rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Sept 11, 2008 13:13:35 GMT -5
Mine is a simple 3 act structure to the killing.
John kicks Sarkissian in the head and in a blind rage gets on top of him straddling him and pinninghis arms to his sides.
Sarah is still recovering from being pretty much chocked to the edge of consciousness as John grabs Sarkissians head and starts slamming it off the ground. Rinse and repeat until Sarkissian is limp and Sarah pulls him off.
They end up looking at each other and Sarah gives the sickly look that we SEE in the episode just before cam busts in.
Later in the Minivan John is still in a Rage about it, doesn't want to mention it.
In the Church backroom again Sarah want's to discuss it...but John doesn't want to discuss it at all because he's still coming to terms with it himself.
That's my take.
|
|
|
Post by Big Brother on Sept 11, 2008 14:11:10 GMT -5
I can't really fault Allergygal's reasoning (karma for the well-reasoned post), but I still get the sneaking suspicion that whoever killed the guy, he was killed in a rage AFTER he'd already been incapacitated or otherwise rendered no longer an immediate threat. Of course, Sarkissian probably being just as much a badass as he seems, he's just too dangerous to let live, even momentarily, so the killing was justified, but still, if Sarah OR John killed him while he was already pinned down or knocked unconscious, THAT would be traumatic, far more so than killing a guy who was still fighting back, still trying to hurt you.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Sept 11, 2008 20:50:58 GMT -5
I can't really fault Allergygal's reasoning (karma for the well-reasoned post), but I still get the sneaking suspicion that whoever killed the guy, he was killed in a rage AFTER he'd already been incapacitated or otherwise rendered no longer an immediate threat. Of course, Sarkissian probably being just as much a badass as he seems, he's just too dangerous to let live, even momentarily, so the killing was justified, but still, if Sarah OR John killed him while he was already pinned down or knocked unconscious, THAT would be traumatic, far more so than killing a guy who was still fighting back, still trying to hurt you. Thanks Big. And I do think what you've suggested is a possibility as well. K8tie threw that same idea at me and I've been pondering it. It doesn't feel right for the characters, but I can't find a way to rule it out either. Mine is a simple 3 act structure to the killing. John kicks Sarkissian in the head and in a blind rage gets on top of him straddling him and pinninghis arms to his sides. Sarah is still recovering from being pretty much chocked to the edge of consciousness as John grabs Sarkissians head and starts slamming it off the ground. Rinse and repeat until Sarkissian is limp and Sarah pulls him off. They end up looking at each other and Sarah gives the sickly look that we SEE in the episode just before cam busts in. Later in the Minivan John is still in a Rage about it, doesn't want to mention it. In the Church backroom again Sarah want's to discuss it...but John doesn't want to discuss it at all because he's still coming to terms with it himself. That's my take. Are you going with the idea that Sarah covered for John by telling Derek she did it? If so, how would you explain the "he saw it all" part of the story? That implies Sarah went into some detail about what happened and whatever she described, it was pretty bad. If she were going to lie about what happened, it would make more sense to keep it simple - not go into detail. The more lie she tells, the more lie there is to have to remember. The other problem I with John killing Sarkissian is how angry he seemed as the episode went along. And while I can't quite understand why he'd be angry at Sarah if she killed Sarkissian, I really can't understand why he'd be angry at Sarah if he'd killed Sarkissian himself. And his anger seemed to be largely directed at her not himself. It wasn't just that he didn't want to talk about what happened; he didn't want her to touch him. He was angry about having to kill Cameron, yes, but I think it was about more than that. I just don't see a moment of rage evolving into anger at his mother. Argh. I want to see what happened in the attic!
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Sept 12, 2008 13:03:53 GMT -5
He saw it all.
I took this simply to mean that "I never wanted him to experience something like that but ...he in the end saw it all."
Also saw it all doesn't have to be refering to the kill. Saw it all could just as easily refer to what was happening to Sarah BEFORE John got his hands free. Form the looks of things I'm beginning to agree that there was much more than throttling on Sarkissians mind.
Taking that into consideration John saw Sarkissian completely treating his mother like shit possibly To Catch a Predator NBC special bar the rescue and set up type shit. And he's unable to get his hands free before things get really ugly and degrading.
Once his hands are free he wastes not time and Kicks Sarkissian in the head- tackles him off...straddles him while pinning his arms and uses his head as a hammer. Until long after he's expired and Sarah has had time to get herself back to normal.
John is so mad and quiet about the whole thing because he feels if he had gotten free quicker he could have stopped his mothers embarrassment. And he wouldn't have seen his mother used in the way she was used.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Sept 12, 2008 22:20:24 GMT -5
My problem with that scenario is it doesn't account for what Derek said. Why Sarah would have told Derek she killed Sarkissian if she didn't?
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Sept 12, 2008 23:36:33 GMT -5
To cover up for John.
In other words that's their problem not mine.
Also we're assuming what Sarah told Derek. And for that matter how deep Sarah's conversation was with Derek.
|
|
c4j
Refugee
Posts: 5
|
Post by c4j on Sept 13, 2008 23:31:55 GMT -5
I'm sure it was John, most males who witnessed their mother being beat on maybe even raped would kill the guy
|
|
|
Post by richardstevenhack on Sept 14, 2008 4:59:45 GMT -5
Well, it could always be option three - both of them together, depending on how it went down. Sarkissian is choking Sarah to death, John gets his bonds undone, jumps Sarkissian, but can't handle him, maybe Sarkissian drops his gun, Sarah gets her bonds undone, grabs the gun and wastes Sarkissian.
