LEVERAGE #206 "The Top Hat Job" Post-game

Out the door at 5:30 am and back in at 2am -- and yet I still answer your accursed questions! FIE!

It was actually Tim who nagged me to get off the stick and get to updating the question blog posts. I can't escape it. Even the helicopter didn't distract him.

#206 was a light, comedic change-up. Our guest writer, M. Scott Veach, had come in as a freelancer and pitched a very different "magician" story than how the episode finally laid out. Coincidentally, Tim had mentioned that he'd love to play a magician sometime. I am loathe to do an episode even close to a freelance pitch without involving the writer -- and you gotta buy two a year anyway -- so we called Scott in and the story was room-broken. (Tell the truth, I was off banging away at Ep 207 for a chunk of it, so my contributions to the story are limited generally to the CEO-in-a-box run, and the hijacked phone gag). The room can take credit for how much you enjoyed the episode, and Scott did a remarkably fine job during his visit. Not easy, coming into a tiny room that hovers at a constant 85 degrees filled with people who've spent ten hours a day for the last year and a half sitting in those goddam chairs.

I'd done a series of these horrible "state-of-the-company" shows back when I was a stand-up -- including one where they announced layoffs just before I got on stage -- and Albert Kim had attended a bunch while he was working his Time-Warner day job. Once we had the con format, it was just a matter of assigning roles. FWIW, Hardison chose his role in the con based on his love of Jonathan Creek.

(Bonus trivia: Creek creator David Renwick also wrote One Foot in the Grave, the Brit show that Cosby was based on. Cosby is where Chris Downey and I had our first writing jobs.)

We had an evil food CEO on the "villains" wall, and a bit of research on your own will probably reveal where we wound up drawing our primary inspiration. Let's just say the "It's on the label" crack didn't come out of nowhere.

Okay, let's take a deep breath and dive in.

@LEah: Not sure if you saw this or not -- I'm sure Hardison already knows these tricks -- but they're talking about how to fake DNA results.

Cool link -- and that would have come in very very handy for #209. On the other hand, not being able to fake DNA results allowed us to use a character in an interesting way, so that worked out. Obstacles are our friends, in fiction.

@Freelancer: I'm currently reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine right now, and I'm curious if any of the writers has also read it and if so, how much influence it has had in generating plots for our crew to solve.

I've read it, not sure who else on staff has. There tends to be a lot of redundant research, or even overlap in casual reading -- if you were the type of person we'd hire for the show, you;re the type of person who already has a copy of The Big Con on their nightstand.

@Stefan: When do the latter-half episodes air?

I believe we start airing the back 6 in the first or second week of January.

@marga templeton: now can you tell us how christian kane busted open his head???

Elevator fight -- turned his head too fast during a move and cracked his thick skull on the edge of the CEO-in-a-box.

@DHS, @Tom Galloway (and pretty much everybody else): 1) As mentioned, patents are filed with the US Patent Office and are publicly available. Heck, go to www.google.com/patents to search and read them. Trade secrets, on the other hand, are like the formula for Coca-Cola; never patented since you don't want it public and want to keep it to yourself after the point at which a patent would expire.

We can learn from this, young Spec Monkeys. Now, the word "patent" is something the layman has a specific, instinctive sense of based on years of half-remembered plots and new stories. "patents" are worth millions. "Patents" can be stolen. Decades-long legal cases revolve around "patents."

"Trade secrets", on the other hand, is a commonly used metaphor with no legal or financial connotation, even if it does indeed has a specific legal definition.

Let's just say we had this conversation a few times with suited humans:

Us: "We're stealing a company's trade secrets."
Them: "Ah, nice. What are they called?"
Us: "What are what called?"
Them: "Trade secrets."
Us: "What about them?"
Them: "What's the technical legal term for trade secrets?"
Us: "Trade secrets."
Them: "Yes, those. What do you call them?"
Us: "Third base."

For young people, here.

When confronted with this problem, we did what you always should do -- use the term most of the audience will understand, and answer any questions on the blog.

(In retrospect, that might have been a funny Hardison/Eliot scene ...)

@Tom Galloway (and @Codger, this is close to yours): You've got Eliot and Hardison in the server room. Erik with an evil k shows up alone...and their response is to hide, run, and have to access the servers from another floor/room. Um, given they only need a short time and Erik's alone, why can't Eliot just take out and restrain Erik until Hardison gets the files? This stands out particularly since the team then, well, take out and restrain the CEO for an extended period.

