Part of what made Goran Visnjic so great was what an utter departure his performance was from what we ordinarily have seen him do. The guy's usually a pretty serious dramatic actor (and a damned good one), and it's a barrel of fun to see him play a villain with such relish. You're right Rogers, you had the perfect Moreau.
@ NinaMay I thought the Nate's hat hidden by Sophie's face scene was an effective way to show Moreau first sensing his vulnerability. I know a lot of people thought he recognized Sophie, but he'd never seen her in person, just via the video feed, and how well could he be expected to remember her? That was all about the white hat, and what it might mean for Moreau.
I agree it showed that he knew something was up, but to me it didn't read like he was at all concerned about it. He didn't react like a man who felt threatened or vulnerable; his amusement at Eliot's puppy ad alone was the reaction of a lazy lion to a man armed with a BB gun, or at least so it seemed to me. Not that he was ignorant of something being aimed his way, but just having no comprehension that it could actually do him damage. If he hadn't simply blown it off to begin with, I imagine the team would have faced a much bigger problem.
@Anonymous The "dry heat" line is one from Aliens – Bill Paxton's character, Hudson, says it early on – and it's heavily sarcastic. What I wouldn't give for a "Game over, man! Game over!"
I haven't seen that movie since the first time, in the theater. I'd recognize the 'Game over, man' line (but they didn't use that one.)
So my question for Mr. Rogers is "Do you ever feel that cramming in wall-to-wall references and homages to other creative works (a la 'Family Guy' and 'Community') gets in the way of telling a good story?"
I agree it showed that he knew something was up, but to me it didn't read like he was at all concerned about it. He didn't react like a man who felt threatened or vulnerable; his amusement at Eliot's puppy ad alone was the reaction of a lazy lion to a man armed with a BB gun, or at least so it seemed to me. Not that he was ignorant of something being aimed his way, but just having no comprehension that it could actually do him damage. If he hadn't simply blown it off to begin with, I imagine the team would have faced a much bigger problem.
Yeah, but that was the point..he WAS ignorant of the ways to fight what Nate was doing. And that was part of the reason he turned into a paper tiger. Because to THAT attack he DID have no defense.
Excellent episodes, and thanks for helping me win a bet that Sophie would make an Eva Peron joke during the San Lorenzo job. I do have one question, "The Italian" was always referring to her secret organization, and it seems to be beyond a single national affiliation, so... Was she on the Frequency?
Yeah, but that was the point..he WAS ignorant of the ways to fight what Nate was doing. And that was part of the reason he turned into a paper tiger. Because to THAT attack he DID have no defense.
Sure, he was blindsided by the method they used to attack him. I'm just saying that if he'd taken the threat seriously from the beginning, he's of the stature that I can easily see him finding some way of stopping them. Otherwise, for my mileage anyway, he's not much of an opponent.
Too much fun by half. Bravo! :D I liked both episodes equally, although my favorite, favorite bit was Eliot and Parker's "Don't ask me because I'd have to tell you". Just so well-played, and great sibling vibe from both actors that I'm a sucker for.
Brilliant casting of Moreau, too.
Questions 1. I did a cursory search through the comments so far and doesn't seem anyone asked, but at the end of 315, why did the Italian stroke the side of her neck, sort of exposing it? And coincidentally enough, that's the side Moreau ended up shooting...It came off as sort of a baseball signal to me. I kept expecting her to turn bad in the finale!
2. This is just my own crazy, detail-loving curiosity, but was San Lorenzo a Spanish/Portuguese colony before being taken over by the British? Hence the name? Seems like some kind of influence from Spain or Portugal. How much detail do you as writers come up with when you create a place like that? Do you have maps and things made up?
3. Dog fighting! Worse than a sex or money scandal (agree, although greenlighting bad reality shows is a close second, I'd say.) Was there a poll that determined that?
4. Vittori and Sophie getting thrown together seemed like the premise of a really cute romance novel or Korean drama. Can someone get on that? And that was jealousy on Nate's part, right?
