A Different Take on Whistler

[joeyjoejoe]

After the end of the second season, I remember thinking that the reason the Company wanted Michael in Sona was that they were attempting to recruit him. They (it's always they!!!) would force him into situations where he would have to improve on his physical prowess in order to become more "well-rounded." They would offer him something in return once on the outside, that's the weakest part of this theory to be honest.

After watching the end of Season 2 on DVD again this weekend, I considered the possibility that Whistler was maybe part of this training, and that maybe he wasn't anybody important at all.

Given that the last few episodes have gone the way they have, with new suspicions being cast on him, wouldn't it be a GREAT plot twist if we find out that Whistler is a nobody? Wouldn't that piss you off if you were Michael? And wouldn't that make you want to kill some bastards, especially after what they did to Sara? Introducing.......the Company operative bad-ass ------ MICHAEL SCOFIELD!!!!!

Of course you would have to get over a lot of obstacles in the story.....but I don't think it's an impossibility either......just food for a conspiracy theorist's thought.....

[Calena]

That's a very interessting theory. You mean like Whistler really is a fisherman. smiley would love that. But I don't see Michael working for the Company when he in fact wants to kill the people who work for the Company because they killed Sara. Or did I misunderstand you?

[smileyone]

Originally Posted by Calena

That's a very interessting theory. You mean like Whistler really is a fisherman. smiley would love that. But I don't see Michael working for the Company when he in fact wants to kill the people who work for the Company because they killed Sara. Or did I misunderstand you?

I swear you will all bow down to the Smileyone.... when you find out that Whistler ..........is indeed just a fisherman!!!! You will all be soooooooooo sorry you doubted Smiley and will all be sooooooooo horrified that you both teased and taunted Smiley and Co over their beliefs... and because you were part of the horrible conspiracy to have him dumped off PBEG4!!!! Oh yes you will!!!
He is just a fisherman..... He is!!!!

[smileyone]

BTW..... His briefcase will just contain a cookbook, some utensils, some seasoning and a few candles..... and not any topsecret company stuff!!! Oh you all of little faith!!!! Bet we end the series with him and Mikey out in the middle of a lake in a boat... catching up on things... with a rod in both their hands!!!! LOL!!!

[joeyjoejoe]

Originally Posted by Calena

But I don't see Michael working for the Company when he in fact wants to kill the people who work for the Company because they killed Sara. Or did I misunderstand you?

Surely you have seen Star Wars? He will take Susan's place at the emperor's (Padman's) side.

[Calena]

Originally Posted by joeyjoejoe

Surely you have seen Star Wars? He will take Susan's place at the emperor's (Padman's) side.

As it happens I'm an avid Star Wars fan. But that anlogy doesn't really work out. If you equal Michael with Luke, he will just quit fighting, wich really wouldn't agree with me.
Michael being Anakind doesn't work, because Anakin didn't blame Palpatine for Padme's death. Michael sure blames the Company. (he blames himself, too, of course, but first the Company).

Another thought occured to me: With all the plot twists, 180° turns and what ifs, how much are the actors told about the directions their character's going, their backgrounds their motivations for their actions? We (candy and me) had a discussion a while back about how important or even wanted it is for an actor to bring something of himself into a role. So does Chris Vance know the truth about Whistler and does it make a difference regarding the qualitiy of his acting if does or does not know? Will it get a better performance out of him if he is convinced that his character is only an innocent fisherman? (although how anybody but smiley, who wants to kid herself about this matter, could be convinced of that, I don't know! )

[smileyone]

Originally Posted by Calena

:l We (candy and me) had a discussion a while back about how important or even wanted it is for an actor to bring something of himself into a role. So does Chris Vance know the truth about Whistler and does it make a difference regarding the qualitiy of his acting if does or does not know? Will it get a better performance out of him if he is convinced that his character is only an innocent fisherman? (although how anybody but smiley, who wants to kid herself about this matter, could be convinced of that, I don't know! )

LOL!!! I'll be looking right at you..... when they pull up that final curtain... to present.... Whistler as .... just a fisherman!!!! LOL!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!! I've wondered that too... how much the actors know about why their character is the way he/she is.... or what long term role is..... I wonder how excited Mr. M was when he found out Mikey had to kill someone!!!