Plan A is always try to get in and out without the bad guy knowing. So, you know, headlocking him is probably not Plan A. This episode is an example of their plan falling apart step by step (not something we do all that often, but it's a good change-up) so the end-game is in no way what they went through those front doors intending to do. That's why Eliot says "I can't believe we pulled this one off ..." at the end.

@Tom Galloway (geesh, Tom, get on the fun train :P ): At the end, the CEO certainly seems willing to listen and believe Jameson very quickly and completely; I don't think they had any time to show him any evidence, which was deleted anyway. And he slams down Erik immediately. So, what was stopping the easy approach of getting Jameson in contact with the CEO to start with?

Lengthy three-way phone call/blackmail sequence truncated for spiffy exit. Mostly because I had way, way too much fun in the writer's room delivering the outraged line "They put me in a BOX!" over and over again.

@Jocelyn: Okay, we learned in The Beantown Bailout Job that Hardison purchased Nate's building so does that mean everyone lives in the building? Or does the team have secondary places of residence in town cause I'd like to see these vegetables Eliot speaks of.

Answered here.

@Codger (you again?): Where was Parker intending to go when she jumped off the elevator, since everything they wanted to access was above them?

They thought they had an hour to go get the files. When it turns out they didn't, she had to get back downstairs post-haste. Jumping for that, not the break-in.

@Rosalyn: This is a really cosmetic question, but why was Hardison wearing that letterman jacket at the magic show?

In Hardison and Parker's minds, that's what normal human couples look like. I know, I know. Scary.

@Casey: Love the show but you need to slow down and do more research. Besides the patent issue, and the already mentioned "can't rappel from a non-fixed point" issue, I had another problem with the rappeling scene: Where did the inertia go? Why was Parker able to land so lightly at the bottom, with less of a physical jolt than Hardison had when he fell maybe 1/20th the distance? The show wants to be smart, or at least be considered smart, and wants to appeal to a smart audience, you can't let elementary factual errors build up like that.

Luckily, we're really aiming for entertaining rather than smart.

@Save-vs-DM: Question: was that poking bit between Parker and Eliot improvised at all? It had the feeling of being improvised.

I believe it was improv .. improv-ved?

@Gordon: 1. Is the color orange turning into the Michael's yogurt in-joke? First we get Sophie's orange jewelry and handbag, then Parker's orange tee-shirt, and then I think I caught a peek at orange shoes on Sophie this week. Orange is for more than soda this season, it appears. 2. Parker went up to help hack the computer with Parker and Hardison, but then rappelled back down before Nate called her back down. Did we have an editing error, or did I have a Scooby-Doo moment? 3.) Was Nate's introduction as the magician a goof on the ringmaster in Torchwood's episode "Out of the Rain" or am I reading too much into these things? 4.) WHAT Dr. Strangelove references? I'm still working on Blackadder from last week, and no one will put me out of my misery.

1.) Dammit, you found the color coded messages. You and your friends should buy every episode online and then every DVD to unravel the ARG we've hidden in the show.

2.) I'm going to say, without a review, the sequence went a.) Erik announces he's not talking b.) Parker prepares to rappel c.) Nate summons her d.) rappelling. Could be wrong.

3.) Reading too much into it, but nice reference. BTW, has it occurred to anyone that Captain Jack just doesn't much like children?

4.) It's Dr. Strange, and we mean Clea.

@Zed283: Does Hardison go to DefCon every year or just 2008? The cell phone wifi package and the rfid badge trick were both straight out of the presentations from that year.

Oh, are those actual hacker tricks? (We don't usually research anything.) Not only does Hardison go, he has won "Spot the Fed" three years running.

@Erik: Being an Erik with a K it was nice to see the more neglected spelling get it's day in the sun, but I resent the fact that you've portrayed us as all being completely evil! At my worst, I'd say I'm no more than 50% evil and average somewhere around 30-35% most days. This is how stereotypes start :(

Unfortunately, we must assume you are lying about that 50%, as you spell your name with a k. How evil of you.