Did you read this review? http://assignmentx.com/2010/tv-review-leverage-season-3-the-san-lorenzo-job/<
"Also, the way the Nate/Sophie hookup is presented may work for people who couldn’t care less how the characters relate. However, for those who’ve been invested in their three-seasons-long courtship (which was enough to drive Sophie away at one point, because Nate wouldn’t get closer), the reveal of Sophie under the covers beside Nate without showing a deciding moment squelches the payoff. Subtlety is often an admirable quality, but this would seem to be overdoing it."
Loved both episodes, and thought it was a great ending of the season. If this was the last episode of the series I'd be sad but I'd still think it was a perfect ending. It wrapped up most of the loose ends from earlier episodes (ie cavalry, emp gun) and had much more of a team vibe than the first few episodes of s3.
Thank you so much for keeping the references to couple stuff subtle, this is the first time I liked (and laughed about) an Nate and Sophie relationship moment.
Kane was incredible in these two episodes. His acting is so subtle, his facial expressions show so much emotion even if his tone and words don't. Loved that we saw a glimpse of how ruthless Eliot can be in BBJ and I loved the camaraderie with the general in SLR.
Most of my favourite moments have been mentioned, but two that I don't think have been are Eliot's lip trembling when Hardison asks him if he's cool, it's so subtle and it shows that he really didn't want to make the decision to confront Moreau. Also the "tell me what he said" scene in the car, loved it when Eliot catches the bullet after it bounces of the roof and Chapman rolling his eyes after Eliot leaves the car.
Two questions: The filming of the gunfight must have been awesome to witness. Where you there? And was it as brilliant as I am imagining it to be?
And speaking of loose ends, where do they go from here?
I really do apologize for this, Rogers, but, alas, I have another question. (It's your own damned fault for giving us characters who fascinate us so!) And I've read through the 410 comments/questions posted so far just to make sure it hasn't been asked before.
But, after repeated watchings of BBJ (which still blows me away every time), I've begun wondering just why Eliot took Hardison with him to meet with Moreau.
He's been trying throughout the season to hide the fact that he knows/has worked for Moreau from the team. Yet he had to know that having Hardison there would out him (so to speak). And he had to know that Hardison and the rest of the team would be pissed that he's kept this from them. But, had he gone alone, he possibly could have preserved his secret.
So … why take the risk of turning the team against him? Was it that he knew the jig was up and the past relationship would likely be exposed anyway? Or was it that he was just tired of hiding this from them and decided, "Fuck it, it's time to come clean, and I'll deal with the fallout later"?
Eliot's not a man who does things without thinking them through. So, if at all possible (and if you haven't given up yet), I'd love to know his reasoning behind this.
Finally saw the finale. Fantastic work. My first instinct is to be a little off with the Elliot fight, but upon reflection I get it.
I think those henchmen were well aware of the reputation of Elliot Spencer. Some of them might've been around for his time with Moreau. If he's stopped shooting and he's just standing there, and knowing he was capable of doing what he did just a moment later, they might have retreated to the caveman brain, trying to work out just how utterly screwed they were.
That explanation works just spiffy for me. If I'll suspend my belief for Batman, I'll gladly do it for Elliot.
wow. ;o) Once again, you and your writing team are simply amazing. Thank you for the show and for talking to us little people.
I would be surprised if you managed to make it to post #415, but I'd like to say that 1) Missed you guys! Can't wait for S4 2) Kane in a tank-top will be enjoyed for days 3) Eliot is awesome!
I, for one, am not sorry that Eliot ended up killing on screen. Sometimes it has to be done - and by god - he is the one to do it.
Jane said: Thank you so much for keeping the references to couple stuff subtle, this is the first time I liked (and laughed about) an Nate and Sophie relationship moment.
No offense but that scene shouldn't have been about what people who don't really care about them want but about what fans who have been invested in their relationship for 3 seasons wanted.
love your casting. any chance of ever getting oded fehr? he would make a great bad guy - and i heard he guest starred on kari's new show, maybe he could bring her along...lol.
