# Deadwood: "Tell Him Something Pretty" OAD: week of 8/27/06 *spoilers*



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I am sooooooo gonna miss this show. 

Two movies to go, but the waiting is really gonna suck (and I don't mean like one of Al or Sy's whores!).


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

The way it all just kind of petered out was a bit of a let-down to me. Knowing that historically Hearst won, there's not much they could have done. But it was an awful lot of dramatic build-up for no dramatic pay-off whatsoever...


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

Biggest case of blue balls in television history after watching that...

The whole season of build-up and nothing...


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

I know a bit of the history of it all, but there is definitely a lot more that could be explored in the movies (which I'm very much looking forward to later).

As is, with the passing of Deadwood, Entourage, and the soon to be over Lucky Louie (which I continue to watch since nothing else is currently on) I'm planning on calling up DirecTV shortly to cancel the HBO package. Between cancelling that and Starz! (which I was carrying for a few months to get the free Best Buy gift card) I'll save a few bucks for a while.

If I was into The Wire I might still find value in HBO, but without Deadwood and Entourage and nothing as good coming for a while, it's just not worth the $$.

I might have felt different if HBO had been able to convince Milch to keep going on Deadwood, or if I knew they'd have more than just one more season of Rome coming too. It just seems that with Deadwood ending, the quality is taking a breather. I guess it works out well since there's a lot of network programs I want to check out anyway, as well as NFL season and such.


Anyway, there was a let down tonite, though seeing Al save Trixie was pretty good. As Dan told Johnny, Al was doing no more and no less than Johnny was wanting to do. Al felt he owed Trixie for standing by him during his illness, and for that Al helped save her.

The remaining question in my mind is what happens with Wu and also with the elections. The results wouldn't seem to stand, but I guess that is what we'll find out in the movies.


----------



## audioscience (Feb 10, 2005)

marksman said:


> Biggest case of blue balls in television history after watching that...
> 
> The whole season of build-up and nothing...


Well put.

The best part of the show was the last exchange between Al and Johnny. (Paraphrasing from memory)

Johnny: "Were you gentle with her?"

Al: "I was as gentle as I was able."

(Johnny walks away)

Al: (Scrubing the floor) "He wants me to tell him something pretty."

It was a nice metaphor for the passing of the camp over to Hearst's interests.


----------



## Sknzfan (Jul 23, 2006)

Very Disappointing....

Totally ANTI-Climatic...

NOOOOOOOOOOOO was was AL gonna Give TRIXIE to HEARST....

I may have to go the CANCEL HBO route too...after DEADWOOD , ENTOURAGE and about an 18 Month wait on SOPRANO'S ...I could save some $$ too...


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Well, with The Wire, Rome, more Entourage, more Sopranos, they've still got me through next spring.

And this was an amazing season of Deadwood, for all that it went out with a whimper rather than a bang.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

Sknzfan said:


> Very Disappointing....
> 
> Totally ANTI-Climatic...
> 
> ...


If you are a DirecTV customer see my post in the DirecTV related forum here. You may be able to get a nice deal on keeping HBO if you are interested in keeping it but at a discount. (Sorry customers of Dish or cable co.'s, no idea on offers there).

Anyway, I'm in the same general boat, the programming on HBO is going to be awfully thin over the next few months, but at this point (thanks to DirecTV offered discount on same) I'm probably paying about what it will be worth to me over the next 3 months.

Back on subject with the thread here, it was anti-climatic, but was about what you had to expect. While I wouldn't have been shocked to see Trixie handed to Hearst, or see her found by Hearst's representatives and dealt with, you had to figure Al, Star or Bullock would protect her.

The rest of the storylines are still hanging out there for the eventual movies, and heck, if not for the fact that the show was pre-determined to end after those movies there could have been more open ends out there too.

I didn't expect things would all be wrapped up neat and tidy, and didn't expect to see a big fight either. Without speaking too much of the historical accuracy in the show, it seems that the storylines won't go where viewers would hope, but instead are trying to stay a bit more true to the history. Just because we all wanted to see Sy shoot Hearst, (or for that matter see anyone shoot and kill him) doesn't mean we were going to get that result.

The same for any fight between Wu's men and the Pinkertons, or anyone else. We may want to see it, but there's probably little chance of it really happening. If it did, then the show would really be setting up it's end anyway, no?


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

I have to join the chorus and say I was also a little disappointed in the anti-climactic season ender. 

That being said, with this episode being described using "biggest case of blue balls", I think it only appropriate to point out that it looks like a bunch of people finally realized they had balls to begin with. Johnny stood up to Al, Utter really ripped into Hearst, and Starr tossed Trixie out. I think that move more than anything else probably made Trixie finally realize she needs and loves Sol. 

Random thoughts: 

Poor Leon - he died "happy". 

But poorer still is "Stupid" Janine, who still has to put up with Cy's BS, 

Anyone want to guess that the body Utter is holding for Hearst is Aunt Loo's son?


