|
Post by Karen on Feb 17, 2005 15:42:40 GMT -5
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 Oh, geez! *shivers* What if Hibbs is the original Sawyer and he did raise Sawyer, like you say? "Raised by another" would take on a whole new meaning if that's the case. The more I think about it, I think you are right and Hibbs knows Sawyer very well. Look how he botched mercy-killing the Marshall. Something holds him back from killing - Hibbs knows that. But he did have a trigger that let him shoot Frank. I'm not remembering exactly what that was right now. Jack's dad said something about, what was it, going after what was in his way?
|
|
|
Post by William the Bloody on Feb 17, 2005 15:44:56 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. Spring, At first I sort of agreed with you, but the more I toss around the possiblity that Hibb's may be the real Sawyer... and at the very least has known/ raised/ taught Sawyer, the more I believe that it wasn't such a gamble after all. These are con men; they make their daily bread by judging jsut how others will react. Hibbs knows Sawyer, knows that he will go kill this man. He provided almost conclusive evidence, way more than was needed for the emotionally blinded Sawyer. Even if he had questioned Frank aobut hte Sawyer angle, if hte man had denied it all, what would Sawyer believe? That the man did it and refuses to cop to it. Who is going to confess to that with a gun in their face. And, as someone pointed out, what did Hibbs have to lose? Sawyer was already pissed at him. If it worked Sawyer was either in his debt or framed for the murder... if it didn't, Hibbs could just hire someone else to kill Frank or collect the money. As Hibbs said, he knows Sawyer isn't really a killer, as the episode proved over and over again. Hibbs wasn't probably too concerned that Sawyer would come back to kill him, if he found out hte game. And if it did work, Sawyer would not be likely to keep looking for the man he thought he killed and ever tumble to the fact it was Hibbs (provided that Hibbs is really Sawyer) Really, it was a beautiful con game, one that is realistic and at hte same time elegant. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 17, 2005 16:24:14 GMT -5
Spring, At first I sort of agreed with you, but the more I toss around the possiblity that Hibb's may be the real Sawyer... and at the very least has known/ raised/ taught Sawyer, the more I believe that it wasn't such a gamble after all. These are con men; they make their daily bread by judging jsut how others will react. Hibbs knows Sawyer, knows that he will go kill this man. He provided almost conclusive evidence, way more than was needed for the emotionally blinded Sawyer. Even if he had questioned Frank aobut hte Sawyer angle, if hte man had denied it all, what would Sawyer believe? That the man did it and refuses to cop to it. Who is going to confess to that with a gun in their face. And, as someone pointed out, what did Hibbs have to lose? Sawyer was already pissed at him. If it worked Sawyer was either in his debt or framed for the murder... if it didn't, Hibbs could just hire someone else to kill Frank or collect the money. As Hibbs said, he knows Sawyer isn't really a killer, as the episode proved over and over again. Hibbs wasn't probably too concerned that Sawyer would come back to kill him, if he found out hte game. And if it did work, Sawyer would not be likely to keep looking for the man he thought he killed and ever tumble to the fact it was Hibbs (provided that Hibbs is really Sawyer) Really, it was a beautiful con game, one that is realistic and at hte same time elegant. Vlad First, see, when you're in the loan-sharking game and you want to have someone killed as an example, then this kind of thing is just so unprofessional! Hibbs needs to have his loanshark license revoked. He's a disgrace to the profession. Of course the shrimp salesman should have just coughed up the kittens to begin with. For me, "What does Hibbs have to gain?" is more the question than what does he have to lose - though what he has to lose is the job not getting done, and cluing off the prey at the same time. A subjective call, but this was neither beautiful nor realistic to me. Hibbs is convinced that our-Sawyer isn't really a killer, so he's not worried that our-Sawyer might be mad enough to ever kill him, but Hibbs is also convinced our-Sawyer will likely kill fake-real-Sawyer, who isn't really the original Sawyer, but maybe Hibbs is the original Sawyer? You could definitely be right about all of that, but it just stuck going down for me.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Feb 17, 2005 16:30:53 GMT -5
