> I also had no problem seeing Laura as being physically up to the challenges
> of the job. And the idea that Marianne would make a better Sandbagger...
> I just don't see where that's comming from. Marianne was a small delicate
> woman. If Laura isn't considered physical enough for the job why would
> Marianne be? That's the part of this discussion I don't get. How anyone
> can think Marianne could be better suited as a Sandbagger than Laura was?
This is pure interpretation on my part. They were both small
women, but Marianne had more physical vitality. It would have been easier
for me to believe that she has the physical skills that we're told Laura
has (I'm talking casting, not script character). And Marianne is
presented as extremely bright, she's not intimidated by Neil (neither were
Laura, or Diane, but Denson was) She is involved in the office end of the
Sandbagger stuff from the start. Laura is very intelligent, but Marianne
is very savvy, and far less emotionally vulnerable than Laura. I don't
see why she wouldn't make a good sandbagger, but I will grant it's my
personal response.
> Besides the physical aspect wasn't that important to the Sandbaggers. It's
> the mental skills that made the Sandbaggers. Willie, the best Sandbagger
> didn't have much in the way of physical skills. Hell, he wasn't that great
> of an investigator according to Neil. So why was he considered the best
> Sandbagger? Hard to say if it was anything more than simply he was there
How smart Willie was depended on the episode. Sometimes he seems
almost dumb, though the shaggy dog personna works very well in getting
people to trust him when they shouldn't. Many times he's right there with
Neil, unfolding all the bits of the plot and laying it out. Sometimes he
has more sense than Neil, for that matter.
> The way I see the things Denson was a good Sandbagger, although more for
> his physical skills than mental. (he was a great shot, and his other
> physical aspects were up there) I got the impression that he was smart but
> not particularly mentally skilled for a Sandbagger. Maybe that would have
> changed after 2 years or so of experience. But he comes across as a little
> too reckless, and less thinking of the Sandbaggers.
Denson...one of my favorite arguments. I disagree with this
completely. He's very emotional, way too sensitive to succeed as a
Sandbagger. Neil should have let him quit (Willie backs me up on this) But
why reckless?
> Mike was the same level as Denson. Probablly without the marksmanship
> skill, and some of the physical skill but certainly as smart, probally a
> bit more. I think he had more potential than Denson. That all Mike needed
> was experience. He's smart and has the potential he just needs experience
> to work out his "greeness". Of all the Sandbaggers he's probally the
> "greenist" of the bunch. Although he appeared to have the potential to
> become a realyl good Sandbagger.
We don't ever see his personal conflicts, other than doing a good
job. It's too bad he didn't have time to develop the character more. I
thought he was very competent, very controlled, a good person for the job.
Far more so than Denson. The problem I see is that he wouldn't be as
good as Willie or Laura at disarming people. They could play
themselves...or Mike can play himself, but he's a tighter person.
> Jake. We didn't get to see him that much be he appears to be an ok
> Sandbagger. I think physically he had all the skills and mentally he was
> good. But the impression I got was that he wasn't overly bright for a
> Sandbagger but he made up for that in experience. In time Mike would
> surpase Jake because Mike was probally smarter but was lacking the
> experience.
That's my general impression, but we're not given much to go on.
He's almost a non-character.