----------



## spciesla (Oct 9, 2004)

drew2k said:


> ...Anyone want to guess that the body Utter is holding for Hearst is Aunt Loo's son?


That's my guess.

What are they going to cover in the two hour episodes?

Was Alma and Sophie leaving? I thought she sold to Hearst so that they could stay in Deadwood.

On a programming note, how long before we see the two hour episodes?


----------



## spikedavis (Nov 23, 2003)

how dissapointing. Reminds me of this season's piss-poor Sopranos finale.

I implore everyone to watch The Wire this year-please, please, please. It is criminally underwatched.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

yep...a dud ending for sure... 

Janine was nice  

Why is Cy so pissed? he gets to be the big dog in town since Hearst left him in charge... 

people scoffed at my idea that Al would arm the Chinese...who's laughing now?


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

Anubys said:


> Why is Cy so pissed? he gets to be the big dog in town since Hearst left him in charge...


In name only. Hearst left that particular Pinkerton, the one Cy was "cracking wise" to, to make sure he does as he is told. Cy knows he is a kept man now.

Good show fo Charlie U as well. He got to demonstrate some character. Maybe that why Wild Bill liked him. As Jane alluded to, when something gets tough, Charlie always backed his friends and what was right.


----------



## ElVee (Feb 20, 2002)

bdowell said:


> The rest of the storylines are still hanging out there for the eventual movies, and heck, if not for the fact that the show was pre-determined to end after those movies there could have been more open ends out there too.
> 
> I didn't expect things would all be wrapped up neat and tidy, and didn't expect to see a big fight either. Without speaking too much of the historical accuracy in the show, it seems that the storylines won't go where viewers would hope, but instead are trying to stay a bit more true to the history. Just because we all wanted to see Sy shoot Hearst, (or for that matter see anyone shoot and kill him) doesn't mean we were going to get that result.
> 
> The same for any fight between Wu's men and the Pinkertons, or anyone else. We may want to see it, but there's probably little chance of it really happening. If it did, then the show would really be setting up it's end anyway, no?


All episodes, inluding the finale, were filmed before HBO announced it was the last season. Milch filmed the last episode as a 'season finale', not a 'series finale'. Hopefully, the two two-hour movies should wrap things up nicely.


----------



## Legion (Aug 24, 2005)

ElVee said:


> All episodes, inluding the finale, were filmed before HBO announced it was the last season. Milch filmed the last episode as a 'season finale', not a 'series finale'. Hopefully, the two two-hour movies should wrap things up nicely.


That make sense if HBO cancelled the show on Milch. But I thought it was Milch who cancelled on HBO?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Looking back, I guess I was kind of let down by the overall story arc of this season. Watching reruns of The Wire the past few weeks, I came to realize that Deadwood just isn't at the same level. Unless you're talking about acting.

Thinking about the characters, it kind of disturbs me the way they focus so much energy on showing us how borderline or flat out full psychopaths deal with anger. OK, Cy externalizes his anger. I get it, can we move on now? I guess not.

I do like all the fire fighting stuff though.


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

Comparing this season finale to the prvious two, I agree that there was no dramatic "resolution" to the season-long story arc. Last season, with Hearst arriving in camp, Wolcott killing himself, and the Ellsworth wedding, was a great way to wrap everything up.

That being said, I was not as disappointed as others have expressed in this thread for a number of reasons. First, knowing that Hearst would never be killed all season long (I can't help looking at some of the history), there weren't a whole lot of options for what to do. Basically, he had to leave. However, in order to placate him, and thus save the camp, the camp "elders" had to do something deplorable - they basically sacrificed one of their own, an innocent, to soothe the beast. An interesting choice, and one that no one (even Al) was really happy with, but they understood it had to be done.

I think the main thing to take away from this season was that they survived. They didn't beat Hearst, but they did survive his wrath, and that was no small feat.

Meanwhile, no one has mentioned this, but what about the biggest cliffhanger of all - the elections??? Just because Sturgis was overwhelming against Bullock doesn't mean he lost (remember, the election was county-wide). Any thoughts on this?


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

well, it's clear that the only opposition to Seth is the guy who wants to be a fireman...so my guess is he will not serve since he now has his firetruck! 

as for Hearst, there were a lot of ways to give us some resolution with Hearst not ending up dead and still ending up getting Alma's mine...


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

My favorite touch from this episode was Hearst telling Merrick that he was going to start up his own newspaper to "tell lies from the other side." I wonder how that worked out for him?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

I didn't even think of the hearst newspaper connection at the time. Whoops!

Where were alma and sophia going on the cart?


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

TAsunder said:


> I didn't even think of the hearst newspaper connection at the time. Whoops!
> 
> Where were alma and sophia going on the cart?


Probably coming back from visiting Ellsworth's grave, if I had to guess.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I don't think Cy was really going to shoot Hearst. I think Cy saw how tense the situation was and was going to shoot the girl which would have probably set off a chain reaction of everybody shooting everybody.

