Episode #89 "Deliver Us From Evil"

[vicegirl85]

14 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

As far as Crockett goes, perhaps so...with his own gun, maybe he could have switched out the barrel? 

As for all the rest I’ve stated regarding Hackman’s gun...it’s all there in the episode. It’s not speculation. It’s episode fact. Especially considering people involved with the production of that episode have said before that the gun scene was integrated into the script to show Hackman had been armed, and to ultimately legally justify Crockett shooting him. Anything else (including a plant) is just what-ifs, or alternate scenarios, or speculations that were not done, shown, or implied in the episode.  

Eh, I disagree that the script (as it happened in the episode that was broadcast) showed that Hackman was armed, or that Crockett was justified in shooting him.  What was actually shown was ambiguous.  

My own reaction at the time was "wait, what just happened?"  I'm not trying to say that Crockett shot an unarmed man, nor that he planted the gun.  But I also saw nothing in the scene that proved Hackman was armed or that Crockett shot him in self-defense.  Based on what happened in the scene and what was shown, a lot was left to the viewer's interpretation.  Anything else is speculation.

Nothing has changed in multiple re-watches of the scene. 

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, vicegirl85 said:

Eh, I disagree that the script (as it happened in the episode that was broadcast) showed that Hackman was armed, or that Crockett was justified in shooting him.  What was actually shown was ambiguous.  

My own reaction at the time was "wait, what just happened?"  I'm not trying to say that Crockett shot an unarmed man, nor that he planted the gun.  But I also saw nothing in the scene that proved Hackman was armed or that Crockett shot him in self-defense.  Based on what happened in the scene and what was shown, a lot was left to the viewer's interpretation.  Anything else is speculation.

Nothing has changed in multiple re-watches of the scene. 

The script that was ultimately used showed that Hackman had been armed...they purposely gave you a few seconds for shock value to make you think Crockett had shot Hackman vigilante style. Then they show that ultimately Hackman had had a gun in hand...and that Crockett’s shot was justified.

That was the whole point of the gun scene being added to the script...people involved with the episode have stated this before. There’s also literally no other point for showing Hackman had a gun, as a plant was not done or even implied (as it was not part of any script, nor would one even make sense).

 I realize there are those fans that really wanted them to go with the original idea of Crockett shooting Hackman in cold blood, out of revenge. But, whether we like it or not, they ultimately did not do that. No matter how many ways people try to twist what was actually done...you can’t.

Anyone can come up with alternate scenarios, or what-ifs, or their own speculations for fun (and those might even make for an interesting whole separate thread )...but, that’s all they are. They are not what actually was done in the episode—which was Hackman had been armed, gun in hand, and Crockett ultimately shot him in legal self-defense. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Augusta]

I think that earns ANOTHER point for the Defense Team.  ...I plan to pull off a major armored car heist with my brother and three of my gal-friends.  IF the cops get wise and catch me in the act, I want vicegirl85 as my lawyer.  Fee is no obstacle.

Wait, gotta get more butter for my popcorn.  Don't continue the argument until I get back!

[ViceFanMan]

46 minutes ago, Augusta said:

I think that earns ANOTHER point for the Defense Team.  ...I plan to pull off a major armored car heist with my brother and three of my gal-friends.  IF the cops get wise and catch me in the act, I want vicegirl85 as my lawyer.  Fee is no obstacle.

Wait, gotta get more butter for my popcorn.  Don't continue the argument until I get back!

Lol!  There’s actually no real argument or “case”...instead of the old saying: beating a dead horse, it’s more like: finding new ways to try and ride a unicorn...which sadly are just myths. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

On 2/15/2021 at 3:20 PM, Robbie C. said:

The genius of that scene is simply that it DOESN'T show us what really happened. There is no conclusive visual evidence that Hackman pulled the gun on Sonny, and there's also no conclusive visual evidence that he didn't. It all comes down to how you view the character of Sonny. Period.

Actually, has anyone actually SEEN the script for the episode? If not (and it's not available on Script City), comments about what it did or didn't contain are speculation. I'd be interested in the version history as well. If we're doing forensic tracking of what the episode originally intended to what ended up on the screen those are vital things to have.

Both Bren10 and I broke this scene down earlier in this thread...you might want to have a look at that, @Augusta, if you haven't already. The short version - The entire time the camera is focused on Don Johnson he shows NO reaction to anything Hackman might have been doing. And this from an actor who's known for the depth of his facial expressions and reactions. And from a show that focused on the visual to the exclusion of almost everything else (aside from music).

