LEVERAGE #207 "The Two Live Crew Job" Post-game

Yes, well, I needed sleep.

Oh, and heads up: Trigger warning. Skip the longish ranty bit down in the questions, you should be fine.

216 Comments and questions? Jesus Murphy, I've learned my lesson. Address each episode as quickly as possible before they spiral out on us.

Right, literally every human who comes in to pitch Leverage has pitched some variation of the "Other Crew" story. It was easily the oldest card on the Wall o' Ideas, from first season. You put together the Justice League, and some hard-wired bit of the amygdala demands the presence of the Injustice League. It's Campbellian.

As a result, this was one of the first episodes broken this year. Even before the rest of the writers came back, I was breaking "Beantown", Chris was working on "Order 23", and Berg jammed on "Two Live". She had an outline for the episode, much as it was finally scripted (with some exceptions in the first/second act clue paths) well before most of the other episodes were even pitched.

The problem: it was plainly a mid-season finale. That sort of scale, the stunt-casting ... of course.

But when you've got such a wee writing staff and no prep time thanks to the summer pickup, you need to write the episodes roughly in order of production. Not to mention that we learned of Gina's pregnancy the first week of shooting -- while we'd never worried too much about continuity in S1, in S2 we had to arc her character so we had a good reason for her to depart before she became unshootable.

To her immense credit, "unshootable" was our call, not Gina's. Gina wasn't hesitant to work as long as possible under any conditions. I mean, at one point she she was squeezing 7 months of pre-mommy down ... well that would be telling. But we're not a hospital show, we can't throw her in a surgical gown and have her stand behind gurneys. At some point, some shit is going to blow up, running will be involved, and a body double only goes so far.

Episode 7 made the most sense for her departure, and "Two Live Crew" gave us the best matching plot for that moment. So "Two Live Crew" was shelved -- a heartbreaker when you're already four weeks behind on the normal "John's Backup Plans A Through M Writing Schedule". Berg switched off to a corporate retreat story. That sonuvabitch proved unbreakable (great setting, interesting dynamics, but just didn't work. That's a tease, that sort of story) and so she switched over to "The Fairy Godparents Job".

For those of you who want to join the Sausage-Making Factory, that's a lesson worth learning. Every show has a couple unbreakable episodes cooking around. For all the thousands of pages shot during the life of a show, there's half that again in aborted outlines, broken drafts, and scripts that just couldn't be shot for the budget littering the three-ring binders of the script coordinator. But, as our great Sitcom Forefathers taught us, "We use all the parts of the Buffalo." Pieces of those broken scripts have wound up in the produced episodes of S2 -- hell, sometimes there's nothing but the "CUT TO"s left unplundered.

And so, just a few weeks before it was to be shot, we turned to back to "Two Live Crew." As Berg mentioned in her interview at IF Magazine, she was pretty whipped after coming home from Portland (on-site for #204) and so she was more than amenable for me to jump in and write with her. To tell the truth, I (selfishly) kind of insist on writing the big arc-y scenes for the characters, and with this as Sophie's departure, I was going to be up to my unwanted elbows in it anyway.

The ep as shot is very much as outlined, with two exceptions.

1.) the original 1st/2nd act were much more investigatory, with the team first unwittingly recovering a forgery for the clients (instead of finding Dogs Playing Poker) and then following the clue path through the forger to the Auction House.

2.) Wil Wheaton was a girl.

The problem with 1.) was that we knew it was the "Evil Leverage-verse" episode, all the fun STARTED when the audience knew it was the "Evil Leverage-verse" episode, and yet we didn't really meet them until Act 3. Berg and I got as far as rebreaking to an attempt on Sophie's life, and Downey was the one who actually came up with the funeral idea. Again, Spec-Monkeys, this is why you have a writing staff. Downey's writing attack is "place." Once he's got the setting in his head, he can parse every inch of story and character funny out of it. Much like I crave momentum, Berg craves character emo, Boylan craves big speeches and Rieder craves adorable tiger cubs, it's his first instinct.