Look at his gun and look at the distance.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Which girl? You mean Janine-ine-ine? He did aim over in hearst's general direction for a short while.


----------



## terpfan1980 (Jan 28, 2002)

TAsunder said:


> Which girl? You mean Janine-ine-ine? He did aim over in hearst's general direction for a short while.


He (Cy) was clearly aiming towards Hearst, and looked like he was going to kill him if given the chance.

With that said, he was pointing a pea shooter (Derringer type weapon) that likely wouldn't have done much good, if any, from where he was standing.

He later aimed it at the girl which scared her into her reaction and pleading to let her live. At that point he was upset enough at being Hearst's lapdog that he was going to take his anger out on just about anyone he could....


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

Very disappointing, despite the movies - which we have yet to see - it was such a disappointing end to one of the best shows I've ever seen. I don't understand why Al was so willing to hand over a girl to Hearst, why not stand up to him ? that part made no sense at all. I agree it almost had nowhere it could go given history so perhaps setting Hearst up in this way (as a main character) was a big mistake.

I'm struggling to remember what stories are left hanging ?

There are lots of odd aspects to the show - why was the theater there, why was Doc Cochran sick, etc etc. They all add ambience but they had nothing to do with any major story. If you analyze the shows there's a lot of meaningless plotlines.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Well it seemed like the information that Langrishe got from Hearst proved to be invaluable to the camp. Had they not known his plan was to move out of Deadwood as long as the viewing went satisfactory, I'm sure things would have went down differently.


----------



## Charlutz (Apr 7, 2005)

JohnB1000 said:


> I don't understand why Al was so willing to hand over a girl to Hearst, why not stand up to him ? that part made no sense at all.


Hearst had them significantly outgunned. If they hadn't killed Jen, Hearst would have unleashed the Pinkertons on the camp and Al, Bullock, Dan would all assuredly have been specifically targeted.


----------



## JohnB1000 (Dec 6, 2004)

understood, but his actions are somewhat inconsistent with his previous actions and his thoughts etc.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

So what is the N----- General still doing in town? I thought he left for the Left Coast a few episodes back.


----------



## rimler (Jun 30, 2002)

This show has set the bar much to high to end a season on a note like that, especially after all the build up. They did a masterful job of building tension, building, building, building, building,......then fpppppth. The Elsworth murder was more of a climax to the story arc than anything we saw this week.

At least they didn't let Al find a way to save Jen...faking a death, or talking his way out of it with Hearst. Al is a cold-hearted SOB, and I'm glad they made it clear he's still all that, despite being buddy-buddy with everyone lately.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

At least all the main characters except Ellsworth and Drunk Steve had speaking parts.


----------



## scottykempf (Dec 1, 2004)

At least Drunk Steve voted for Bullock!!! LOL


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Charlutz said:


> Hearst had them significantly outgunned. If they hadn't killed Jen, Hearst would have unleashed the Pinkertons on the camp and Al, Bullock, Dan would all assuredly have been specifically targeted.


not at the end...they had however many hawkeye had brought plus 150 chinese...


----------



## Granny (Mar 29, 2005)

Anubys said:


> not at the end...they had however many hawkeye had brought ...


How did he put it - 18 or so? The midget not counting as a whole man...


----------



## 7thton (Mar 3, 2005)

Granny said:


> How did he put it - 18 or so? The midget not counting as a whole man...


"Almost 18"


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Jon J said:


> At least all the main characters except Ellsworth and Drunk Steve had speaking parts.


Hmm ... You count Ellsworth and Drunk Steve as "main characters" .. but not Doc? Unless I missed him, I don't think Doc was even in the season finale.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

drew2k said:


> Hmm ... You count Ellsworth and Drunk Steve as "main characters" .. but not Doc? Unless I missed him, I don't think Doc was even in the season finale.


I thought I heard a cough in one of the crowd scenes...


----------



## darthrsg (Jul 25, 2005)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought I heard a cough in one of the crowd scenes...


That's funny.

I still miss the preacher from season one  .


----------



## drew2k (Jun 10, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I thought I heard a cough in one of the crowd scenes...


Non-sequitur, but I just thought of something funny I liked: Every time Blazanov repeated the current standings in the election for sheriff, he used his official "Black Hills and Cheyenne Telegraph" voice. 

Maybe that was another thing amiss about this episode - due to the circumstances with Hearst and the Pinkertons, I guess there had to be almost no moments of levity.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

Since just about everything is fictionalized in this show anyway, I'd have liked this season a lot more if the writers had written Al showing more guts towards Hearst. Hearst cut off his finger and Al turned into a tough guy version of Steppin' Fetchit.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Since just about everything is fictionalized in this show anyway, I'd have liked this season a lot more if the writers had written Al showing more guts towards Hearst. Hearst cut off his finger and Al turned into a tough guy version of Steppin' Fetchit.


