MovieChat Forums > The Drop (2014) Discussion > (Spoilers) Did Eric Deeds deserve what h...

(Spoilers) Did Eric Deeds deserve what he got?

posted 10 years ago by Raphaelibrahim
77 replies | jump to latest

How favourably you view Bob by the end of the movie is predicated upon whether or not you feel he was justified in shooting Eric Deeds twice in the face. His only possible vindication for this is the belief that had he not killed Deeds, his life was in jeoprady.

Of course we learn that Deeds did not in fact kill 'Happy Days' and so there's no real reason to believe he would have been capable of murder in cold-blood. He struck me as simply a slightly unhinged bully, and by the bar scene it's reasonable to assume he thought he had the measure of Bob and would only need to threaten him to get the money from the safe.

There's no doubt Deeds is a despicable character, but does a man deserve to die for injuring a dog, stealing an umbrella and the implied violence towards a female?

[–] hathor008 10 years ago

Bob wasn't justified in killing Deeds but I can certainly see how Deeds pushed him over the edge. He tried to be reasonable but Deeds wouldn't let up on his bullying. Sometimes the only way to defeat a bully is to fight back. He didn't have to execute him, but he was clearly pissed off about the situation and was unwilling to compromise any further. The drop money and threats to his friend just pushed him over the edge. In Bob's mind, given the world he lives in and the people he interacted with on a daily basis, I'm sure he felt it was justified.

---
Reality is subjective.

[–] Gary-161 10 years ago

The original question was how favourably do we view Bob in light of what he did. Did Deeds deserve what he got? If you believe in the rule of law at all then the answer would have to be no.

[–] hathor008 10 years ago

I don't think Deeds deserved it, but I still can see Bob as an anti-hero type so I guess I can look at him favorably. If it was real life and I was on a jury watching a video of it I'd have thought he went too far but for a movie it was great.

---
Reality is subjective.

[–] Yarre_Time 10 years ago

Deeds was a crazy bully. He assumed since Bob was quiet and not argumentative that he could bully him forever.

[–] allenrogerj 10 years ago

It sounds as if you think it might matter whether Bob would have been justified in fatally shooting Deeds once in the body, even if he wasn't justified in shooting him twice in the face.

[–] coolaree 10 years ago

Meh *beep* Deeds, people die every die, what was he gonna do, grow up to be a nice doctor? lol.
But also Bob should be in jail so I don't view him "favourably" either. All in all, not much sympathy for any of these nuts.
Even the Catholic cop was an annoying smug *beep* jesus.

[–] rsig75 10 years ago

Deeds was a despicable human being. Any man who abuses women AND dogs? Scratch that, not dogs, but puppies?

That's a no brainer, for us sharper folks that is. His character is portrayed as a low-life scuzzbucket unworthy of breathing air, regardless of what mental defects or illnesses he MAY have had. IMHO, Deeds was a psychopathic criminal with possibly a touch of schizophrenia, probably brought on by all the drugs he's done.

You stick a gun in my face? If I'm Bob, I shoot Deeds every day and twice on Sunday. POS got what he had coming to him. Period.

BTW, the nickname for Richie Whelan wasn't "Happy Days." Re-watch the scene when Bob tells Deeds what Whelan's nickname/street name was.

"What does a man do Walter? A man provides for his family."
-Gustavo Fring

[–] Gary-161 10 years ago

>>You stick a gun in my face? If I'm Bob, I shoot Deeds every day and twice on Sunday.

But Deeds didn't stick a gun in Bob's face. He drew it in self defence.

[–] seanhimdb 10 years ago

>> But Deeds didn't stick a gun in Bob's face. He drew it in self defence.

A very peculiar definition of self-defence. He was already engaged in attempted robbery with intimidation and threats of violence. I don't think an armed robber has any claim to self-defense if he manages to out-draw a guard, for instance.

For me the clinching moment was when Deeds grabbed the girl, as a hostage, threatening her. From that moment, it was obvious what had to happen to him. Because his threat implied doing to her what he'd already threatened to do to the dog, that was very clear. It would take a very nimble lawyer to uphold his side after that, but perhaps one could have been found to get him out on bail, to take up where he left off. Bob did the right thing.

[–] SweetHotAngel 10 years ago

As I said early in the thread, Eric was there doing what he was doing because Bob set him up.

"Is it bright where you are? Have the people changed? Does it make you happy you're so strange?"

