Why didn't Mick kill Paul? - Wolf Creek 2 (2014) Discussion

Because Paul was a loser.

reply

[–] danwiild 9 years ago

LOL was just thinking about that movie this morning.
Exactly, so why didn't he kill him?

Did he have a little bit of respect for him?

reply

[–] spookyrat1 9 years ago

I think the pre-credits notes suggest he left him alive to throw the cops off the scent of Mick himself. It's all crap though. Paul knew his name and IRL that would be enough for the cops to find him.🐭

reply

[–] speculator-1 8 years ago

Paul knew A name, it's not necessarily what the killer had on his birth certificate.

The notes are reminiscent of the ones from the first movie, where the cops also investigate the survivor instead of believing his account. Maybe they assumed he had heard about the previous survivor's account, and was just repeating the same story in order to fool them. After all, the only bodies the killer left lying around (other than the 2 cops) were the ones that could be linked to Paul. Small wonder the police suspect Paul.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] eggamus 8 years ago

Wouldnt the fact that he had lost some of his fingers suggest to the police that he was also a victim not the killer

reply

[–] speculator-1 8 years ago

yep. The fingers were sanded off, that means electrical equipment was used. This is about the only actual piece of evidence that supports his story.

The cops would try to retrace his steps but there is no way he could have gotten from the house with the old folk to the place he was arrested. Again, the lack of evidence supports his story. However, they allowed him to return to the UK so they never had enough to charge him with.

The cops end up with a cold case they have no fresh leads on.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

reply

[–] valhallix 9 years ago

It was his English wit, duh. I too wondered why he didn't especially after the attempted escape and hammer over the head.

But no, Mick Taylor is a psychopath lets get that straight but lets be honest he went easy on Paul and you could so tell that he was doing so. He was ruthless to pretty much every other male victim except Paul and it was mostly because of their chit chat. Mick Taylor is the typical sociopath. As easy to amuse and appease as he is to anger.

Notice when Paul was crying he asked him several times if he was alright and then there's that moment when he seemed like he was really hesitating to cut another one of Paul's fingers off. Until Paul really pushed it with the Dennis Lille answer (I still think Paul answered incorrectly on purpose just so he could get his right hand free). I think he just liked and respected Paul.

Mick could also be gay. I mean the evidence is there. Telling Paul to be a "stand in" getting really upset when Paul called him *beep* Maybe i'm reading into it too deeply but I think there's definately something there. The way he flipped out at the *beep* comment and the fact that he targets and rapes solely women. He could be masking something. I didn't read the prequel books but It wouldn't be the least bit surprising if the reason he targets women was because of them tormenting him.

reply

[–] akirastronaut 7 years ago

I don't think it's because of his wit or because he liked him, though it did cross my mind. He enjoyed his company, but ultimately he's still a prey and just a piece of meat.

I definitely agree with you about the repressed homosexuality though, that was definitely hinted at. Victims call Mick all sorts of names when there's no hope left and it amuses him, but the suggestion that he was gay hit a nerve, and his reaction was way too extreme for someone comfortable with their sexuality. Then again, I don't know, as you said maybe reading too much into it, and that's just the way he was raised, where being called gay is the ultimate insult...

"Chinese girls do not come with green eyes"