Knowing we'd go to the "draw 'em out" funeral in Act Two, that gave us the inspiration for the Big Attempt on Sophie in Act One, and that, backing up, led to the parallel break-ins. So even though our team doesn't meet the "Evil Team of Evil Leverage "until Act 3, the audience has, and is now looking forward to the conflict. Forward momentum with intent.

Full credit to the change in 2.) belongs to Berg. We originally had each member of the Leverage team opposed by a member of the opposite sex. Parker/Apollo (we knew we'd be using Apollo from Day One), Eliot/Sister Kickass, Hardison/HaxorChix, Sophie/Stark. In theory, the Leverage team had the advantage because of Nate. We evolved past that in the outline but those pairing stayed.

While we were casting, it was Berg who suggested "you know, we've been saying over and over again we want a good role for Wil ..." We'd planned on making him a suited villain, but the geek cred he brought to a hacker role was just too good to pass up. We switched the character over, and Wil came on board.

Originally Noa Tishby's character was Asian, but when we opened up the casting choices we saw her tape, found out she'd served in the Israeli Army, and our first intinct was: "That looks like a women who can take a punch. And land one."

(Fun Fact: Noa was the one who saw the potential of the Israeli TV show which became HBO's In Treatment, acquired the rights and brought it to American producers.)

After that, the shoot was breeze. Or, at least, as breezy as it ever is when you shoot a feature film in seven days. I got drunk with Wil a few too many times ("So you're saying your first action post-Singularity ..." "More Land of the Lost episodes." "Not a cure for cancer --" "LAND. OF. THE. LOST!"), Apollo turned out to be a fine and expressive actor, and Sophie's goodbye scene made the PA's cry. (Gina chose the red coat she wore in that final scene btw.)

Let's open up the question box and see what's in there.

@Gwendolen: our Team was able to break into the Anti-Team's hideout to steal the forgeries, why didn't they just steal the first painting (and use the theft at the gallery merely as a distraction)?

"Let's make it five," Stark says, revealing the copies. We establish that only the copies of the second painting are in the warehouse, the first painting is at some undesignated location.

@DISAFAN: Will we be seeing Chaos again? In less than 10-20 I mean. Seems like a fun guy to bring back.

Considering fans are having Wil sign autographs as Chaos, yes, I think he'll be back. And just to answer the maybe 50 questions about this -- yes, you will see these characters again. Season 3 has a ... slightly different vibe.

@Michelle: So Hardison's little 'Yall's nasty" comment .. was that improv or scripted.

Improved, I believe. Although I think he had something else scripted.

@Bardic Lady: 1.)Are we meant to infer that Eliot and Noa Tisby's character have a fling immediately following the episode? 2.)I know I recognize Marlowe and Archer as names from something, but I can't place it right now, can you assist?3.) How on earth is Parker going to deal with Sophie coming back and not going by Sophie anymore? Playing dead was bad enough...

1.) Oh hell yeah. And during parts of it. 2.) Although most people got the Philip Marlowe reference, Sophie's name comes from PI Lew Archer (although Spade's murdered partner in The Maltese Falcon was also named Archer) 3.) It should be an interesting adjustment. For us, too.

@bluehex: I apologize if the question has been asked before, but is Eliot's name a nod to "Hellraiser"

Nope. It's just the most non-punchmeister name Downey and I could come up with.

@ita: The first time they hit the auction house, what was Eliot's job? Apart from fate getting him where he needed to be.

Hey ita!! Eliot's often on the ground during cons as both physical backup and to check on the the real-world conditions of things Hardison has found on his many blueprints.

@Becky: I did like how the wound on Christian's temple was worked into the fight. That was perfect. Was the fight scene filmed before or after he pulled his own stitches out?

After. Please, don't encourage him.

@elcucuyfeo: Now on to the question, I have noticed in flashbacks we always see "lil Parker" Will we see any Lil other team members?

We actually see L'il Nate Ford coming up in the back half of the season.