I will repeat: we NEVER see Hackman with a gun in his hand while he's still alive. Full stop. You can't spin around that. Insisting that Hackman was armed and about to shoot Crockett is just as much speculation as anything else.

The quoted section is from my earlier breakdown of the scene, and I stand behind it. You can believe Hackman pulled a gun on Sonny (which is NEVER shown in the scene, period), or you can believe something else. It all comes down to how you view Sonny.

[ViceFanMan]

3 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

Actually, has anyone actually SEEN the script for the episode? If not (and it's not available on Script City), comments about what it did or didn't contain are speculation. I'd be interested in the version history as well. If we're doing forensic tracking of what the episode originally intended to what ended up on the screen those are vital things to have.

Both Bren10 and I broke this scene down earlier in this thread...you might want to have a look at that, @Augusta, if you haven't already. The short version - The entire time the camera is focused on Don Johnson he shows NO reaction to anything Hackman might have been doing. And this from an actor who's known for the depth of his facial expressions and reactions. And from a show that focused on the visual to the exclusion of almost everything else (aside from music).

I will repeat: we NEVER see Hackman with a gun in his hand while he's still alive. Full stop. You can't spin around that. Insisting that Hackman was armed and about to shoot Crockett is just as much speculation as anything else.

The quoted section is from my earlier breakdown of the scene, and I stand behind it. You can believe Hackman pulled a gun on Sonny (which is NEVER shown in the scene, period), or you can believe something else. It all comes down to how you view Sonny.

True... this is one script that I don’t know if anyone on this site has really ever seen in physical form. However, some people here and I as well, have read and/or seen some interviews done with I think the director and even some of the writers for this episode, in the past.

They talked about yes, the original scenario of Crockett shooting him vigilante style. Then NBC forced them to change it to add the gun scene in there...to show that Hackman had been armed and had tried to pull a gun on Crockett. This way it would not have a cop gone rogue, or vigilante. There was no plant or any other scenarios added, or done. 

They wanted the shock value for the few seconds at first to make you think that Crockett shot him in cold blood—this was the purpose of us not getting to see Hackman having a gun in his hand to begin with. Then, we’re shown the gun in Hackman‘s hand so we ultimately know that he had been armed, and was going to shoot Sonny. 

Regardless of facial expressions, or lack thereof, none of that matters or is the point. There’s no “breaking down” the scene...I have an original NBC airing, a Universal DVD, and a Mill Creek Blu-ray. I’ve watched that scene a “million” times. There’s no differences in any of those versions, by the way, but no matter how much some want it to be the vigilante idea...NBC changed that, and they ultimately didn’t go with it. 

[Robbie C.]

What part of ambiguous is difficult to understand? I recall you insisted early on that Hackman pulled a gun on Sonny. When? We don't see that. NBC MAY have wanted it to look that way, but in true Vice tradition it didn't come out that way. The producers left us with a scene that can work either way...and that's the simple reality of the situation. You can frame a scenario where Hackman pulled a gun on Sonny...but we never see it. I can frame a scenario where Sonny plants a gun on Hackman, but we never see that, either. The producers may have complied with the letter of what NBC wanted (adding Hackman's gun), but they certainly dodged the spirit (showing Hackman pulling said gun on Sonny).

All we ultimately know is a gun ended up in or near Hackman's hand (if you've watched the episode as much as you say, you will have noticed the gun changes position between shots). Did he pull it? We don't know. Did Sonny plant it? We don't know. Did Stan run out of the bushes and plant it while Sonny wasn't looking? Or did it fall from the sky, dropped by a passing pelican? Again, we don't know.

And yes...there is such a thing as "breaking down" a scene, especially with a show that put such a high premium on visuals. Denying that reality is like denying one of the essential elements of Vice.

[ViceFanMan]

On 2/18/2022 at 11:27 AM, Robbie C. said:

What part of ambiguous is difficult to understand? I recall you insisted early on that Hackman pulled a gun on Sonny. When? We don't see that. NBC MAY have wanted it to look that way, but in true Vice tradition it didn't come out that way. The producers left us with a scene that can work either way...and that's the simple reality of the situation. You can frame a scenario where Hackman pulled a gun on Sonny...but we never see it. I can frame a scenario where Sonny plants a gun on Hackman, but we never see that, either. The producers may have complied with the letter of what NBC wanted (adding Hackman's gun), but they certainly dodged the spirit (showing Hackman pulling said gun on Sonny).

All we ultimately know is a gun ended up in or near Hackman's hand (if you've watched the episode as much as you say, you will have noticed the gun changes position between shots). Did he pull it? We don't know. Did Sonny plant it? We don't know. Did Stan run out of the bushes and plant it while Sonny wasn't looking? Or did it fall from the sky, dropped by a passing pelican? Again, we don't know.