@USRaider: My questions are: The subject of "The Top Hat Job" is highly conceivable as a real life happening. Has there been a situation yet that the subject for an episode was either not used by you and the writers or turned down by The Powers That Be because it is too real? Second, Hardison (Aldis) can get quite technical on his explanations of how he is using his devices. Is this like "MacGyver" where a key element of his electronic knowledge is left out so it can't be duplicated by...oh, I don't know...a viewer?

1.) Nope., they leave us alone. We are self-regulating. Seriously, it's a bit odd how far they let us run.

2.) Damn, we should really do that. Whoops. Although I think in the internet age, it's hard to argue that would be even remotely effective.

@Anonymous: Anyway, questions. 1.) Am I correct in my assumption that, aside from the Leverage team, Eliot mostly works as a mercenary for various governments? 2.) Also, are we going to learn about any of the team members' political views in the future? Parker probably doesn't care, but I think the rest of the team could have some interesting takes on things. I wouldn't be surprised if Eliot belonged to CPUSA, actually. And I get a Ron Paul-supporter vibe from Hardison.

1.) Yes. I'm not sure the line's still in #212, but at one point he mentions he's "taken a lot of jobs standing in Embassy basements."

2.) No. You don't know how Doc Savage votes, I see no reason to know how Nate Ford votes.

@SueN: Now, my question: For season 3 (and we all know there's gonna be a season 3, right? RIGHT?!), can the team steal a rodeo? Pleeeeeze? Nate back in his cowboy persona, Sophie as the rodeo queen, Parker having to interact with livestock, Hardison completely out of his element, and Eliot riding a bull (or maybe fighting it). In chaps.

... sorry for the delay. But my conversation with Kane where I called him at home and asked if he'd mind wearing chaps for me did not go particularly well. Aside from that, we've kicked around a rodeo show, so we'll see.

@Anonymous: I was reading through your answers to previous questions, and saw that Eliot apparently killed the abusive dad in "The Order 23 Job." ... Anyway, my point was; Has Eliot killed anyone on-screen during the show? And how many off-screen/implied kills (only while he's working with Leverage, it's pretty clear he's racked up a lot on his own) has he performed?

I was just joking about Eliot killing the dad. Eliot did not kill the abusive dad. Repeat -- Eliot did not break into the man's house, put him in a sleeper hold, and then jam a pretzel down his throat and into his trachea to fake a choking death. Did not.

Eliot has not killed anyone on-screen. His off-screen body count is not excessive.

@SueN: So far we've seen every member of the team rappel except Eliot. So, have we finally found something Christian won't do?

You realize now he's going to bug us to do this until we let him. Great.

@RichardJensen: As an old-school (Pre-Leverage.) fan of the blog, I've really missed political stuff. I know you've been cutting back on it because of the show but will you be getting back to it end of season?

You know what? Posting's going to be light as we finish up. I think we'll rerun some of the old political posts to fill in the days. And yes, when we're in hiatus, I'll turn back to that writing.

@Sarah from Canada: This is the...I believe 3rd episode to feature a bad guy straight out of my real life...it's creepy and I want you to stop. Maple Leaf Foods and the Listeria outbreak anyone?? Anyway. I do actually have two questions this week: 1) does anyone actually want to do Eliot's job? Poor Christian kicking ass and taking many for the team... 2) If Leverage gets a 3rd season (crossing everything I've got that you do) do you think it would film in Portland again or would you maybe consider Vancouver, BC?? It's really nice here...looks a lot like Portland actually... 3) I lied...3 questions...is this show EVER going to air in Canada? I have been forced to resort to downloading episodes and that's just no way to enjoy my television! I have a 52" flat screen for a reason! a 17" laptop screen just ain't the same!

1.) No. End of day, Eliot's job is not much fun. Particularly in the Season Finale.

2.) We like Portland a LOT.

3.) Unfortunately, the Canadian television industry is in the middle of collapsing. So feel free to write a letter to the Movie Channel, but not much hope in the near future.

@Anonymous: Hmn, am I the only one who thought Eliot might have been messing with the rest of the team a little when he said he grew his own food and slept 90 minutes/night?

He was teasing. A little.

@Michelle: RE Area 52 Now.. is that just a strange happenstance, or are you or one of the writers extra geeky and had to slide a SG-1 reference in just for fun.

Happenstance.