I hope they really don't make that big a deal out of it, considering that these two have been in Central American war zones, and been waving guns around, and John has seen Terminator Carter execute two men in cold blood right in front of him, then snap another guy's neck minutes later. By now, you'd expect John to have some nerve about death. And Sarah is supposed to be "tough as nuclear nails", despite never having killed anyone - she doesn't mind threatening Derek with death if he ever lies to her again.
So I hope they don't treat these two like they just got off the bus over killing some thug who was going to kill them. There has to have something else that went down to make it that traumatic.
Although, either of them actually killing someone with their bare hands probably would be somewhat traumatic, at least temporarily.
Derek's reaction would be reasonable, given that he has probably had to deal with combat stress in the future and knows how it affects new soldiers. He would be sad that John now knows the "horrors of war", as it were.
I thought the scene of Derek blasting the fake Sarkissian while he was holding John hostage was considerably more violent. I'm curious as to how Derek knew to shoot the guy in the right front section of the brain where the motor control is, so he wouldn't twitch his finger and shoot John. That is how police snipers shoot hostage takers. I wouldn't expect Derek to know that given that he spends his life fighting Terminators, not other humans (unless there are traitor humans Derek has fought in the future - an interesting concept I'd like to see examined.)
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Sept 14, 2008 15:10:17 GMT -5
There's always the possibility that John is angry that Sarah couldn't save him. She's been his protector his whole life, so what if this time he has to take care of it himself to the point of actually killing? It wouldn't justify his anger, but it could explain it in a misguided way. And that might also be why he's so determined to save Cameron: "She saves my life" (which he throws in his mother's face). Mom failed him and Cameron never will because she's a machine ("some people never give up, some people never stop fighting"). Invincible, infallible mom is no more. She gave up on him in Pescadero and now her inability to protect him in the attic leaves John feeling alone and with blood on his hands. I'd been thinking all along that John feeling weak or inadequate would be a good impetus for him to grow cold and hard and want to go shoot bigass guns with Derek, but a moment of having to do for himself in the worst possible way could do it. He might feel like he's crossed a line and there's no going back so he's going to soldier up and get tough like uncle Derek. It would also explain Sarah feeling like it was all her fault. When she says, "everything that happened today - everything we did - it was all... It just happened the way it did and there's nothing we can do to change it," I think the "it was all..." was about to be followed up with "my fault". She feels guilt because failed in her mission. Her biggest fear came true and she couldn't protect him (see dream from the pilot). As a result, John had to do the thing they stand so strongly against: take a human life. That'll mess with her for a while. She'd be the one to feel inadequate and weak. Add John turning on her to that, simmer for a few episodes, and it just might drive her to the crazy. The more I think about it, the more it works, BUT... I still can't reconcile it with Derek's "...before you killed him". It just doesn't make sense for Sarah to lie about what happened. I guess Derek could have meant a plural "you". If it were a joint effort between Sarah and John ("everything we did") to kill Sarkissian, though, that whole scenario I just went through doesn't work. And why make us think John did it all the way up until that point (which the show very clearly did). I think Derek's line was meant to be the big reveal that leaves us scratching our heads about why John is acting the way he is. But they screwed with us too much and no one seems to be taking it at face value. That brings us back to "he saw it all". What he saw could have seen Sarah getting beaten up and almost choked to death, but she really didn't look like she was all beat up. Aside from a bloody lip from the pistol whip, she looked physically fine. So what John saw seems much more likely to be his mom killing Sarkissian. And now I've wasted your time because I'm back to square one
|
|
|
Post by jen22 on Sept 14, 2008 15:28:56 GMT -5
I think you may be reading a bit too much into this particular scene allergygal. Sometimes the simple approach is the best.
Derek is not the only person present in that scene. Charley is there too. Considering the relationship between John and Charley I doubt Sarah would want Charley to know that John killed someone. That John was even able to kill someone. The look on Charley's face when Sarah said 'he saw it all' clearly showed how concerned he was with that. What do you think it would do to Charley and his relationship with John if he knew the truth? As much as Sarah wants Charley out of the crossfire he is still there. And she knows he loves John (and her). And no matter what she wants Charley to keep the image that he had/has of John.
As for Derek I think it's better he doesn't know. Derek is a killer and I can only imagine him trying to use that knowledge to bond with John on some level. I'm not saying he would manipulate John. But he would try to use it. And Sarah doesn't want John to become like Derek.
That's just my take on why Sarah took the blame.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Sept 14, 2008 15:33:13 GMT -5
I think you may be reading a bit too much into this particular scene allergygal. Sometimes the simple approach is the best. Me over-analyze a scene? Ha. Can't imagine it If I'm taking the simple approach, though, I'd go with Derek's remark at face value.
|
|
|
Post by jen22 on Sept 14, 2008 15:36:09 GMT -5
Me over-analyze a scene? Ha. Can't imagine it Nah you don't ever over-analyze. You uber-over-analyze. But that's quite alright. See I go with Sarah on this one.
|
|
|
Post by allergygal on Sept 23, 2008 15:08:48 GMT -5
I think I mentioned this already in The Mousetrap discussion thread, but it's relevant here. When John stuck his hand in the blood in the van, he immediately looked at Sarah. I think that look was one of worry/fear/horror that maybe his mom had killed again.
|
|
|
Post by Erika on Sept 23, 2008 15:16:01 GMT -5
I didn't necessarily read it that way - I read it more along the lines of "WTF went down w/ Mom and Derek while I was off disobeying orders and nearly got myself killed?"
|
|
rossbondreturns
Corporal
Summer 08 Wallpaper Challenge Winner!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by rossbondreturns on Sept 23, 2008 15:59:47 GMT -5
Agree 110 percent with Erika.
It was I feel a What went down and who died her look rather than a Mom you killed again look.
|
|