[–] useurimagination06-98-473324 10 years ago

Like another poster said "who drew a gun first?" I feel that's pretty spot on. Does it change my opinion of him? Not really. Everything kind of changed once I realized he was a lot smarter than others have him credit for. I also feel like this whole debate about it being justified or not. Or "maybe it was justified in his own mind" is besides the real bigger point; is that in these types of movies yes there is lots of killing but the role the cops play is just cat and mouse(in the movie) yea they are there for the illusion of safety and enforcing the law but in the gang/mafia world Bob would be a good guy. A bit different but it works

[–] mxlflx 10 years ago

There's no doubt Deeds is a despicable character, but does a man deserve to die for injuring a dog, stealing an umbrella and the implied violence towards a female?

In this context, yes. Deeds was in that bar for one reason; to STEAL THE MAFIA's MONEY. Deeds kidnapped his ex-gf for leverage against Bob to facilitate STEALING THE MAFIA's MONEY. One of the few reasons Bob is there is to PROTECT THE MAFIA's MONEY. Bob doesn't have any more chances or benefit of the doubt with his demonstrably violent bosses about losing any more money. Bob offered 10kUSD to essentially walk away from a stupid caper and Deeds turned down the free money! I don't see the dilemma. Clearly, the OP is not from a world of crimeys and crooks so this seems like a point for moral equivocation and law-speak, when contextually its very cut and dried. Even negotiation with that psychotic prick is a step towards dereliction of Bob's criminal duty, because said prick knows about the drop and has demonstrated that even if Bob arm-wrestled/sweet-talked/tickled his balls out the door and spared his life, he'd come back for more.

Clearly, Bob did the right thing for Bob because he was rewarded with a promotion and its implied he gets the girl and the dog. In Bob's world, "he's a stand-up guy" who never ratted on his disloyal cousin and solves problems before before they make more problems.

I still believe. Do you still believe? - Earl Hickey

[–] Pequod88 10 years ago

Excellent post. Deeds overplayed his hand and paid the price. Once he went into action to steal the mafia's money he sealed his fate. If Bob doesn't kill him in the bar, the mob kills them both later.

I am impressed with Tom Hardy's acting. His performances in The Drop and Locke reveal a range and depth of talent that bodes well for more high caliber work.

Rapace was quite good in an underwritten role. She calibrates her performance to reveal an effective mix of vulnerability and toughness. John Ortiz is always good. Torres is neither fool nor hero, and Ortiz walks the tightrope. I highly recommend one of the best single-season series ever: Luck. Ortiz is exceptional.

Finally, a fond farewell to the late, great James Gandolfini. He made it look easy.

[–] channaart 10 years ago

Yes, actually—to everything here.

[–] IMDbeans 10 years ago

Deeds stepped way over the line, threatening a man's dog and woman, breaking into Bob and Nadia's homes, extortion, and turning up to the bar to rob it, with a gun. He absolutely earned the right to a bullet in the head after all that.

Just because Bob knew that Deeds didn't kill that one kid doesn't mean that Deeds hadn't killed others. He seemed capable of it to me.

[–] Flora_Poste 10 years ago

From the fear in Nadia's eyes when Eric appears and the way she flinches around him, it's also obvious that Eric has beaten the living daylights out of her in the past.

Going back to the beginning of the movie, Eric's dumping the beaten puppy in her trash can was clearly intended to threaten Nadia by reminding her of what he had done to her in the past. Eric is watching her house from across the street to see what her reaction is.

He's scum.

[–] jpmonette 10 years ago

Hell yes.... no one likes nor needs thugs

[–] cinephyler 10 years ago

by the end of the movie, you realize that bob is the cold assassin who once shot a kid in the face and dissolved his body in acid (AFTER the kid paid off his debt) and deeds is the poser petty criminal with a tough guy persona who once hit a dog.

it's hard to assert he got what he deserved. i think it just goes to show you how easy it is to manipulate the audience's mind with a puppy, and some autism. and i'm only half kidding. i'm mean look how CUTE the serial killer was cleaning up the DOG SH!T off his carpet. isn't he soooo CUTE?

[–] pking-2 10 years ago

When you kidnap a woman at gunpoint...you deserve potentially lethal response if possible during the kidnapping to end the threat.

Otherwise, your stance would be its only okay to use violence against kidnappers after they follow through on his kidnapping threats. Which would be wrong and disastrous. If anything you could argue that getting "revenge" on kidnappers who have shot their victims is less morally justifiable than using violence to end the kidnapping preemptively.

I understand that violence is distasteful, but that does not make it morally wrong to end kidnappings using it.

Now, this is a signature gun, and that is an optical palm reader.