of as far back as the pilot. Sonny does not declare an all-out vigilante war on crime here. He steps out of bounds this once (symbolized by his being out of jurisdiction) and then walks away and leaves it, similar to how Hank Weldon once did. How it would've affected him over time with no bomb or amnesia is up for debate, but I don't see him ending up like Weldon or a Charles Bronson type either.

[ViceFanMan]

26 minutes ago, Adrian321 said:

Well........ true, we do have diffrent opinions, and, sure, that is cool. I don't have a problem with that. That is why I am here in the first place.

You say it could've been done better...... hmmm.... ok, I'd like to hear what you think about this. How could it be better ? Not modifying the context of the episode, and the next implications much, just the ending I mean.

This is sort of a goof though, even by your deffinition. It is a mistake, that could've been left out, and even make the episode better without it. Doesn't really change its status if it was intentional or not, as we all know, it was put there just to sattisfy the network, it wasn't even a choice initially. Also, Crockett planting the gun still remains a valid option, as it doesn't contradict the cannon, yet keeps most of the elements of the episode that make it so good.

Well, if Crockett just revenged for what Hackman did, it doesn't mean he's become one. Hackman killed 2 people that had a huge impact on the character. It would be justice, as it isn't like he executed 100 guards and Hackman. Hackman also killed that family at the beggining of the episode, not to mention he was already supposed to be executed a season and a half ago, and as you mentioned he is a psycho, who knows what he did in the time between Forgive us our debts and Deliver us from evil ?

The Burnett saga is another topic I will approfundate, HOWEVER, it is not as "connected" to Deliver us from evil, as the Calderone saga back in S1 (Brother's keeper, Hit List, Calderone's demise are VERRY connected, and ABSOLUTELY neccesary to make the story good, while Deliver us from evil is not AN ABSOLUTE neccesity), though it is connected enough, so that a goof of this size can impact many following aspects.

I don't see how some well deserved justice somehow destroys Crockett's character. Also, Hackman mentioned his "involvement" with the local judge and police, "which involves their pensions ha ha", so Crockett had all the reason and incentive to do it, as not even the judicial system could serve "justice" anymore. The main reason Crockett went for Hackman with the intention of executing him, is the assasination of his 2nd wife after that concert.

How do you interpret Crockett going to Hackman's island if it wasn't for this reason- and the other murders ? I don't think the writers tried to say Crockett went to serve some coffe there or tea.

Also, if something was shown, it doesn't mean that was supposed to be there initially at all.... I am 1000% sure that the gun scene would have not existed at all if it wasn't for the regulation. This was forced, it wasn't supposed to be at all there. Also, this makes sense when we consider the following Burnett saga (it was designed after the "ice cold" revenge).

Crockett “planting” a gun has never been a possibility...original script or idea, that I know of. Planting one would literally make no sense...why plant it? No one was there, no one knew he was there.

Plus, he didn’t have time to plant it...he shoots, then he turns & walks away, then we’re shown the gun. If he wanted to plant a gun, he’d of leaned over Hackman, or gone around the back of him, to his other side, planted the gun, then walked away. None of that happened. He stayed off to the other side, after shooting, then walked away...in a matter of seconds/less than a minute. 

Supposedly originally they were going to have Crockett shoot him in cold blood. That’s why he initially went there. But then they have him hesitate...then he shoots. Then we’re shown the gun...showing Sonny actually shot out of self defense. The gun scene was probably forced by the network...but again, it’s there regardless if we like it or what the original idea might have been. 

Some may view it as a mistake, or bad/wrong decision. But, it’s not a “goof”, right or wrong/good or bad, it was done on purpose.

[ViceFanMan]

45 minutes ago, Bren10 said:

Killing Hackman does not make Crockett into a Frank Castle-type psycho, nor does it turn him into Hackman. It is not an either/or scenario. There are degrees between. Sonny is a man pushed to the edge by this one person and crosses the line because it became personal as he himself warned Tubbs of as far back as the pilot. Sonny does not declare an all-out vigilante war on crime here. He steps out of bounds this once (symbolized by his being out of jurisdiction) and then walks away and leaves it, similar to how Hank Weldon once did. How it would've affected him over time with no bomb or amnesia is up for debate, but I don't see him ending up like Weldon or a Charles Bronson type either.

I see some of what you’re saying... but with the Burnett episodes he basically does sort of become a Charles Bronson or even Hackman type of character. Perhaps not as “joyful” with killing as Hackman, but he’s still a gun-wielding psycho. It’s just thugs killing thugs.