That would have been nice, and was kind of what I was expecting, but then again I had no idea how he could pull it off without violating the historical record, which they seem very reluctant to do. (The show very much takes places in the gaps of history, and Hearst is no gap; he very clearly won without serious problems in South Dakota.)

So the question in my mind is, since Hearst was largely untouchable, why did they make him a villain? It seems that dramatically, they undecut themselves pretty seriously. If the point was to show that Al and Cy were really just small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, they really didn't pull it off (then again, after the sheer brilliance of the criminally mis-understood Gangs of New York, any exploration of that theme would probably seem shallow and empty).


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

my question is: why? 

why must the villain pay? why should our "hero" win in the end? or get some sort of moral victory...why should our tortured souls find happiness at the end of a movie and live happily ever after? 

Deadwood was real...at least more about real life...I have no problem with how the mighty has beaten the "much less mighty"...that's how it works in real life... 

AL got his pound of flesh by killing the pinkerton in his office...they should have given us a little more (a quick gun fight between Seth and a couple of Pinkertons, for example)...SOMETHING to pay-off all that tension...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

anubys said:


> why must the villain pay? why should our "hero" win in the end?


I just don't think you can go three years with Al Swearengin being the King Of All Cutthroats and then have him devolve into a Farnum where Hearst is concerned. To me, they neutered Al this year. That didn't serve the story well.

Something else really bothered me this episode. Charlie Utter got to Hearst's unguarded door in the middle of the night. Where were his Pinkerton guards? If he was that easy to get to, when his relationship with the Deadwood powers-that-be were deep in the toilet, he should have been killed and fed to Wu's pigs long ago.


----------



## Charlutz (Apr 7, 2005)

The Hearst story was damn good. Not least of all because of the great acting of McRaney, McShane and all of the others who had to interact with him. We were presented with pretty despicable people in the first two seasons. But then Hearst came in and blew them all away. Just think of all the character moments we got as each character interacted with Hearst in their own way -- Alma, Dan, Cy, Ellsworth, EB, Bullock, Trixie. That was all worth it. And I like the statement that the little upstart camp ends up losing in the end to big business. It's real. And payback for Al's finger was Captain _untface getting destroyed by Dan. The one storyline that seemed to be left unfinished was Odell and Aunt Lou. Although maybe that was to show that even the people close to Hearst feared him too, and with good reason.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> I just don't think you can go three years with Al Swearengin being the King Of All Cutthroats and then have him devolve into a Farnum where Hearst is concerned. To me, they neutered Al this year. That didn't serve the story well.


I agree, but it could have. As I said earlier, Gangs of New York does exactly that, brilliantly.

Deadwood, unfortunately, did not make a virtue out of necessity in this case.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> Something else really bothered me this episode. Charlie Utter got to Hearst's unguarded door in the middle of the night. Where were his Pinkerton guards? If he was that easy to get to, when his relationship with the Deadwood powers-that-be were deep in the toilet, he should have been killed and fed to Wu's pigs long ago.


was he still carrying his gun? maybe as the deputy, they let him through but was disarmed...

but yes, that bothered me as well...


----------



## Sir_winealot (Nov 18, 2000)

cheesesteak said:


> Something else really bothered me this episode. Charlie Utter got to Hearst's unguarded door in the middle of the night. Where were his Pinkerton guards? If he was that easy to get to, when his relationship with the Deadwood powers-that-be were deep in the toilet, he should have been killed and fed to Wu's pigs long ago.


I was under the impression he had gone up a back stairway ...going past the kitchen and Aunt Lou?


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

Well I'm sure gonna miss Deadwood too, But I'll keep HBO for the Boxing and HD since D* only has a few HD channels.


----------



## Royster (May 24, 2002)

cheesesteak said:


> Since just about everything is fictionalized in this show anyway, I'd have liked this season a lot more if the writers had written Al showing more guts towards Hearst. Hearst cut off his finger and Al turned into a tough guy version of Steppin' Fetchit.


Well, I think the writers really blew it with this finale episode. There could have been a whole lot more suspense if the fact that Al was going to give Hearst a different dead body was kept until the opening oif the coffin scene. We should have been going into that scene thinking that Al had done Trixie in or Al hadn't done trixie in ut was going to attack Hearst.

There was far too much business after that scene which should have been the climactic scene of the episode and all of the drama had been bled out of it earlier.


----------



## Charlutz (Apr 7, 2005)

But Deadwood's never been that kind of a show. There is never a big cliffhanger like Lost or 24. And that's a good thing. The heart of Deadwood IMO has always been the intricate calculations and scheming of the characters, and how that affects the characters. Once we saw what the solution was going to be, we needed to see how killing Jen was going to affect Al, Trixie and Johnny. There was also some suspense as to whether Hearst would believe Jen was the one who shot him.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

...or the suspense that Hearst would kill Al after seeing Jen (whether he believed it was the same one or not)... 

or that Al would use his knife... 

there was plenty of drama...for sure...