Spring, At first I sort of agreed with you, but the more I toss around the possiblity that Hibb's may be the real Sawyer... and at the very least has known/ raised/ taught Sawyer, the more I believe that it wasn't such a gamble after all. These are con men; they make their daily bread by judging jsut how others will react. Hibbs knows Sawyer, knows that he will go kill this man. He provided almost conclusive evidence, way more than was needed for the emotionally blinded Sawyer. Even if he had questioned Frank aobut hte Sawyer angle, if hte man had denied it all, what would Sawyer believe? That the man did it and refuses to cop to it. Who is going to confess to that with a gun in their face. And, as someone pointed out, what did Hibbs have to lose? Sawyer was already pissed at him. If it worked Sawyer was either in his debt or framed for the murder... if it didn't, Hibbs could just hire someone else to kill Frank or collect the money. As Hibbs said, he knows Sawyer isn't really a killer, as the episode proved over and over again. Hibbs wasn't probably too concerned that Sawyer would come back to kill him, if he found out hte game. And if it did work, Sawyer would not be likely to keep looking for the man he thought he killed and ever tumble to the fact it was Hibbs (provided that Hibbs is really Sawyer) Really, it was a beautiful con game, one that is realistic and at hte same time elegant. Vlad I agree, Vlad. With this and all you said above. So much talky meat to chew. Thank you everybody.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Feb 17, 2005 17:30:09 GMT -5
Oh, geez! *shivers* What if Hibbs is the original Sawyer and he did raise Sawyer, like you say? "Raised by another" would take on a whole new meaning if that's the case. The more I think about it, I think you are right and Hibbs knows Sawyer very well. Look how he botched mercy-killing the Marshall. Something holds him back from killing - Hibbs knows that. But he did have a trigger that let him shoot Frank. I'm not remembering exactly what that was right now. Jack's dad said something about, what was it, going after what was in his way? Eeeep! **shiver shiver** That . . . . is quite an idea. You and Nicki and Vlad are on to something here.
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Feb 18, 2005 0:46:47 GMT -5
If I were an obsessive sort of person, I'd make a chart with everything we've learned about these characters...but I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. Because I am thoughtfully saving Patti from her own obsessiveness, here is this week's list: Scenes Where Our Characters Were Connected Prior to Their Fateful FlightIn random order, because my memory is swiss cheese-y and I'm posting on the run from work... From this episode: Sawyer ran into Jack's Dad in the bar. Consequences: Sawyer chooses murder & also enables Jack's Dad's drinking. From Sun's episode: Jin was waiting in line at the airport behind Jack as Jack tried to get his Father's coffin checked in. Consequence: Jin was delayed long enough to offer the flower to Sun, causing her to choose to stay with him. From Boone's episode: Sawyer was being arrested as Boone was making his complaint. Consequence: I dunno. Maybe Sawyer pisses the local cops off enough to make them unsympathetic to fellow American Boone. I don't remember any others at the moment, because I am *not* obsessed enough to slo-mo through everyone's Aussie flashbacks to look for cameos. Not. Linda, like Patti, not obsessed. Not. P.S. Please feel free to add to the list. P.P.S. No color highlighters were involved in the making of this post. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Feb 18, 2005 0:48:45 GMT -5
Also: Revised Killer List: Of course that plane load of con men and killers have nothing on our own S'cubie family: Why did they leave the body to be buried by Charlie? That just seems so wrong somehow. Hey, it was Charlie's kill! ;D Well, he killed it, he deals with it. That's the way we dealt with homicide and manslaughter victims in my family.... Yes, but you're such a traditionalist. Oh - mine too. You killed it? Then you mix the cement and make the shoes and dump the body. It's the only fair way to go about it. Fair's fair. You make the mess, you clean the carpet. Yeah! Otherwise, your friends and family start getting all resentful. it's almost as bad as a game of "I never!" That's right...in my family it was alwas "You catch 'em, you clean 'em" Vlad Linda, see? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 18, 2005 11:26:01 GMT -5
About Killer Kate, I've been wondering - what if she didn't actually kill someone, she just feels responsible for their death? Maybe her wicked ways broke her dad's heart, and he died of sorrow.