And yes...there is such a thing as "breaking down" a scene, especially with a show that put such a high premium on visuals. Denying that reality is like denying one of the essential elements of Vice.

There is no ambiguity, though...unless you create it & add it yourself. I don’t need to insist Hackman tried to use his gun on Crockett...it’s all right there in the episode. That was the point of the gun scene & showing the gun in Hackman’s hand.

If they were going to do the scenario or idea of a plant, by Crockett or anyone else, then they would have specifically shown that. They did not. Again, creating the idea there was a plant or any other scenario is just speculations & what-if ideas for fun.

You are absolutely correct...MV was a show that primarily focused on visuals.  But, there’s nothing to break-down in that scene. Talking about a ‘supposed’ facial expression, or eye movement, or the gun in Hackman’s hand maybe slightly changing position...is all just grasping at mythical straws. 

Some can try to ignore or pretend that NBC having the gun scene added didn’t happen, and for fun create alternate scenarios...but ultimately it was added, and for the purpose of showing Hackman had been armed & was going to shoot Crockett. 

No matter how badly some still want it to be anything else...it just isn’t there. And in all honesty, it’s not supposed to be. Even if some of us sometimes disagree on why we do or do not like some episodes (which is opinion), and we all like to sometimes read way more into a character or episode for fun, than what was ever originally intended by writers or producers ...some things are just episode fact, even if we don’t like it, or would have had it done differently.

I didn’t create it, or come up with what ultimately happened in this episode...NBC & producers/writers did. I’m just acknowledging what they did do, and why they did it, rather than focusing on what they could have done, but didn’t. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Kladdagh]

1 hour ago, Robbie C. said:

I will repeat: we NEVER see Hackman with a gun in his hand while he's still alive. Full stop. You can't spin around that. Insisting that Hackman was armed and about to shoot Crockett is just as much speculation as anything else.

Yes, you are right on this ... But, he has a gun in his hand, and i doubt it was for brush his hairs  ... I think the "speculation" about the purpose is easy to understand.

[ViceFanMan]

6 minutes ago, Kladdagh said:

Yes, you are right on this ... But, he has a gun in his hand, and i doubt it was for brush his hairs  ... I think the "speculation" about the purpose is easy to understand.

Lol!  Exactly! NBC meant the gun scene to be “definite”...there was never any intended speculation to be created about it. That was the whole point of the scene, to clarify what happened. It can be interesting and fun to create alternate ideas, but ultimately they were not done. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[sdiegolo78]

The dialogue between the two characters implies Hackman wasn't expecting Sonny to shoot him ("....you wouldn't shoot an unarmed man....Wrong!....bang"). And the camera shows mostly the respective actors close-up.

[ViceFanMan]

11 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

The dialogue between the two characters implies Hackman wasn't expecting Sonny to shoot him ("....you wouldn't shoot an unarmed man....Wrong!....bang"). And the camera shows mostly the respective actors close-up.

True, I don’t think Hackman initially expected Crockett to just out-right shoot him if he wasn’t armed. But, he was, as he initially had his hand with his gun under the magazine. Crockett saw him trying to bring it out, and was able to get his shot off first. That was the whole point of the gun scene, that we as viewers get to see at the end. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[sdiegolo78]

1 minute ago, ViceFanMan said:

True, I don’t think Hackman initially expected Crockett to just out-right shoot him if he wasn’t armed. But, he was, as he initially had his hand with his gun under the magazine. But, Crockett saw him trying to bring it out, and was able to get his shot off first.

We don't know that until the very end when the camera shows a dead Hackman holding a gun in his left hand. You could speculate he had been hiding the gun behind that magazine and just playing cool with Sonny. Can't really tell looking at the scene.
Until the end one would assume the perp was killed in cold blood. That's the whole ambiguity.

[ViceFanMan]

1 minute ago, sdiegolo78 said:

We don't know that until the very end when the camera shows a dead Hackman holding a gun in his left hand. You could speculate he had been hiding the gun behind that magazine and just playing cool with Sonny. Can't really tell looking at the scene.
Until the end one would assume the perp was killed in cold blood. That's the whole ambiguity.

We don’t get to see Hackman initially with the gun in his hand, as the producers wanted the shock value for the first few seconds to make you think Crockett just outright shot him. But it’s been stated by people involved in the episode, that the whole point of adding the gun scene in was to show that Hackman had been armed and had tried to pull it out on Sonny. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Robbie C.]