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

Anubys said:


> was he still carrying his gun? maybe as the deputy, they let him through but was disarmed...
> 
> but yes, that bothered me as well...


Even so, given Hearst's bad back, I think Charlie could have killed him with his bare hands.

Beyond that, it bothered me that Hearst, who only a day or two earlier had been shot point blank the last time we saw him open his door, confronted with a knock on that same door in the wee hours of the night, immediately swung it wide open without so much as a "who is it?", a peek through a keyhole or grabbing a gun first.

And the whole idea that Hearst was so untouchable just because he was rich and powerful seems ridiculous to me. It's not like it's impossible to kill a powerful person - hell, four Presidents of the United States have been assassinated, and almost a Pope.

For the camp to lay down like a bunch of pussies after Hearst had Ellsworth murdered just isn't true to the characters. I'm supposed to believe guys like Al, Cy, Bullock and Charlie Udder, when faced with Hearst's aggression, are just going to take down their pants, bend over, spread their cheeks, and say "please be gentle, sir"? No way.

(That said, I still love this show.)


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

What he said.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

Bananfish....I totally agree. I never really liked peoples excuse of "Hearst was too powerfull...blah blah blah". Since when did Al or Cy stop to think about who or what consequences would come before killing somebody.

I thought Hearst opening the door for Utter was totally stupid.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Bananfish said:


> And the whole idea that Hearst was so untouchable just because he was rich and powerful seems ridiculous to me. It's not like it's impossible to kill a powerful person - hell, four Presidents of the United States have been assassinated, and almost a Pope.
> 
> For the camp to lay down like a bunch of pussies after Hearst had Ellsworth murdered just isn't true to the characters. I'm supposed to believe guys like Al, Cy, Bullock and Charlie Udder, when faced with Hearst's aggression, are just going to take down their pants, bend over, spread their cheeks, and say "please be gentle, sir"? No way.
> 
> (That said, I still love this show.)


um...not what you said 

if you kill a powerful person, you must be crazy or ready to die (i.e. crazy!)...none of these people are willing to die...it is perfectly in line with their character...Utter and Seth drew their lines in the sand and challenged Hearst...and you see that Hearst avoided them...

Al and Cy are survivors...they will fight when they can win and will concede defeat when it is a better business decision to lose...there was nothing to gain by fighting anymore and everything to lose...so they conceded defeat...

this is why people crave power and money...because they can do anything they want and get away with it...nothing anybody did in this last ep was outside of their character...NOTHING...


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

pmyers said:


> Bananfish....I totally agree. I never really liked peoples excuse of "Hearst was too powerfull...blah blah blah". Since when did Al or Cy stop to think about who or what consequences would come before killing somebody.
> 
> I thought Hearst opening the door for Utter was totally stupid.


no way...Al and Cy only kill when they know there are NO consequences...

Hearst opening the door is the ultimate showing of the arrogance of power...he cannot conceive that anyone would dare do something...even after it was just done to him...


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

I'm no literary critic or anything but I think the writers made a big mistake by having Hearst chop off Al's finger with there being no payback. If Hearst couldn't be killed for historical reasons, then the Captain should have been pig food the next day and then Hearst should have been so concerned for his safety that he'd make Alma a fair offer. Instead, they have Al sending greetings and salutations from his balcony. Al later killing some miscellaneous Pinkerton is like killing a hotdog vendor if George Steinbrenner chopped off one of your fingers.


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

How do you know that Utter didn't have to walk past the guards to get to Hearst? Knowing that Utter was a deputy, the guards may have let him past. Are you really going to get hung up on that detail? C'mon. Give the writers some credit.


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

cheesesteak said:


> I'm no literary critic or anything but I think the writers made a big mistake by having Hearst chop off Al's finger with there being no payback. If Hearst couldn't be killed for historical reasons, then the Captain should have been pig food the next day and then Hearst should have been so concerned for his safety that he'd make Alma a fair offer. Instead, they have Al sending greetings and salutations from his balcony. Al later killing some miscellaneous Pinkerton is like killing a hotdog vendor if George Steinbrenner chopped off one of your fingers.


I'm not sure you and I were watching the same show this season. Do you recall that after the finger chopping incident, Al was so upset at his inaction and miscalculation of Hearst that he got stinking drunk and had an entire soliloqy devoted to the subject?

Al has evolved over the course of three seasons. Instead of simply reacting with violence against Hearst (which he knows will result in the ultimate destruction of the camp and everyone in it), he tried to figure out how to avoid the violence, in order to save the camp. The camp has evolved since Al first got there. There are families, children, good people there. Al may be a throwback, but he gets the bigger picture.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

thedudeabides said:


> How do you know that Utter didn't have to walk past the guards to get to Hearst? Knowing that Utter was a deputy, the guards may have let him past. Are you really going to get hung up on that detail? C'mon. Give the writers some credit.


um...yeah...see post #46 which was even later quoted in post #52


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

Anubys said:


> um...yeah...see post #46 which was even later quoted in post #52


I'm just agreeing is all. I make no claim of originality.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

I'm pretty much a pacifist. Never been in a true fight my entire life. I revere Mahatma Gandhi as a political genius.