@Wil Wheaton: When Chaos gets a spin-off, how many robots will live with him in his apartment?

Five, but they're a rotating set of personalities. Different crime crew with Chaos every week!

@Anonymous: Given the lack of honor amongst thieves from Chaos, after getting caught wouldn't he rat everyone out for a reduced sentence?

Try catching them. Big head start, and Hardison covers their trail very, very thoroughly.

@ellinor: When we see Sophie's tombstone the first time, it says Katherine, and the second time, it says Sophie. Are we meant to understand that she had it changed?

Yes. She is burying the identity associated with the name "Sophie Devereaux."

@Gaby: But as Sophie is on the tombstone, will she still be called Sophie by the group? I'd assume so, it's all they've ever known, but it will be interesting. And I do wonder if this Katherine is her real name. We've been hinted at it before, but to choose Katherine twice has to mean something.

We're still up in the air what she'll be calling herself in Season 3. She chose Katherine Klive as her Boston acting alias, as Catherine Clive was one of the first women to perform Shakespeare.

@Woodrow Jarvis Hill: The "fighting in their heads" reminds me of Midnighter from THE AUTHORITY. I see you co-wrote, John (at least according to one site!), so -- deliberate homage, or just clever way to get out of the inevitable damage they'd cause fighting each other in that antiquities room? Either way, it was awesome to see, and unique for TV.

It's actually meant to be primarily a Shaw Brothers homage (hence the filmlook we laid on it), but yeah, you are officially the first person to guess that Eliot's true fictional role model is the Midnighter. But please, please, don't spend a thousand Comments figuring out who the Apollo on the team is ... the sequence is also a reference to the Miyamoto Musashi story called out by @VideoBeagle

@Alexandra: Questions about the imagined fight scenes, because the concept was cool but the execution was too amazing for words: Whose idea was it to do the scratched film effect on those? Did that come straight from Amy's script?

Although I'll take geek credit for the "shadow fight" (and try explaining that to people who've never seen those movies), it was actually our friends in post-production. led by VFX kingoin Mark Franco, who came up with the idea of the scratched filmstock.

@JackAttack: 1.) So if Marcus didn't send Sophie the bomb, why was he so sure at the funeral that it wasn't an accident? And if he was, wouldn't he have been trying to find out who killed her? 2.)who were all the attendees at the fake funeral? people paid by Nate to show up? or were they friends with Sophie as "Katherine" (assuming that's the identity that she used to purchase/rent her place that was blown up)

1.) Marcus is well aware that there are a lot, lot of people who want them dead. Every year you live in Crime World is a bonus year. 2.) Those were "Katherine's" friends from the theater community.

@carol: I would like to know what the old couple will do with the painting - technically it is still stolen so do you have a Word of God as to how they dealt with that?

Possession is nine-tenths of the law, and they'll be able to prove provenance, which the other owner was dodging with his influence and money. Basically, they would have won anyway if they could have gotten a fair hearing, so the evil millionaire just isn't going to press a court case. The whole legal field of recovered art is quite fascinating, actually ...

@Amber: Why did Parker have such a hard time adjusting to Sophie's faked death? Also, will we see more development in Parker and Hardison's relationship?

Parker's world is a very ... literal one. And the funeral made her deal with some issues she's kept buried for a long time. She was half-freaked out, half-teasing. As for she and Hardison -- slooooowly.

@improper Bostonian: I have to ask....what is the star trek connection? Directors and actors?

Just the network of working actors recommending each other. We got Frakes to direct, he recommended Spiner, we knew Wil from the Geekerati ... a lot of actors went through that system. It was actually TNT who first suggested Jeri Ryan (who turned out to be awesome), so that's more a coincidence than anything else.

@Elizabeth: First, if Sophie could lift the vase/bomb over her head after the pudding was added, what was preventing her from slowly putting it on the ground and walking away? Second, if Sophie had died in an explosion, there wouldn't have been an open casket! She would have been pink mist.

1.) Secret bomb physics. Shhhh. 2.) Very good embalmers in Boston.