1 minute ago, sdiegolo78 said:

We don't know that until the very end when the camera shows a dead Hackman holding a gun in his left hand. You could speculate he had been hiding the gun behind that magazine and just playing cool with Sonny. Can't really tell looking at the scene.
Until the end one would assume the perp was killed in cold blood. That's the whole ambiguity.

I've been saying this for ages. There is NO scene showing a living Hackman with a gun in his hand or hidden anyplace else (inventions about his hand being under a magazine and such are just that...inventions). That's the reality. All the wishing in the world won't change that. Spin after the fact to justify a change made at the network's behest isn't especially relevant to what we see on the screen...and that is we DO NOT see Hackman with a gun until after he's dead. Period.

[sdiegolo78]

2 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

I've been saying this for ages. There is NO scene showing a living Hackman with a gun in his hand or hidden anyplace else (inventions about his hand being under a magazine and such are just that...inventions). That's the reality. All the wishing in the world won't change that. Spin after the fact to justify a change made at the network's behest isn't especially relevant to what we see on the screen...and that is we DO NOT see Hackman with a gun until after he's dead. Period.

I love MV ambiguity!

[ViceFanMan]

31 minutes ago, Robbie C. said:

I've been saying this for ages. There is NO scene showing a living Hackman with a gun in his hand or hidden anyplace else (inventions about his hand being under a magazine and such are just that...inventions). That's the reality. All the wishing in the world won't change that. Spin after the fact to justify a change made at the network's behest isn't especially relevant to what we see on the screen...and that is we DO NOT see Hackman with a gun until after he's dead. Period.

Hackman hiding his hand with the gun under the magazine is speculation (this is true)...although the magazine is right there with his gun-hand, so it’s not hard to put it together. However, maybe he had his hand with the gun hanging down in between the lounging chair & the table, and after Crockett saw his gun raised & he shot him, Hackman’s hand fell back onto the table, on top of the magazine? All of this is speculation...but where Hackman had the gun hidden from view wasn’t the point or important. 

Whats not speculation, is important, and has been clarified is Hackman did have a gun, was going to use it on Crockett, and ultimately Crockett shot him first. That was the point NBC had the gun scene added.

Edited February 18, 2022 by ViceFanMan

[Miami Beau]

48 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said:

Whats not speculation, is important, and has been clarified is Hackman did have a gun, was going to use it on Crockett, and ultimately Crockett shot him first. That was the point NBC had the gun scene added.

It’s too bad NBC had to intervene, I liked the cold blooded original ending. Sonny was justified it murdering Hackman.

This is my “cold blood” edit. The use of the Sheena Easton song was a miss for me. We do what we’re told I feel was more appropriate.

 

[ViceFanMan]

8 minutes ago, Miami Beau said:

It’s too bad NBC had to intervene, I liked the cold blooded original ending. Sonny was justified it murdering Hackman.

This is my “cold blood” edit. The use of the Sheena Easton song was a miss for me. We do what we’re told I feel was more appropriate.

 

As always your videos are awesome!  I’m kind of on the fence with which way they should have or shouldn’t have gone with the ending. A vigilante cold-blooded kill would have been interesting & wild! And, in our own minds Crockett would be justified in shooting him...but, morally & legally he wouldn’t be justified. 

Once he crossed that line, there’d be no going back. Pretty soon any horrific bad guy that got away could be “justified” kills. It would get out of hand, and where would it stop? It’s also more realistic to me that Hackman was armed, anyway. He would never be anywhere without a gun. 

This is total speculation on my part, but I’ve always found those few seconds right before Crockett shoots Hackman interesting. Crockett does not shoot him immediately...even after Hackman’s “dorky” line. He seems to hesitate—almost like he’s “wrestling” with himself & whether he should do it or not. Then he shoots, and we’re shown Hackman had a gun, and Crockett’s shoot was ultimately justified. 

That’s probably just reading way more into it, than what was intended or done ...I’ve just always noticed that Sonny doesn’t fire right away. 

[sdiegolo78]

2 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

This is total speculation on my part, but I’ve always found those few seconds right before Crockett shoots Hackman interesting. Crockett does not shoot him immediately...even after Hackman’s “dorky” line. He seems to hesitate—almost like he’s “wrestling” with himself & whether he should do it or not. Then he shoots, and we’re shown Hackman had a gun, and Crockett’s shoot was ultimately justified. 

That’s probably just reading way more into it, than what was intended or done ...I’ve just always noticed that Sonny doesn’t fire right away. 