If a man intentionally cuts my finger off and then sends me on my way ..... he's a dead man. I don't give a crap if he's the king of freakin' Switzerland or Don Corleone. Maybe not that day, or maybe not that week .... but that man's a walking talking corpse.

And you're going to tell me that Al Swearengen, possibly the most ruthlessly violent character in television history, swallowed his pride and let Hearst live "for the good of the camp", and actually murdered one of his own employees to appease the man besides? [High-pitched Rob Corddry voice on]Cooooome on.[High-pitched Rob Corddry voice off.]


----------



## Charlutz (Apr 7, 2005)

Bananfish said:


> I'm pretty much a pacifist. Never been in a true fight my entire life. I revere Mahatma Gandhi as a political genius.
> 
> If a man intentionally cuts my finger off and then sends me on my way ..... he's a dead man. I don't give a crap if he's the king of freakin' Switzerland or Don Corleone. Maybe not that day, or maybe not that week .... but that man's a walking talking corpse.
> 
> And you're going to tell me that Al Swearengen, possibly the most ruthlessly violent character in television history, swallowed his pride and let Hearst live "for the good of the camp", and actually murdered one of his own employees to appease the man besides? [High-pitched Rob Corddry voice on]Cooooome on.[High-pitched Rob Corddry voice off.]


I agree with the post above that said 'were we watching the same show?' Al was seething, but knew he was at a power disadvantage. It was a PLOY to do nothing. He walked streight across the street and told Dan to stand down, to not even look in Hearst's direction, that he wanted his revenge served cold. Al is a violent, emotional man. But more than that, he is a cold, calculating bastard. He didn't swallow his pride. He planned to take Hearst on when he had better odds. But then Bullock blew it by dragging Hearst across the town, causing Hearst to bring in even more men. Al had Dan fight the Captain, but he was reluctanct to do it at that point because he was still at a manpower disadvantage. He ultimately lost to the guy who had more guns. But he never swallowed his pride.


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

Bananfish said:


> And you're going to tell me that Al Swearengen, possibly the most ruthlessly violent character in television history, swallowed his pride and let Hearst live "for the good of the camp", and actually murdered one of his own employees to appease the man besides? [High-pitched Rob Corddry voice on]Cooooome on.[High-pitched Rob Corddry voice off.]


With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the character of Al Swearengen. When, on the show, have you seen him kill someone out of revenge or pride? He always kills (or has someone else kill) when its in his best interest to do so. He often kills to tie up "loose ends" such as with the attempt on Sofia or Brom Garrett. The one exception I can think of is when he killed Preacher Smith, out of mercy.

Al is first and foremost a businessman, who happens to do business at the point of a knife rather than at the point of a pen, but a businessman nonetheless. Shooting Hearst would not have solved anything with Al; it only would have made matters worse for him and everyone else in the long run. Al had too much invested in the camp at that point to piss it all away.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

thedudeabides said:


> With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the character of Al Swearengen. When, on the show, have you seen him kill someone out of revenge or pride? He always kills (or has someone else kill) when its in his best interest to do so. He often kills to tie up "loose ends" such as with the attempt on Sofia or Brom Garrett. The one exception I can think of is when he killed Preacher Smith, out of mercy.
> 
> Al is first and foremost a businessman, who happens to do business at the point of a knife rather than at the point of a pen, but a businessman nonetheless. Shooting Hearst would not have solved anything with Al; it only would have made matters worse for him and everyone else in the long run. Al had too much invested in the camp at that point to piss it all away.


I appreciate your point, and it's an interesting take. But after considering it for a while, I don't see how Al's murdering ways can be attributed to simple "business."

For example, Al's murder of Barrett (Hearst's man from the Pinkertons) two episodes ago in his office was a revenge murder. Al beat him like a rented mule and then slit his throat. Yes, he got some information out of him, but it was only incidental - as a matter of fact, Barrett said he had information and asked Al if he wanted it, and Al just ignored him and beat him some more. (Barrett gave him the information later when it looked like Al would beat him to death in an attempt to get him to stop, but Al was pretty indifferent to getting any information from him.)