@Bill Reed: Who put the bomb in Sophie's hands? Wouldn't she have had to come face-to-face with the Wil?

Left outside her door, she picked it up and carried it in, priming it. It woudl then explode when she put it back down.

@Robinyj: My question: Nate knew a little bit about this new team from chasing them. He's chased a lot of people. We know he caught Sophie before in the past, did he ever catch Hardison, Parker or Eliot or did he just chase them?

Caught Hardison, never caught Parker, technically worked parallel to Eliot several times, chased him a few.

@catchester: Also good to see him speaking another language. I get the feeling Eliot's a lot more clever than he ever lets on or is given credit for.

Ep #212.

@USRaider: My question is: Sophie seems to have been in a funk since the departure of the boyfriend as to who she is. Will this have an effect on her abilities as a grifter?

Grifting requires confidence. Losing her confidence, well, she'd best go get her head on straight. For eight episodes or so.

@Courtney: Does the Leverage team still do "outside" jobs?

Occasionally. Eliot and Hardison more than most.

@R.Song: Why wouldn't our team just move a table under Sophie's bomb? You can stack up some magazines to get it the right height, and, viola, walk away without moving the bomb.

They weren't 100% sure of Nate's Jenga reflexes. Also, instant pudding hack. Berg actually came up with that in her first draft of the act, but didn't use it. I literally stormed into her office and yelled at her. You come up with something that cool, you put it in the goddam script.

@TheMindFantastic: Its been said best episode ever, but the one *I* watched doesn't seem to be the one everyone else watched. You see... we are assuming Stark has a crew of FOUR, wherein he actually has a crew of SIX! He knew that Nates crew was in Boston and doing its work FOR GOOD PEOPLE! So he had two Deveraux types come in and 'HIRE' the Leverage Crew so that in the end Stark Wins the Klimpt, AND the Van Gogh (too bad it was the fake)! I mean seriously didn't everyone see that!?!?!? Chaos going all *bomb in the vase* was still his own crazy sort of plan, but Overall Stark had it all planned out and Seriously outsmarted the Leverage crew in a way that 'our' heroes think they win!

... wow. Just ... wow.

@briddle: My only question - is that Apollo's hat that Eliot's wearing at Sophie's funeral? It was awesome in a show full of awesome sauce.

No, that is his "hide my forehead gash" hat.

@kinesys: Also: Nate is in dire need of a swift kick in the head, spiritually. Any chance we'll see D.B. Sweeney again?

Nope. And things are not going to get better ...

@Anonymous: I love Leverage, and wanted to introduce the show to a hearing disabled friend. I was surprised and disappointed there's not captioning/English subtitles on the dvds. Is there a reason for this? Can we get them on the next season?

What? Seriously? I'll check on that.

@Susanne: I would also like to add my adoration over casting Noa Tisby as his counterpart, she was hot and looked competent. Please bring her back sometime (preferably to kick Sterling's ass). Really really loved this episode. Now, my question: What is Hardison's hacker alias?

Oh, Sterling gets his ass kicked, but not by ... although to be fair, he gets his licks in. Anyway, I'll ask Aldis what Hardison's hacker tag was.

@Anna: Can we get an episode where Hardison is locked up and the team finally respects the van? The Mile High Job seemed to have shades of this, but I'd love to see one where he is totally out of commission and they realize just how much harder their jobs would be without him being all "whiffy" in the van.

Oh, the van. That van becomes very important...

@Jp Corkey: However, coming after the Top Hat job, we have a second con where it looks like it's all gone pear shaped and then it turns out it was all according to plan after all. I realise this is a time honoured way of telling con job stories, but I'm beginning to miss the stories where a team plans a con, executes the plan and encounters genuine problems they hadn't planned for and still overcomes them.

Hmm. They never anticipated the speech going short in "Top Hat", or Hardison getting caught. I'm not sure that one falls in the pattern you're seeing. They ran a con on Stark in this one, but in "Iceman" they did not count on Hardison's over-acting selling the Russians, and only Nate figures out what's going on in "Lost Heir." Looking at "Godparents", "Tap Out" and "Hunter", all involve unexpected complications. Pretty much in the same places in the script (*ahem* template*cough*).