Totally my opinion, but I don’t like that idea, and it was very destructive to the character of Crockett. And again when he “magically” wanted to come back later like everything was all ok again, it was ridiculous. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[sdiegolo78]

55 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

No one was there, no one knew he was there

I think it'd be naive from Castillo and/or Tubbs not to ponder the possibility of Sonny going after Hackman...they are cops too and they know Crockett damn well.

[ViceFanMan]

9 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

I think it'd be naive from Castillo and/or Tubbs not to ponder the possibility of Sonny going after Hackman...they are cops too and they know Crockett damn well.

Good points...I agree. I’d think they’d be trying to prevent Crockett from doing that...even if they understood why. Who knows, maybe they did...we’re not shown? But I don’t think they’d be on the island with Crockett...or they would have stopped him.

Edited February 19, 2021 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

1 hour ago, ViceFanMan said:

Crockett “planting” a gun has never been a possibility...original script or idea, that I know of. Planting one would literally make no sense...why plant it? No one was there, no one knew he was there.

Plus, he didn’t have time to plant it...he shoots, then he turns & walks away, then we’re shown the gun. If he wanted to plant a gun, he’d of leaned over Hackman, or gone around the back of him, to his other side, planted the gun, then walked away. None of that happened. He stayed off to the other side, after shooting, then walked away...in a matter of seconds/less than a minute. 

Supposedly originally they were going to have Crockett shoot him in cold blood. That’s why he initially went there. But then they have him hesitate...then he shoots. Then we’re shown the gun...showing Sonny actually shot out of self defense. The gun scene was probably forced by the network...but again, it’s there regardless if we like it or what the original idea might have been. 

Some may view it as a mistake, or bad/wrong decision. But, it’s not a “goof”, right or wrong/good or bad, it was done on purpose.

Actually he has plenty of time to plant something if he wanted to. I broke this scene down almost second by second...and there is a hitch in the angle between when he turns and when they show him actually walking away. We don't know how much time may have passed, but since it's not a clear transition there is a distinct possibility that time did pass.

I find it interesting you're so quick to dispatch the possibility the gun was planted but continue to insist Hackman pulled it on Sonny when we see NEITHER thing happening on camera. If they wanted it to be clearly self-defense, they would have shown us something similar to what we get in Child's Play. All we see is Hackman reclining in the chair and closing his eyes, Sonny shooting, and then the departure elements (including a gun which first appears to be just touching Hackman's hand but seems to have been repositioned when the camera angle changes). You claim Hackman's line was sarcastic...it was typical Hackman smug. You claim Crockett's "wrong" was sarcastic but offer no evidence. His expression certainly isn't amused. We all have heard Crockett speaking sarcastically in the series, and he didn't sound sarcastic to me. Canon is ambiguous in this scene, and will always be so. I think it was a case of the production team acceding to the letter of NBC's request (if there was one) but certainly not the spirit. They left it to the audience to decide which version they preferred. I, for one, see nothing wrong with acknowledging the merits of that approach.

[sdiegolo78]

19 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

Good points...I agree. I’d think they’d be trying to prevent Crockett from doing that...even if they understood why. Who knows, maybe they did...we’re not shown? 

No, I don't think we're shown but I want to re-watch this again after a long time as soon as I get a chance. If we are not actually shown, one has to assume either they don't know squat (a bit preposterous and naive from Tubbs and the lieutenant being cops and people who know Crockett darn well) or someone in charge (perhaps Castillo) would somehow learn about Hackman death sooner or later. And this happens at a convenient time in the story-line for Sonny to face any consequence, should anyone in authority ask questions .Infact, in the next episode 'Mirror Image' he loses his memory and OCB including Castillo are way too busy dealing with the Carrera - Manolo cartel as well as looking for Sonny.

And in my opinion Tubbs, Castillo or anyone from the team talking Sonny against going after Hackman it would be a bit hypocritical. We saw in many other episodes when things get personal everybody involved loses objectivity, takes matter into their hands and forgets about the badge.

Edited February 19, 2021 by sdiegolo78

[sdiegolo78]

On 8/4/2010 at 1:57 AM, Tony D. said:

The final scene: I believe Crockett went to the island to kill Hackman in cold blood but Hackman being true to form, had a gun under his book & Crockett wound up with a clean shoot!

That's self defense!

