|
Post by Rachael on Feb 17, 2005 12:36:18 GMT -5
Jesus, let's hope not. TV writers seem to run out of decent storylines for guys like that after three seasons or so. Eh. Then you just feed him to the polar bears.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2005 13:19:21 GMT -5
It's a really squirrely plan though. Depends on too many unpredictable things going exactly the right way . . . it would have been easier for Hibbs to work up a plan for getting away with killing the guy himself. Or if he had the connections, to use a reliable hit man. Like Rachel, I just found the whole thing convulted and a touch too far-fetched. Hibbs wants a guy in Australia killed. So he remembers Sawyer's vendetta. Though he knows that Sawyer distrusts him to begin with, he hatches a plan to talk Sawyer into believing the guy is his longed for target - counting on Sawyer being too emotional about it to ask for any proof beyond a second hand story. So, first, Hibbs is counting on Sawyer going off half-cocked, to Australia, with zero evidence besides the second-hand (I'm telling you that so-and-so told me . . .) word of a guy he doesn't trust. Then he is counting on Sawyer doing no research or substantiation while he is there. Then he is counting on Sawyer being able to pull the trigger. I just don't buy it. A guy in Hibbs situation - I assume he must be a loanshark of some kind, or why kill his debtor except to send a message to other debtors - I don't buy he would hatch a plan like this for a "hitman" type of execution of a guy who owed him money. It's not impossible or anything, I will swallow. But it is stretching the old esphagous. Ah, but these are con artists! And con artists can be very adapt at getting people to do all sorts of rather amazingly not very sensible things because they know the right buttons to push. Lola
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2005 13:21:20 GMT -5
I need to go do errandy stuff, and don't have time to read all the comments first. Random thought:Jack's father used the Red Sox never winning the Series as a metaphor for an unchangeable fate. Jack quoted his dad, at the end of the episode. Well, the Sox won. Think it's a message to Jack that nothing is inevitable, and fate can be changed? That's how I'm taking it! And as a message, it fits well with Sawyer's story, too. He can change his direction, step away from the obsession that has run his life up to now.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 17, 2005 13:22:37 GMT -5
I need to go do errandy stuff, and don't have time to read all the comments first. Random thought:Jack's father used the Red Sox never winning the Series as a metaphor for an unchangeable fate. Jack quoted his dad, at the end of the episode. Well, the Sox won. Think it's a message to Jack that nothing is inevitable, and fate can be changed? So... when did these folks crash, again? Had the World Series happened yet? Do they KNOW the Sox won? I mean, I know the line was written after, but - well, it changes whether the message is for us, or for Jack. Nope. They don't know, obviously, 'cause otherwise Jack's whole quoteage thing wouldn't ring true to him anymore. And also: September 22, 2004. So, is it a message for HIM, or for us, the audience?
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2005 13:25:18 GMT -5
So... when did these folks crash, again? Had the World Series happened yet? Do they KNOW the Sox won? I mean, I know the line was written after, but - well, it changes whether the message is for us, or for Jack. Nope. They don't know, obviously, 'cause otherwise Jack's whole quoteage thing wouldn't ring true to him anymore. And also: September 22, 2004. So, is it a message for HIM, or for us, the audience? I think it is first of all for us, the audience. And perhaps even meant to be kind of . . . . like we know to not think of fate as fixed but the islanders don't know? Or something?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 17, 2005 13:29:22 GMT -5
More Jack Flashback? Maybe we will find dad's ambulatory corpse. Huh.. more Sawyer. First time we've come in on a flashback.. She's expecting to die. Scary. Shit.... Well, that explains a lot about Sawyer, don't it? Hey! Dinner! Still got that gun? Yeah, great. Tackle a boar in your own tent. Oooh! The whispery voices!! "It'll come back around" What? The boar? I thought "it'll come back around" was more karmic than literal - Charlie killed someone, Sawyer killed someone, apparently so did Kate - they have to deal with it somehow.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 17, 2005 13:31:27 GMT -5
Boar was so out to get him! Locke very insightful tonight. Loved his story about his mom and the dog. Didn't matter if the dog was or not, all that mattered was that the mom thought it was. Sawyer had to learn that it wasn't his fault that his mom was killed by his dad. And he had to learn that it is his fault the guy in Australia is dead.Lola That's it! That's it! That's the karmic connection! Sawyer had something to learn, that's what the island was using the boar to tell him. Anne, at least, I think that's what I mean
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 17, 2005 13:33:39 GMT -5
Ah, but these are con artists! And con artists can be very adapt at getting people to do all sorts of rather amazingly not very sensible things because they know the right buttons to push. Lola They are BOTH con artists, though. Just so hard to buy that Sawyer is so blind with emotion and rage, and is so filled with a desire for vengeance, that he -Mr Experienced Con Artist- takes the word of this guy he doesn't trust at all. But, at the same time, he's so hesitiant and reluctant and he can't pull the trigger at first. Still - your theory, like a spoonful of sugar, helps a little in making the story go down. I really liked the way the little-Sawyer story was presented. The poor little guy, cowering underneath the bed and all that. Then grown up Sawyer, dreaming - first of dad, then of the boar. Kind of suggested the dad was the boar, rather than his murder victim being the boar. Though - no time now to contemplate on that . . .
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 17, 2005 13:34:50 GMT -5
Oh, poor Matthew. Did the naughty puns scare you? Come out of your shell, please do...
