He was. By the end, either he or Joel (who went missing during the last act of the movie as well) pretty much had to be the killer.
shareIt was clear Mickey was in on it as soon as Dewey and Gale saw the killer's footage on the other tv. He was the one walking around with a video camera.
shareSo was Joel, the other guy who disappears for the second half.
shareJoel was not explicitly shown to be holding a camcorder without it further being addressed.
That's not to say he could've been dismissed as a suspect, but again, the point is that the scene with Mickey had a certain meaning.
Joel and a Mickey were both wielding video cameras and could have been the Ghostface in the projection booth.
shareCAMCORDER.
Being a cameraman, Joel's camera was addressed. Mickey's camera was not addressed. It was as clear as day what that scene meant once the footage popped up.
"could have been the Ghostface in the projection booth"
Anyone could've been that particular Ghostface considering the possibility of multiple killers. I made no comment on that.
You said ‘It was clear Mickey was in on it as soon as Dewey and Gale saw the killer's footage on the other tv’
Why was it any more clear that Mickey was ‘in on it’ than Joel?
I already told you, because Mickey was the one shown holding a camcorder (for no apparent reason).
shareYes, but Joel was also holding a video camera, so why not suspect him also?
Because he was not randomly shown holding a camcorder.
Of course, Joel could not be excluded as a second killer.
Of course, because they’re both wielding video cameras, and were therefore both suspects when Ghostface started playing video footage.
shareCAMCORDER. And again, Mickey's camera was never addressed again. The meaning of that scene became clear once the footage was shown.
You said you were done with the discussion, but now you're continuing it in another thread...
Camcorder or video camera makes no difference, and you rightly described it as a ‘video camera’ in your original post (screenshotted in case you try to edit)
Not that any of your nitpicking matters. They both wielded video cameras and so when the incriminating footage appears either of them could have shot it, not just Mickey, so your original point is wrong.
Will you admit this or continue trying to obfuscate and try to persuade me to stop publicly pointing out your error with lies like ‘you said you were done with the discussion’ 🤣 ?
"Camcorder or video camera makes no difference"
Except that the footage clearly came from a camcorder.
Lol, you think it's some gotcha moment that I called it a video camera? Of course it is. How was I to know back then that you would come along and start to nitpick because you have no argument? I immediately explained the difference when you replied.
"They both wielded video cameras and so when the incriminating footage appears either of them could have shot it"
And again it goes over your head. It's not about who shot it, heck, Mrs. Loomis probably shot part of it. It's the purpose of the scene of Mickey holding a camera, and a camcorder at that.
So are you going to continue the discussion in this thread when you alreay said in the other thread that you were "going to wrap it up"?
I see we’re back here again where you embarrass yourself by getting something about this film you seem obsessed with spectacularly wrong, and then try to dig yourself out with endless obfuscatory bullshit, so we’ll apply the same system as before.
I want to be fair and make sure I’ve addressed all your points without wasting my time babysitting a retard without pay so… if anyone reading this thinks Stratego has made a remotely valid point that I haven’t dealt with then please point it out and I’ll be happy to address it…
Lol, you're resorting to ad hominems again because you have no argument. Thanks for conceding!🍆
shareDeluded, there have been no ad homs and no concession. You’re wrong and your attempts to dig your way out have been embarrassing to watch.
Let’s hope someone takes up my offer and can find something remotely valid in your BS text walls…
If you resort to ad hominems and can't address the actual point, that's a concession.
"Let’s hope someone takes up my offer"
Lol, talk about being deluded!
Call me an optimist. I really want someone to find something remotely valid in your mindless egotistical screeds, it’s so much more engaging than babysitting a retard.
Good luck!
No ad hominems, huh? 🤣
No one's going to take up on your offer, because nobody else will even bother to read your nonsensical ramblings.🤷♀️
But just keep proving my point, I'm loving it!
And oh yeah, Mickey was the only one holding a camera for no apparent reason, and a CAMCORDER at that! Even a 3-year old understands what that means.🙂
Let’s hope someone finds something valid amongst your desperate digging 🤞🏻
shareAnd oh yeah, Mickey was the only one holding a camera for no apparent reason, and a CAMCORDER at that! Even a 3-year old understands what that means.🙂
shareLet’s hope someone finds something valid amongst your desperate digging 🤞🏻
shareLet's just say that those who can, are of average intelligence at the least and 1000 times smarter than you.🙂
But just keep repeating the ad hominems, I just looove how you keep proving my point! Again, please!😆
Let’s hope someone finds something valid amongst your desperate digging 🤞🏻
shareLol, you're digging your own grave, aspie. Please continue!🍆
shareLet’s hope someone finds something valid amongst your desperate digging 🤞🏻
In the meantime, I want to give you a chance to apologise for your obnoxious behaviour throughout this thread. I want you to write the following text:
One more time, please! We all need a good laugh!
Also:
CAMCORDER
One more time, please! We all need a good laugh!
Also:
CAMCORDER
Apology accepted.