Above and beyond that, I don't think you can just attribute as many murders as Al has committed/ordered to a guy just doing "business." Let's see:

- he tried to have Sophia killed,
- he murdered Phil the road agent,
- he ordered the killing of Brom Garrett,
- he ordered the killing of Wild Bill Hickok (Hickok got the jump on Al's guy though)
- he drowned the dope fiend that worked for him that had killed Wu's man,
- he smothered the preacher to death,
- he was about to kill Bullock by pulling a knife when he lost the fist fight to him (he stopped when he saw Bullock's son),
- he ordered his guys to kill Lee (Hearst's man in Chinese Alley),
- he ordered (and witnessed) Adams slitting the throat of the magistrate Clagett,
- he personally slit the throat of one of Hearst's guys that had killed the Cornishman
- he ordered the murder of another guy that had killed the Cornishman,
- he slit the throat of Hearst's man Barrett,
- he slit Jan's throat this episode,

So that's at least 10 murders actually committed/ordered, and another 3 ordered or attempted that never happened. That's not the resume of a "businessman" - that's the resume of a ruthless coldblooded anger-filled killer.

Several of those don't strike me as pure business moves. Besides the Barrett one I already mentioned, for instance, going after Bullock with the knife was clearly just an angry reaction to losing the fight - not dissimilar to the situation with Hearst.

Notice also that 4 of those murders were of Hearst's men. If he was willing to go that far, why not just kill Hearst instead of bending over for a rogering whenever Hearst wanted. (Don't forget, he also muttered that he wanted revenge on Hearst "served cold" - doesn't sound like a guy so businesslike that he didn't long to off Hearst).

And one last point: I fail to see the logic behind the idea that murdering Hearst wouldn't have solved anything. It would have removed the guy that was oppressing the camp and threatening everyone's lives. For instance, it would have kept Ellsworth and Jan from getting murdered. So how would that have just made matters worse for everyone in the long run? Weren't things as bad as they could possibly get? There was no way to go but up. (I realize they had some dialogue to the effect that killing Hearst wouldn't do any good because more would come along. Whaaaaaa? That doesn't make any sense. Others may have come along, but would they have been more despotic or ruthless than Hearst?)

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion. Some of the twists and turns of the show just didn't work for me - I'm glad they did for you. I still love the show and am crying like a baby that it wasn't renewed for another season. Here's hoping those 2 two-hour movies actually get made and soon!


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

Hmm, nobody mentioned that The Chief finally made another appearance. It's been a long time.


----------



## thedudeabides (Aug 7, 2003)

Bananfish: All very good points. An enjoyable discussion! 

My point on Hearst is that he is one of the most powerful businessmen in America at that time. Imagine someone killing Donald Trump (okay, its hard to think of a good example) in the middle of nowehere. Don't you think there would be hell to pay? Now, I'm not saying Al wasn't prepared to go down that road if need be (hence all the muscle he assembled), but his goal was to avoid it if possible. 

I think Al's behavior from the beginning of the first season, when he was willing to kill Sofia to avoid the implication that he hired to road agents that killed her family (even though he hadn't) shows that he was a cold-blooded s.o.b. Fast forward to season 3, I think he cares a lot more about the people in the camp than before, and although he killed an innocent girl (Jen), he did it for the greater good. 

One scene that really stood out for me this season was when the school kids were being walked to the new schoolhouse. The sense of dread was palpable. I think it underlined the fact that the camp had evolved greatly since we were first introduced to it: its still a rough and tumble place, but now there are more families, and children, who must be considered. Its a real community, and I think Al takes a certain degree of pride in having essentially given "birth" to it. He didn't want to see it destroyed, and was willing to swallow a little of his pride, when necessary, in order to preserve it.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

So what is the scenario that everybody sees happening if "they" would have killed Hearst (assuming nobody actually would have witnessed who killed him) especially if they had done it before the Pinkertons showed up?

A group of guys comes to town and levels it? Don't you think that would have drawn a lot of unwanted publicity for Hearst and his investors?


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

pmyers said:


> A group of guys comes to town and levels it? Don't you think that would have drawn a lot of unwanted publicity for Hearst and his investors?


I doubt Hearst would have minded. What with being dead and all.

And I doubt his investors would mind the message being sent out that this is what happens to people who kill their investments, as long as they couldn't be directly tied to the crime. Hell, that's exactly what Hearst was planning to do to show his displeasure with the town--let the streets run free with plausibly deniable blood. It was only because Al was able to reign in his murderous instincts (and reign in Seth as well) that it was averted.


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

thedudeabides said:


> Bananfish: All very good points. An enjoyable discussion!
> 
> My point on Hearst is that he is one of the most powerful businessmen in America at that time. Imagine someone killing Donald Trump (okay, its hard to think of a good example) in the middle of nowehere. Don't you think there would be hell to pay? Now, I'm not saying Al wasn't prepared to go down that road if need be (hence all the muscle he assembled), but his goal was to avoid it if possible.