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Feb 17, 2005 14:51:55 GMT -5
I agree that the animals are more than just "animals." When Sawyer faced the boar at the end, the boar didn't charge, just calmly looked at Sawyer as if to say, "Have you learned anything yet? Or, do I need to keep destroying your stuff?" Our material things, our "stuff" are much less important than we think, and animals don't need those things to survive. The boar was showing "Sawyer" that he doesn't need all that baggage he's dragging around.Ohhh! This is nice! I may steal this! Vald
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Feb 17, 2005 15:14:11 GMT -5
Eetah on all the reasons that Hibbs would set Sawyer up to kill Duckett. Sawyer had threatened Hibb's life and Duckett had run out on a debt. Double payback for Hibbs. And so right with the sorts of things that cause interruptions in the "suspension of disbelief." When Rich & I saw "Shanghai Knights," after nearly two hours of absurdity, Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson are knighted by Queen Victoria--the assembled crowd begins to applaud and they turn to wave and bow to the crowd. Rich says, "You don't turn your back on the Queen! That's ridiculous!" Much hilarity ensued. Other thoughts, after reading Linda about Sawyer giving back the gun. I think the boar provided by the island?--Sawyer's unconscious?-- was its way of trying to force him to actually deal with himself and his feelings and his choices. His mother was an avoider or she would have dealt with the issues in her marriage or her self in some way other than having an affair. His father was an avoider or he would have had other means to deal with his feelings of betrayal than to shoot her--and then shoot himself to avoid THOSE consequences. The traumatized boy Sawyer had never seen any way to be in life but to avoid or to act out (rather than feel and deal) feelings. So when life got hard for him as an adult, he chose to follow the "strength" he had seen earlier--the "strength" of the predator. Rather than doing the hard work of finding out how to play the hand life dealt him that would actually benefit him. His retarded "tracking" of the boar, shows just how bad a predator he actually was. (Kate on the other hand...) And we really don't know if he chose not to shoot the boar because Kate was standing there and he knew she wouldn't like it. Tho giving up the gun--actually relenquishing any part of his belongings voluntarily--seems a step in the right direction. So maybe it wasn't all about looking good to Kate. Or maybe looking good to Kate is why he gave back the gun, too. He competition with Jack seems to be his most important dynamic on the island--other than making everyone (besides Kate, who is also a prize in the competition) hate him as much as he hates himself. I do find it interesting that the writers, having him give up one weapon, provide him in the same scene with one of a type that they have shown him to be less hesitant to use. Hurley story so many weeks away. Grr. Argh. Oh, and thank you all for all the groans laughs. The above bears a striking resemblance to Spike to me. Sawyer is finding his way. He is not a bad man; he is the result of his circumstance. William/Spike in BtVS was not a bad man... he was the result of society's scorn and a vampire's kiss. The scene with Sawyer not being able to shoot Frank and then going to build up some liquid courage was remarkably similar to Spike having to talk himself into the kill. One, wonders, in fact, if Sawyer would have been able to kill Frank without all that liquor he consumed. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Feb 17, 2005 15:24:51 GMT -5
I love this idea, but is he old enough? Sure! The actor is several years older than the Sawyer... Sawyer's mom looks like she's in her late twenties. Sawyer is now 36 and this event happened about twenty-five years ago... There's no saying the real Sawyer had to be an old fogey.. .he could have been a young, attractive early twenties something or another and was very appealing to the later twenties aged mom of Sawyer. Patrick(the real Sawyer) is probably about 50 in real life...so yes, it all works there. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 15:31:04 GMT -5
So... when did these folks crash, again? Had the World Series happened yet? Do they KNOW the Sox won? I mean, I know the line was written after, but - well, it changes whether the message is for us, or for Jack. Nope. They don't know, obviously, 'cause otherwise Jack's whole quoteage thing wouldn't ring true to him anymore. And also: September 22, 2004. So, is it a message for HIM, or for us, the audience? I think it's a message for us, since he doesn't know. So, what will make him understand the message for himself? A big banner being dragged by an airplane overhead proclaiming - the Red Sox won the World Series! ;D
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Feb 17, 2005 15:33:22 GMT -5
I wouldn't bet against you, Nicki! And it would explain how Hibbs was able to con Sawyer so easily. IN replaying hte scene, I noticed that Hibbs calls Sawyer "Sawbucks." Whether or not this man is the real Sawyer, this is the man that "raised" our Sawyer. And he also says "We both know you aren't a killer." Why does he know that? What happened in the past that Hibbs is so sure that Sawyer isn't the killing type (other than his vendetta for hte real Sawyer.) Or is this jsut more of Hibbs way to prime the pump of our Sawyer? To make him feel he has to kill to prove his worth/manliness in going after the target Hibbs has so nicely provided? Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 15:34:04 GMT -5
I would agree wholeheartedly! The escalating (or would that be degenerating) nasty-ness in the "I Never" game, as selected truths get pulled out; Jack's dad's absolutely amazing and sad confession about his son (including that little slip about "what he did to me . . . for me"). Gems! And lovely bits of acting, too. Dad's eyes just dropping down quickly to look at the bottle all the time, letting you know how desperate he is. Kate and Sawyer's little glances at each other, half flirt, half anger, half . . . I don't know what. Ah, Drew!! Lola I love this observation about the "I Never" game, Lola. Maybe it's a metaphor (or the other thing) for the survivors themselves. All their nasty little secrets are being pulled out of them. By whom, tho? The 'something or somebody' on the island? I'm very anxious for next week's episode when that 'thing' reveals that it doesn't want them to leave.
|
|