I think it's still a mix.

@thingswithwings: here was a lot I loved here. But was it completely necessary to open the episode with Nate and Sophie conning an innocent secretary through the threat of sexual violence? "Your boss is a mass-murderer-slash-rapist, you're his type, and he's coming back tomorrow"? Really? REALLY? Way to advance the culture of rape in America. Way to pander to the assholes who think jokes about rape are funny, or that making women into victims is funny. I hope lots of twelve year old boys learned their lesson, that threatening women with sexual violence will help them get their way! The really amazing part is that the little threat-of-rape-and-murder plot was completely unrelated to the main plot, and they could've distracted the secretary with ANYTHING - which I guess means yall think it's just a hilarious and funny joke when women are made to live in fear. I expected better from this show, which is why it hurts more to see this here than it does to see it everywhere else (which we do, every day). Do better. I love this show. Do better.

Okay, this spun off in the Comments, but 'll just address the first point here and let those interested go back and wade through the Comments if they want more.

I'm pretty careful about triggers, as Lovely Wife works in a crisis field, and I'm sympathetic to the issues you're raising here, but I'm going to do a short answer and a long answer.

Short answer is, we were pretty obviously parodying the culture of fear bullshit, particularly the modern American procedural, sold in American media. I'd think the addition of "wood chipper" to the run would have made that obvious. Wood. Chipper. Hellloooo Criminal Minds.

Second, no. Don't put that shit on us. I don't think it's funny that women are expected to live in fear. Which is why this show is not one of the dozen or so mainstream network shows that traffic in exploiting rape, sexual murder, and an irrational fear of violent super-predators. A field that I christened, a while ago in conversation, "Momcore."

My Mom, a super lovely lady, keeps recommending modern detective thrillers to me to read. Stuff she and her sixty-year-old friends read. So every now and then I'll pick one up -- and they are fucked up. In Jeffrey Deaver's The Bone Collector, turned into a movie with Denzel Washington and Angelina Jolie, a woman is tied to a sewer pipe and BOILED ALIVE.

W.

T.

F?

Cruise through the thick airport best-sellers and you find a parade of cunning rapists, insane serial killers and mocking pedophiles with a tendency toward baroque clue construction. The CSI shows are rape/murdertastic, and the original CSI in particular basically equates anything outside total heteronormativity with perversion deserving of a horrible death, after which sincere CSI squares cluck their tongues and solve your murder that, hey, you kinda brought on yourself anyway.

Now, those dudes are writing crime thrillers, those are the streets they walk. I'm a big fan of those shows (I actually prefer L&O: Criminal Intent, but you know), and accept that they are working withing those bounds. And although it wins Emmys, it was L&O: Rape Exploitation Unit that gave us the famous "sodomized with a violin bow." For God's sake, Harper's Island opened with a dude tied alive to a boat propeller, forced to watch as it turned on and chopped him up alive, and then for a second death they cut Harry Hamlin in half -- in fucking half on-screen-- during the pilot.

ON CBS.

Now, the nature of Harper's Island was also to a great degree parody, but I'm dubious that's how it came across to most of the CBS audience. And they were fine with it, because of a steady dose of Momcore.

Momcore. The casual mainstreaming of gory/sexual violence used to give a frisson of horror to mass culture. We don't do it, we were mocking it, and the whole show was conceived as a rejection of those boogiemen in a quest to go after some actual villains doing big-time damage to people's lives. As Downey said, back when we were developing the show: "I think everybody else on TV has got serial killers covered."

We exploit pain and misery too, parasites of culture that we are, but at least it's in going after villains everybody else seems to be ignoring.

(NOTE: There should be a Mark Millar slam in here too, but I can't work it in organically. Assume you read it.)