If Trump got murdered in the middle of nowhere, there would be a pretty wide-ranging, aggressive and comprehensive investigation by local authorities and perhaps the FBI, and either they would identify and arrest the murderer, or they wouldn't. Then they would all go home to their lives. Is that "hell to pay?"



thedudeabides said:


> I think Al's behavior from the beginning of the first season, when he was willing to kill Sofia to avoid the implication that he hired to road agents that killed her family (even though he hadn't) shows that he was a cold-blooded s.o.b. Fast forward to season 3, I think he cares a lot more about the people in the camp than before, and although he killed an innocent girl (Jen), he did it for the greater good.
> 
> [chomp]
> 
> Its a real community, and I think Al takes a certain degree of pride in having essentially given "birth" to it. He didn't want to see it destroyed, and was willing to swallow a little of his pride, when necessary, in order to preserve it.


Well, maybe I'm not giving Al enough credit for evolving over the course of the 3 seasons. What I see as inconsistency others see as evolution. I just find it hard to credit a 45-50 year old man with evolving that much in the course of a year or two - in my experience people are pretty set in their ways and don't evolve from lions to tabbies at that age. (I'm definitely gonna have to go back and watch season 1 at some point - maybe he wasn't as evil as I think he was).


----------



## Bananfish (May 16, 2002)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I doubt Hearst would have minded. What with being dead and all.
> 
> And I doubt his investors would mind the message being sent out that this is what happens to people who kill their investments, as long as they couldn't be directly tied to the crime. Hell, that's exactly what Hearst was planning to do to show his displeasure with the town--let the streets run free with plausibly deniable blood. It was only because Al was able to reign in his murderous instincts (and reign in Seth as well) that it was averted.


Is it really so inevitable that when faced with someone's murder, investors would order a bloodbath in the town where it occurred? That's just not consistent with the way I understand the world to work - but maybe I'm naive.

Heck, who's to say Hearst's investors (and/or heirs) wouldn't have been thrilled he was dead and sent roses to everybody in town? I'll bet he was just as despotic with his investors and heirs as he was with the camp, and I doubt they liked him any better than the camp did.


----------



## Anubys (Jul 16, 2004)

Al didn't evolve as much as changes his behavior once the town changed...when it was the wild wild west, he treated it as such...he stole and killed at will... 

there was no law except his law...there were no consequences... 

once the Deadwood became a town, he adapted to the new environment... 

remember that he came to Deadwood to escape a murder conviction and a warrant for his arrest...Al always did what he had to do to survive...


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

That's it?! That's the end?! No more?! I had no idea!

Nevertheless, that show was outstanding.


----------



## jradosh (Jul 31, 2001)

I was hoping this thread was bumped because they'd announced the Deadwood movie. 

You have confounded my intentions.


----------



## SeanC (Dec 30, 2003)

To me the way Deadwood died off is one of the biggest f-ups of HBO's career. A very disappointing end to an awesome show.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

SeanC said:


> To me the way Deadwood died off is one of the biggest f-ups of HBO's career. A very disappointing end to an awesome show.


Agreed. 

John from Cincinnati... Sheesh. 

The closest thing we will ever get is Justified.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

With HBO GO on Xbox 360, I decided to go back and finish watching Deadwood. In my mind, I didn't watch the last season. Well, over the last week, I watched the entire 3rd season. Everything that happened, I remembered seeing. So, now I'm thinking I did watch the entire show and just thought I didn't.

Even though these episodes aired in 2006, I still felt sad when I finished watching the last episode.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I loved Deadwood, and I'm not usually a fan of the western genre. Too bad it couldn't keep going.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

I know this is a bump of an ancient thread, but I just binged all 3 seasons over the last week. I'm not sure how I never got around to watching Deadwood, but now that I have, I sure am glad that I don't have to wait long for the movie to hopefully provide some closure. I feel bad for all you guys that have been waiting 12 years!


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

I bumped an old Deadwood thread a couple of weeks ago as I had also binged the 1st 3 season in anticipation of the upcoming movie. This was my 2nd time through though.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

generaltso said:


> I know this is a bump of an ancient thread, but I just binged all 3 seasons over the last week. I'm not sure how I never got around to watching Deadwood, but now that I have, I sure am glad that I don't have to wait long for the movie to hopefully provide some closure. I feel bad for all you guys that have been waiting 12 years!


Has it been 12 years? Wow! Watched it during first run and while not a Western fan, really enjoyed this. Interestingly flipping around channels the other night I found on AHC they had an episode of (I think) Gunslingers, and the title was "Seth Bullock". I'll have to watch that next time it's on. The history of Deadwood is pretty fascinating actually.


----------



## generaltso (Nov 4, 2003)

Steveknj said:


> The history of Deadwood is pretty fascinating actually.


It really is. I found myself on Wikipedia quite a bit while I was watching. Of course, learning about the real life events did lead to some spoilers for the show.


----------



## pmyers (Jan 4, 2001)

It was amazing how much more I picked up the 2nd time around (and with subtitles turned on).


----------



## UTV2TiVo (Feb 2, 2005)

Subtitles really helped with this show. Especially with the Al Swearengen soliloquies. Even with subtitles I hit the 7 second skip back button liberally to catch everything.


----------