Crockett's hand holding the gun is shaking at first, then after a few seconds bang! The camera stays with him the whole time. We can't see what Hackman was doing on his own end...that's the beauty of it...open for interpretation 

[ViceFanMan]

16 minutes ago, sdiegolo78 said:

Crockett's hand holding the gun is shaking at first, then after a few seconds bang! The camera stays with him the whole time. We can't see what Hackman was doing on his own end...that's the beauty of it...open for interpretation 

Yeah, the slight shaking & hesitation is interesting to me...because he doesn’t just shoot Hackman immediately. We’re not supposed to see what Hackman was doing while the camera was on Crockett...this was to purposely make us wonder just for a few seconds, whether Crockett did shoot him in cold blood.

But, then we’re shown the gun in Hackman’s hand...and then we knew what he was doing while the camera had been on Crockett’s face. Then there’s nothing “open” for any other interpretation than what the purpose of the gun was...that Hackman had been armed, and was attempting to shoot Crockett. That was the purpose & point for the gun scene being included. Anything else are just alternate ideas or scenarios created for fun. 

[apocalypse]

This is a good episode. Not nearly as good as Forgive Us Our Debts but in the top-3 of the Season 4.

Although I never understood why a supposedly big time thug like Hackman hung around with druggie white trash like Johnny Blatt and alike.

Although the murder was horrible, in a way I was happy that we got rid of Sheena Easton's Caitlin-character. Never liked her at all and most of the episodes where she was kinda sucked. Rock and a Hard place was almost embarrassingly bad.

I would have liked to see more of Hackman saga though. It could have been longer, like 4-5 episodes considering what kind of fillers they put in S5.

Lombard, Hackman and Mosca were all interesting thugs (I know not everyone liked Mosca) but there should have been more of them, imho.

 

[ViceFanMan]

1 hour ago, apocalypse said:

This is a good episode. Not nearly as good as Forgive Us Our Debts but in the top-3 of the Season 4.

Although I never understood why a supposedly big time thug like Hackman hung around with druggie white trash like Johnny Blatt and alike.

Although the murder was horrible, in a way I was happy that we got rid of Sheena Easton's Caitlin-character. Never liked her at all and most of the episodes where she was kinda sucked. Rock and a Hard place was almost embarrassingly bad.

I would have liked to see more of Hackman saga though. It could have been longer, like 4-5 episodes considering what kind of fillers they put in S5.

Lombard, Hackman and Mosca were all interesting thugs (I know not everyone liked Mosca) but there should have been more of them, imho.

 

I think in our (fans) minds Hackman seemed  big-time...because he was an adversary of Crockett’s specifically, and he was so psychotic & sociopathic!

But, watching the episodes, I actually don’t see Hackman as big-time (such as Calderone, Lombard or Mosca)...he actually WAS more of a “trashy” type thief, he just happened to sadly have homicidal tendencies as well. So the white-trash “scuzz” he hung with sometimes was more his type of thugs.  

I agree, seeing more of him, and Lombard, would have been awesome...maybe we could have had way more awesome episodes in later seasons, if they had gone back to those characters! And, yeah...the whole Caitlin thing was ridiculous. Very “forced”, rushed, and fake...and you could tell.  

[RedDragon86]

12 hours ago, ViceFanMan said:

I think in our (fans) minds Hackman seemed  big-time...because he was an adversary of Crockett’s specifically, and he was so psychotic & sociopathic!

But, watching the episodes, I actually don’t see Hackman as big-time (such as Calderone, Lombard or Mosca)...he actually WAS more of a “trashy” type thief, he just happened to sadly have homicidal tendencies as well. So the white-trash “scuzz” he hung with sometimes was more his type of thugs.  

I agree, seeing more of him, and Lombard, would have been awesome...maybe we could have had way more awesome episodes in later seasons, if they had gone back to those characters! And, yeah...the whole Caitlin thing was ridiculous. Very “forced”, rushed, and fake...and you could tell.  

I never bought the idea that he was capable of bribing judges etc once he was settled on that Island, and that home and land would would cost millions. The majority of the episode he is running around with a vinyl record, a sawn off shot gun and his right hand man is a dork but he suddenly transformed into a sophisticated crime boss?

The power and political connection was just chucked in at they end purely to beef up his profile as a character.

The likes of Lombard and Calderone were the real deal, they had a network of power.

Edited September 5, 2022 by RedDragon86

[Robbie C.]

Hackman was a nutjob heist guy. Nothing more. I never saw him as big time in any way at all. Maybe he was on that estate because someone had hired him to work security and he was basking in their protection (people like Calderone would have uses for a Hackman). Don't forget...if Hackman's lips were moving he was lying, after all.