@Shelley: OK am I the only person here who watches classic Doctor Who? As soon as the Mona Lisa variant and five paintings showed up, I was rolling on the floor. Maybe this is because I recently watched City of Death ... the sticky note at the end was priceless.

Dr. Who ep written by Douglas Adams, btw. And he was drawing on the same obscure art theft factoid we were, I am sure.

@Mikkee: We're so fortunate to get direct feedback from you. However, since we don't get the opportunity to hear from the cast members, it would be interesting to know if they actually read what their fans have to say. Or is the prospect so time-consuming that they have someone on staff breeze through "fan mail" in order to determine whether each comment should be placed and tallied in the positive, negative or in-between category, for instance?

It depends on actor to actor, and I won't get more explicit than that. I think usually they might breeze through the first few responses, then go back to being Famous Good Looking People.

@lyndsy: Was Parker's idea about the secret Nazis a nod to her sudden interest in conspiracy theories after the Three Days of Hunter job?

No, Hardison's been lending her old Doc Savage books.

@Robert: Loved the episode. I actually thought the Top Hat Job was more of a 'squeeze' episode (where the team has to overcome obstacles that derail their initial plan) rather than a 'breeze' episode (where the reveals at the end show the team had it all going to plan the entire time). I prefer breeze episodes but I understand there needs to be both kinds. I guess that leads to a question. Do you start out knowing what type an episode is, or is it something that comes out as you write?

It tends to show up in the outlining, as that's when the obstacles to the team fall out of the planning process and on to the page.

@Nato: 2. Considering that the whole episode pivoted on Sophie's identity crisis, I thought (and really liked the notion) that Sophie was her OWN evil twin -- that the reformed, improved person she'd become was battling the "Sophie Devereaux" she used to be. I'll also second Tara's recommendation of "The Simple Art of Murder," which includes my all-time favorite Chandler story, "Pearls Are a Nuisance," in which the author turns all his staple elements upside-down, makes hilarious fun of his own style, and still turns out a terrific tale.

Well that's insightful as hell, Nato. We're a pulp show, but we do like when people catch that stuff.

And I cannot second/third/infinity recommend enough Chandler's Simple Art of Murder collection. The original essay, in particular, could be written about modern day TV procedurals without changing a word.

Hell, now you have no excuse:


@Annie: I don't try to think about it too much and just go with it. But I'm still not sure how or when the comms work. Do the others hear both sides when Nate and later Sophie talk to Stark? And related to that if they do how does that work when Stark isn't wearing one (at least not from Nate's team)? And do they hear everything that's said by any member of the team?

They are made, like Dr. Who's sonic screwdriver, from Plotconveniencetonium.

That said, they pick up what you're saying and to a limited degree what someone is saying within three feet of you. You can turn them off, but for a very private conversation most of the crew is in the habit of taking out the earbud. As in the season finale, when ... never mind.

@Lissie: wanted to ask.. will we be finding out about Sophie's persona's? Also, this question is about The Order 23 Job. I noticed how much focus Eliot lost on the job when he saw the little kid and i was wondering, did that happened to him as he was growing up? Is that why he ended up getting recruited or going into the forces or ops? I'd really love to know more of his back story. Him and Parker are the ones that really seem alike in that their pants are a complete mystery.

Left the spelling mistake in because I got a very good laugh from it. Thanks, I needed that.

Sophie killed her personas, but the new one she tries to create will make Season 3 very interesting. Eliot's past is not what you think it is, and as we stated back when the ep aired, the most obvious reason for his distress is probably not what you think it is.

24jg13: Question: How many episodes will Gina Bellman miss due to her pregnancy and when is she actually due?

Gina actually won't miss any episodes, she's just super-light in them. She's due before Season 3.

@IMForeman: Regarding Parker's Laser Escapade: I'm guessing the Lasers were a visual effect, and not a practical one... in the commentary for the First David Job one of you mentioned it's tricky to make them visible. Well, if they were a visual effect, then bravo to your effects team. They had the lasers reflecting in Parker's eyes. Going the extra mile.

