Reacher Season 2 Wants You to Think Swan Betrayed The 110th

The mystery deepens in the fifth episode of Prime Video’s ‘Reacher’ Season 2 as the members of the 110th discover that the plot against them is much bigger than they’d imagined.

The conflict starts to brew as the others are convinced that Tony Swan had something to do with the death of Franz and the others, but Reacher cannot accept it so quickly.

He knew Swan; he brought him into the 110th. He cannot digest the idea that he misjudged his character. But no matter what Reacher believes, all evidence points towards Swan being the traitor.

1. Did Tony Swan Betray the Team?

Right now, it does seem like Tony Swan betrayed the team since all the mounting evidence points against him and links him directly with the murders. Jack is the only one who still believes in Swan’s innocence.

Neagley and Dixon raced to catch up to the latest shipment of missiles, with the icy roads of Denver proving to be a treacherous obstacle.

As they faced off against AM’s dangerous henchmen, they uncovered the damning truth that Swan had approved the delivery, solidifying his role in the despicable weapons smuggling operation.

The previous revelations about Swan’s connections to the New Age, accompanied by this, increasingly make it clear that he was likely involved in Shane Langston’s nefarious scheme. But as the pieces fell into place, there’s a sense that this plot twist might be too predictable for the gripping second season of Reacher.

As Jack comes to terms with the possibility that one of his own caused the brutal deaths of his other men, Reacher season 2, episode 5, features more flashbacks from their days as the 110th Special Investigators.

During one of their drug busts, Swan used his own body to shield a bullet aimed at Jack. The memory makes it all the more difficult for Jack to believe that Swan would betray any of his colleagues.

Did Swan Betray Reacher? Is he the bad guy in Season 2?
Alan Ritchson and Shaun Sipos in Reacher (2023) | Source: IMDb

2. Who could have stolen Swan’s identity?

Only Hortense Fields Could Have Taken Swan’s Identity. Fields’ ties to the 110th Special Investigators make him a good villain. It is possible to explain the 110th Special Investigator’s involvement in New Age’s unlawful activities.

Despite signing off on the delivery papers, it is unclear whether Swan played a partial or complete role. A particularly intriguing idea suggests that Hortense Fields could have influenced the plan.

This could make him a fitting adversary for Reacher in season 2, as it establishes a personal link between him and the 110th. While Langston poses a menacing threat, his lack of past ties to Jack or his team makes him less captivating than someone with whom they have a history.

Hortense’s introduction in Reacher season 2, episode 3, felt out of place and shoehorned.

Unless there was a compelling motive for his introduction, his involvement in Jack’s inquiry about the mysterious deaths of his comrades seemed irrelevant.

Is he the person posing as Swan? That is the only plausible explanation for his sudden debut. It is confirmed that Langston and his cronies are all ex-cops, effectively linking a military cop like Fields to their operation.

3. Is Swan really the bad guy?

Let’s be honest. If Swan Were A Villain, Reacher Season 2 Would’ve Shown Him By Now. But he is nowhere to be seen in Reacher Season 2.

Considering the evidence available to implicate him, there isn’t any need to continue hiding him like this if he is the narrative’s villain. The Amazon Prime Video series has substantially featured AM and Langston, even establishing a connection between them via a phone call.

Did Swan Betray Reacher? Is he the bad guy in Season 2?
Domenick Lombardozzi, Shaun Sipos, and Alan Ritchson in Reacher (2023) | Source: IMDb

The fact that Reacher season 2 continues to hide Swan suggests there’s more to his ties to New Age than being Langston’s cohort.

It’s unwise to cast him off as a villain without any physical appearance, especially considering Jack’s conviction that everyone from the 110th Special Investigations Unit is trustworthy.

Moreover, the flashbacks have done an excellent job establishing that the team was solid. So, it’s better to assume that Franz, Orozco, Sachez, and Swan remained faithful to the squad until the end.

4. Did Tony Swan betray Reacher in the books?

Tony Swan does appear in Lee Child’s “Bad Luck and Trouble”. However, there seems to be no evidence to indicate that Tony Swan betrayed Reacher in any of the books in the series.

Swan, a member of the 110th Military Police unit alongside Reacher and others, is briefly mentioned in various books. Yet, his disloyalty towards Reacher or his former military comrades is not indicated.

Considering everything, while Tony Swan does appear as a supporting character in the world of Reacher novels, there is no record of him turning his back on the 110th. Therefore, it can be concluded that he remained a faithful member throughout.

In the TV adaptation of the book series, in the third episode of the second season of the show “Reacher,” it is revealed that Tony Swan works for New Age, a defense contractor. 

This defense contractor is seemingly involved in the murders of members of the 110th Special Investigations Unit 1. However, in the book, Reacher already knows that Swan works there, which is why he goes there in the first place.

Watch Reacher on:

5. About Reacher

Developed by Nick Santora, Amazon Prime’s Reacher is an American action crime streaming television series based on the books of Lee Child.

Starring Alan Ritchson as Jack Reacher the show revolves around a murder investigation in the small town of Margrave, Georgia. When Jack Reacher is arrested for a murder he did not commit, he finds himself in the middle of a deadly conspiracy full of dirty cops, shady businessmen, and scheming politicians. He needs to figure out what’s happening using his wits and escape out of this embroilment.

The show has been renewed for a second season and will premiere on December 14, 2023.

Comments

Leave a Reply