[sdiegolo78]

On 8/5/2010 at 11:14 PM, Guest neworder said:

Quote

Don Johnson was excellent in those scenes.To this day' date=' I can't recall another actor who has shot a gun w/o blinking like Johnson did.[/quote']I'm pretty sure Kiefer Sutherland managed it in 24 at some point.

Remeber Magum PI in 'Did you see the sunrise'? That was 1982, before MV came on TV.

[ViceFanMan]

12 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Actually he has plenty of time to plant something if he wanted to. I broke this scene down almost second by second...and there is a hitch in the angle between when he turns and when they show him actually walking away. We don't know how much time may have passed, but since it's not a clear transition there is a distinct possibility that time did pass.

I find it interesting you're so quick to dispatch the possibility the gun was planted but continue to insist Hackman pulled it on Sonny when we see NEITHER thing happening on camera. If they wanted it to be clearly self-defense, they would have shown us something similar to what we get in Child's Play. All we see is Hackman reclining in the chair and closing his eyes, Sonny shooting, and then the departure elements (including a gun which first appears to be just touching Hackman's hand but seems to have been repositioned when the camera angle changes). You claim Hackman's line was sarcastic...it was typical Hackman smug. You claim Crockett's "wrong" was sarcastic but offer no evidence. His expression certainly isn't amused. We all have heard Crockett speaking sarcastically in the series, and he didn't sound sarcastic to me. Canon is ambiguous in this scene, and will always be so. I think it was a case of the production team acceding to the letter of NBC's request (if there was one) but certainly not the spirit. They left it to the audience to decide which version they preferred. I, for one, see nothing wrong with acknowledging the merits of that approach.

There was never any indication a gun was planted by anyone. Again, that’s just a what-if scenario. A plant makes no sense...there was no reason or purpose to plant a gun.

I have watched that scene multiple times over (both of an original NBC airing & the DVD set...which there really no difference), and there is no time for a so-called plant. The “hitch” in between when Crockett shot Hackman & turned and walked away (which is like a second or less) is literally a camera change...to change the angle long range, to show Crockett walking away. They would have shown Crockett planting the gun, if that’s what they wanted to show or portray. They didn’t.

We can talk about facial expressions, lines (sarcastic or not), models of guns, etc...none of that really matters. What it comes down to is the gun in Hackman’s hand was purposely shown to let us know Crockett did not shoot him in cold blood...Hackman had tried to pull his out first. There’s literally no other point or purpose for that scene...even if supposedly originally it wasn’t to be included. The fact is it was. 

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, sdiegolo78 said:

Remeber Magum PI in 'Did you see the sunrise'? That was 1982, before MV came on TV.

Yes...and you’re correct that was before MV, and it caused a lot of controversy with that episode. Amazing show, too! 

[Bren10]

Once again, at 2:40 there is a jumpcut. We go from Sonny exiting the frame and the frame losing focus to him already walking away mid-stride. We don't see him actually start his walk. Therefore, between him exiting the frame and walking away, any given amount of time could have passed within that window, during which he could've made the plant. Doesn't mean he did, but he could have. Also, at about 2:45 Hackman's hand actually moves with the gun in it, which could imply it was just manipulated somehow. The point is, there was in fact time for Sonny to actually do something other than walk off.

 

 

[ViceFanMan]

20 minutes ago, Bren10 said:

Once again, at 2:40 there is a jumpcut. We go from Sonny exiting the frame and the frame losing focus to him already walking away mid-stride. We don't see him actually start his walk. Therefore, between him exiting the frame and walking away, any given amount of time could have passed within that window, during which he could've made the plant. Doesn't mean he did, but he could have. Also, at about 2:45 Hackman's hand actually moves with the gun in it, which could imply it was just manipulated somehow. The point is, there was in fact time for Sonny to actually do something other than walk off.

 

 

Always an emotional and “deep” scene!  But, again...it’s a jump-cut/camera change, to switch to a long-shot of Crockett walking away. He literally turns after saying the “wrong” comment and begins his walk. He actually wasn’t even close enough to plant a gun (unless he tosses it over Hackman & it lands perfectly in Hackman’s hand ). He was also on the wrong side of Hackman to plant it.

He’d of had to walk around Hackman to the other side, position it in the hand, etc... None of that happened nor was it implied nor were we given any indication of that. I do think originally Crockett was to shoot in revenge/vigilante style, but the network forced the change to self defense with the Hackman gun scene. However, I don’t think a plant was ever part of the original script nor was that ever an idea.