@bluehex and Anonymous: Second, Eliot repeatedly teases Hardison about being a virgin. Initially I thought it was just teasing, but now it seems that Hardison is a bit too skittish about it. So, is Hardison really a virgin? / When did it start becoming a sign of freakishness in the media for a young adult (Hardison's, what, early 20s, right?) to be a virgin? It's not the most common thing anymore, but it's not exactly as rare as people make it out to be, either. btw, I am not a prude. I just think the "no sex" = "social retard" shorthand is kinda dumb.

We don't go into the details of the characters' love lives here, but Eliot would probably yank that particular geek chain whether it was true or not. And vice versa ("A bully's just a cowboy with low self esteem.") with Hardison's line of attack in their never-ending argument. Assume the answer is whatever makes the character more interesting to you.

@jer@nyquil.org: Who did Nate's close-up card handling?

In this one, Tim.

@Devinoch: And is someone going to point out this is the kind of thing that got him [Nate] in trouble when he was working insurance? (He's always seemed a little too job focused and not good at having fun...)

Oh, he'll figure that out soon enough on his own. We all trade one addiction for another...

@znachki: I've seen other comments from you that things have had to be trimmed. Do you often have "too much story" for the 40-45 minutes you have?

Yes, ordinarily our first cuts run 2-5 minutes longer than our alloted 42:30. Although our editors are top-notch, we do wind up leaving trimmings on the floor.

@Raligh: Sophie was complaining about not getting an on-stage role in the con - how does the team decide who plays what when it's not specifically related to one or another of their skill sets? Is it random? Case-by-case? Or does it pretty much depend on what you're planning on doing in the storyline of the episode, and, as such, is entirely based on writers' decisions rather than characters' decisions?

They stick to their skill-sets, but if an interesting character beat comes out of putting somebody of their pace, then we consider it. Usually we bend the story so that the role makes sense in alignment with the character beat -- for example, Sophie as the drama teacher in "The Fairy Godparents Job." In this case, Gina's RL pregnancy was beginning to become a factor in costuming and working on a bare stage.

@Maya: What was the deal with Sophie trying to make Nate go on a date with the client? Was she playing a con on him so he'd admit he has feelings for her? Or if that's not it then it was very OOC for Sophie IMO.

Two factors: they're in a place now where they know they screwed up what they might have had last year, and she's very worried that if he doesn't get out of his head -- no matter how -- he's going to spiral out. As we've seen in #207, though, the cool-down has only made them realize that there's something there, if not what they originally thought.

@JP Corkey: I loved the comedy flashback's triumphant return. Are we going to see more of those later this year?

When cutting for time and budget, off-story moments are the first to go. And those flashbacks are the platonic ideal of off-story moments. I think we got a better handle on the new structure and production conditions, so we should see more of them next season.

@Anonymous: just had a personal Leverage marathon where I re-watched the entire first season in the last two days, and it left me with a few general questions and comments 2. Nate's sobriety seems intrinsically linked to the amount of gel in his hair. It's an interesting quirk. 3. I thought I noticed Sophie checking Eliot out several times (almost whenever they had a conversation). Is she attracted to him, trying to make him interested in her (Sophie mentions that she likes to control her personal relationships, and it's easier to control a man who has a thing for you), or just enjoying the view? 4. I love that Hardison doesn't do anything his grandma said, "Don't do." He's adorable. 5. Is Hardison ever going to be in a position where he runs the con the way Nate or Sophie do? He seems to have some latent leadership abilities. Every time he has to play a character for a con, it's almost always a self-confident, ambitious, take-charge fellow. He's also likable and relates well to others. 6. Oh, and what does it say about Eliot's personality that he seems to be the only one who ever plays submissive, defeated characters during cons? His character in The Tap-Out Job, particularly.

2.) The gel cools his brain, and his drink-cravings. 3.) Nothing there as far as Sophie/Eliot goes. 4.) We should probably meet Nana at some point ... 5.) Hardison has enthusiasm but ... self-control issues. As we will see this week in #208. 6.) Never noticed that. I think it's more that he's so confident, he's comfortable luring people into a false sense of security.

Great questions, people! Next up, the question post for Ep #208, which would have been our winter season opener if your incessant harassment had not forced TNT to move it up, and we'll try to tackle #207 questions before Friday.