Or maybe she was wishing the plane would crash so she wouldn't get dragged back to L.A. in handcuffs and disgrace.
Anne, or she could've just shot a bank guard...
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:23:33 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 Precisely, and so far a lot of these people have been shown to be cons or conned--the "pyschic" did a number on Claire. Who's conning them all? Locke? Hurley? I would like some answers soon, but I don't really think we're going to get too many. Questions keep people watching.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:26:32 GMT -5
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 . . . Not that hard for me to buy, since the event altered his whole life. He even became what he hated most. I could see him very easily jumping at the chance to get his revenge. I do hope we see him burn that letter very soon.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:27:54 GMT -5
Ohhh! This is nice! I may steal this! Vald Well, since you asked so nice, of course you may.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:30:10 GMT -5
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 Good point, and I doubt it very much that Sawyer would have gone back to the shrimp wagon without all the booze. Liquor, combined with hatred and self-loathing--and we know Sawyer was filled with all three--makes a lot of people do horrible things they would never do otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:35:11 GMT -5
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. I'm anxious for next week's ep too, but I don't trust the previews to be very accurate about what we'll actually see. The previews for this ep made it look like Sawyer and Jack were going to face of over Kate, that Sawyer might shoot Jack, but the previews hid more than they truly revealed.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:37:38 GMT -5
Spring, At first I sort of agreed with you, but the more I toss around the possiblity that Hibb's may be the real Sawyer... and at the very least has known/ raised/ taught Sawyer, the more I believe that it wasn't such a gamble after all. These are con men; they make their daily bread by judging jsut how others will react. Hibbs knows Sawyer, knows that he will go kill this man. He provided almost conclusive evidence, way more than was needed for the emotionally blinded Sawyer. Even if he had questioned Frank aobut hte Sawyer angle, if hte man had denied it all, what would Sawyer believe? That the man did it and refuses to cop to it. Who is going to confess to that with a gun in their face. And, as someone pointed out, what did Hibbs have to lose? Sawyer was already pissed at him. If it worked Sawyer was either in his debt or framed for the murder... if it didn't, Hibbs could just hire someone else to kill Frank or collect the money. As Hibbs said, he knows Sawyer isn't really a killer, as the episode proved over and over again. Hibbs wasn't probably too concerned that Sawyer would come back to kill him, if he found out hte game. And if it did work, Sawyer would not be likely to keep looking for the man he thought he killed and ever tumble to the fact it was Hibbs (provided that Hibbs is really Sawyer) Really, it was a beautiful con game, one that is realistic and at hte same time elegant. Vlad ITA Very well stated.
|
|
|
Post by Nickim on Feb 18, 2005 12:41:30 GMT -5
Because I am thoughtfully saving Patti from her own obsessiveness, here is this week's list: Scenes Where Our Characters Were Connected Prior to Their Fateful FlightIn random order, because my memory is swiss cheese-y and I'm posting on the run from work... From this episode: Sawyer ran into Jack's Dad in the bar. Consequences: Sawyer chooses murder & also enables Jack's Dad's drinking. From Sun's episode: Jin was waiting in line at the airport behind Jack as Jack tried to get his Father's coffin checked in. Consequence: Jin was delayed long enough to offer the flower to Sun, causing her to choose to stay with him. From Boone's episode: Sawyer was being arrested as Boone was making his complaint. Consequence: I dunno. Maybe Sawyer pisses the local cops off enough to make them unsympathetic to fellow American Boone. I don't remember any others at the moment, because I am *not* obsessed enough to slo-mo through everyone's Aussie flashbacks to look for cameos. Not. Linda, like Patti, not obsessed. Not. P.S. Please feel free to add to the list. P.P.S. No color highlighters were involved in the making of this post. ;D Great point. I'm sure we'll see why Sawyer isn't in an Austrailian prison for murder. I remember him saying something about "did you ever think you got the wrong guy." Somehow, he was able to get away.
|
|