You'll see Calena and all you doubters.... you'll see....... LOL!!!

[candyrose]

Originally Posted by joeyjoejoe

After the end of the second season, I remember thinking that the reason the Company wanted Michael in Sona was that they were attempting to recruit him. They (it's always they!!!) would force him into situations where he would have to improve on his physical prowess in order to become more "well-rounded." They would offer him something in return once on the outside, that's the weakest part of this theory to be honest.

After watching the end of Season 2 on DVD again this weekend, I considered the possibility that Whistler was maybe part of this training, and that maybe he wasn't anybody important at all.

Given that the last few episodes have gone the way they have, with new suspicions being cast on him, wouldn't it be a GREAT plot twist if we find out that Whistler is a nobody? Wouldn't that piss you off if you were Michael? And wouldn't that make you want to kill some bastards, especially after what they did to Sara? Introducing.......the Company operative bad-ass ------ MICHAEL SCOFIELD!!!!!

Of course you would have to get over a lot of obstacles in the story.....but I don't think it's an impossibility either......just food for a conspiracy theorist's thought.....

I like that theory....it sure would be a good twist to the story.....
Let's say that you are correct....this would make some sense when you think about their actions and behaviors. OK, if they are both being tested with the possibility of being recruited into the company, then this would explain why Whistler has maintained that he is a simple fisherman. Maybe he really isn't a fisherman, and part of his test is to not crack under pressure, to stick to his story at all costs. Maybe that's one of the roles he plays in Sona....he is suppose to survive, safely guard his real identity, and not budge when Mikey probes him about the company. Perhaps he is being trained to be some sort of undercover agent, like I detailed in a previous posts. Mikey, on the other hand, could be one of the guys they plan on sending out into the field....the one who will really get dirty....he needs to be able to use his wits to get out of sticky situations and make the best of his devices to escape threats.

[candyrose]

Originally Posted by Calena

As it happens I'm an avid Star Wars fan. But that anlogy doesn't really work out. If you equal Michael with Luke, he will just quit fighting, wich really wouldn't agree with me.
Michael being Anakind doesn't work, because Anakin didn't blame Palpatine for Padme's death. Michael sure blames the Company. (he blames himself, too, of course, but first the Company).

Another thought occured to me: With all the plot twists, 180° turns and what ifs, how much are the actors told about the directions their character's going, their backgrounds their motivations for their actions? We (candy and me) had a discussion a while back about how important or even wanted it is for an actor to bring something of himself into a role. So does Chris Vance know the truth about Whistler and does it make a difference regarding the qualitiy of his acting if does or does not know? Will it get a better performance out of him if he is convinced that his character is only an innocent fisherman? (although how anybody but smiley, who wants to kid herself about this matter, could be convinced of that, I don't know! )

I don't think they are given much information because production is so fast paced and there is always the potential for information to be leaked to the press....I think it's important not to give them too much information ahead of time because the lack of anitcipation adds to the authenticity of the performance.

[joeyjoejoe]

Originally Posted by candyrose

I like that theory....it sure would be a good twist to the story.....
Let's say that you are correct....this would make some sense when you think about their actions and behaviors. OK, if they are both being tested with the possibility of being recruited into the company, then this would explain why Whistler has maintained that he is a simple fisherman. Maybe he really isn't a fisherman, and part of his test is to not crack under pressure, to stick to his story at all costs. Maybe that's one of the roles he plays in Sona....he is suppose to survive, safely guard his real identity, and not budge when Mikey probes him about the company. Perhaps he is being trained to be some sort of undercover agent, like I detailed in a previous posts. Mikey, on the other hand, could be one of the guys they plan on sending out into the field....the one who will really get dirty....he needs to be able to use his wits to get out of sticky situations and make the best of his devices to escape threats.

Hrm....the biggest hole I find in that theory is Bang and Burn, it seems the Company is willing to take on loss to get Whistler out of there. From a tactical perspective, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense to waste men loyal to you to break out someone in training. There could be an explanation I suppose....