Yep, and they surprised us with that. They are top-notch.

@IMForeman: If were asking for British actors, I understand David Tennant's availability is a bit better these days. ;)

I'm not sure who would explode from their crush more, Boylan or me, but I think it's best to leave that temptation alone.

@Anonymous: What was the Mussad chick saying during the reverse briefing on Nate? cause it was kinda awesome that Apollo knew who he was and i would love it if even she was a bit leery of him.

She was actually bitching about the fact Marcus Stark sent her against Eliot Spencer without warning. But yeah, Nate's famous in Crime World.

@Kevin: I'll take a second and remark on how Sophie's character arc is naturally leading her to leave the group for a while -- thus clearing the way for Gina's pregnancy. It isn't feeling forced, and that's a tribute to the writers. Not easy at all. - PCat

Thanks, Kevin. Considering we accelerated it from a 15 ep arc to seven over the course of, oh about a week, it didn't turn out half bad. As a matter of fact, I like this structure even more, because in the second half of the season we get to focus on how destructive and screwed up Nate Ford is.

@Jeff: Hardison's needs to tone it back a bit. My family has started a game of stating where he goes too far. Like when talking with the guards " your the red in my red cross" - too far. Priest in the vault of the bank "You're the twinkle in Twinkle little start" - Way to far. Otherwise I love the character.

As I hope you've seen in "The Iceman Job", that is an intentional character flaw that does and will bite him in the ass repeatedly.

@Anonymous: I must have been watching another show because the Leverage I watched was basically another silly episode put out by the writers that have taken this show so far from its roots it's terrible in comparison. The way I see it there are one of several situations in play here, a couple immediately come to mind...1) The writers are different and have taken the show off course 2) the producers have decided to try to expand the fan base by changing the show instead of giving the audience a chance to find it. Either way it's definitely a "dumbed-up" version of its original self. I hope it finds its way back because it was a fantastic show.

Hopefully, they will soon bring back John Rogers and Dean Devlin.

Just kidding. Nope, you can't like them all. And second season is the "experimental" season. Although I like all the episodes in the first half of the season, we'll see if the second half is a bit more your style.

@hearetspeed: Did the team actually Send Chaos the real painting? I saw that when they opened the box there was a sticky note that said "This is the real one!" But I guess I can't see them letting go a priceless work of art. Or have they really all evolved so much that they don't even think twice about it?

Vengeance > profit.

@Sean: As for the episode, how much does it cost(in general) to make an episode of LEVERAGE? I mean without the marketing push, just actors,writers, sets, and crew.

We are around the bog-standard cable $2 million per. Almost standard, that is.

@sadbhyl: Chaos tells Stark that everyone was always more afraid of Sophie than of him. Afraid? I can see respecting her more than him, but afraid? Was this a deliberate word choice, and if so, why?

How many people in Crime World do you think crossed Sophie Devereaux and got away with it? She holds a grudge.

@Jason: 1.) You once wrote that "rain is cheap night." Taking some guests from out of town on the WB studio tour, I mentioned this remark to them...and then we couldn't figure it out. I suppose night shoots must be more expensive because, I dunno, it's time and a half for the crew or something? But can rain really pass for night?

2.)And while I'm on the subject of questions about TV production in general and not about your show in particular, how many morgues are there? Is there just one morgue on someone's lot and everyone rents it to do their shoots there? Cuz come to think of it, they all look exactly the same, with the same rows of square stainless steel doors, always shot from the same angle, with that same door to the left.

1.) I meant "rain is good atmosphere." If you can't get moody night, get moody rain. And night is cripplingly expensive, not to mention the nastiness it does to your call times. 2.) Most TV morgues are set builds, and so are constrained to set architecture and camera conventions. There's probably natural similarities created by those two parameters.

Okay, two or three days down, then we'll pick up with #208 "The Iceman Job" one of my personal favorites in the run for this year. As always, thanks for your time and attention, and we're working very hard to cook up some bonus material to tide the fans over until Leverage 2.5 begins in January.