Let me just say that the scene in the park (bbj) they all hit it out of the park, especially Christian. I know everyone wants to know what he did, but I'm guessing you aren't going to tell us because you don't like filling in all the blanks; you prefer to let us use our imaginations. I'm ok with that. I like being where Parker is - we know it was bad, and part of us wants to know, but we really really don't want to know because that will take something about Eliot that we like/trust away. We accept him as a man with a bad past who is trying to change his ways. I like the mystery better.
No offense but that scene shouldn't have been about what people who don't really care about them want but about what fans who have been invested in their relationship for 3 seasons wanted.
Or it should have been, and obviously was, about what the writers and creators of these characters felt was the best way to advance and develop the characters, their relationship, and their overall arc.
Rogers & Co. don't "owe" us scenes of Nate and Sophie cooing and courting like a couple on the Lifetime network. They only owe us a Nate and Sophie who are growing and maturing and learning how to be people.
Also, this is a 47-minute con/heist show, not Breakfast at Tiffany's. Which part of the basic premise of their show should the writers jettison so Nate and Sophie can get their Peppard/Hepburn on?
I loved all the shout-outs to past eps: "We'd be the cavalry," from the bank shot job. Sophie showing up for 2 of her funerals. Pretzels (although that seemed extremely unresolved). It also seemed like at the beginning of the bbj, Parker is asking if the battery blows up, Hardison gave her a look and mouthed to knock it off, was that a reference to her occasional jealousy over smart, troubled clients or was is more a 'stop being weird and freaking people out kind' of look? I was also wondering - when Eliots friend (in sjj) is asking him if he would leave behind anyone from his team - it seemed to me for a minute, when Eliot looks at Parker, he almost questions if he would leave HER behind. She might be the one he would, at least sarcastically, consider to leaving. I believe he has actually saved everyone individually, as well as a team, at one time or another; the only time it seemed he was trying to rescue/save Parker was the inside job, and that seemed very reluctant, and even though he stayed and helped (and technically didn't leave her), he really never 'rescued' her. If that was what I saw, I'm glad he [silently] agreed that he would never leave her behind. Very older brother being protective of the little sister who annoys him but he actually loves. Although, I will agree with the minority that they would make a smoking hot couple, who would no doubt seem sexier in their professions working together, but I kind of see why that wouldn't happen. Oh, hey, such a long shot, but maybe we just didn't see Parker and Hardison 'snacking on Pretzels', and they actually did. maybe Sophie and Nate won't remember what happend, or they didn't actually sleep together because they were too drunk.
I'm not sure I quite get what the confusion is over what Eliot did? It seems pretty obvious that he killed innocent people for Damien Moreau - quite likely an entire family. Did some people watch and still think that maybe he didn't kill people as a job or is there just clamoring for a body count?
I strongly suspect "pretzels" and the wake-up scene were brilliant pieces of legerdemain. Both were actually nearly static minor changes in status. That inevitably leads to the question of where the actual intimacy increase was happening? Seems to me it was in the park, on the benches. Especially after I watched the webchat (where you may or may not have actually announced it -- y'all are getting good at this doublespeak!). Are you really going to run your audience through that wringer? Sounds like fun.
@Oona, I don't quite get it, either. In both BBJ and SLJ, we get pretty broad hints (as in, subtle as a freight train) that Eliot has experience in killing innocents (or "exterminating the entire family," as the Busey put it).
I mean, I love Eliot to death, but I don't need to see bodies stacked up like cordwood to know he's a killer.
Even Sophie knows. "You're not that man any more," not, "But you're not a killer!"
You know, while I loved, loved the park scene and of course the OOT warehouse (he is so hot) ;) I think the best little bit of Kane was in SLJ at the beginning after his friend was captured. Grumpy or annoyed Eliot is one thing and rather funny. However, when he turned away from the big screens, he was scary - just flat scary. I actually recoiled a bit from the look in his eyes.
So big deal, Eliot is a killer. I was more troubled that he was also a hypocrit :-) Afterall, who was the one who busted up Sophie in terms of not being able to trust her? Then we find out after they've been targeting Moreau all season, that he held back the fact he used to work for him. I realize in the heat of the chase the team gave him a pass on this but can we expect this secret to effect the way they trust Eliot in the future. Of is everyone going to be in such a feel good mode it will be forgotten. It would seem that Sophie would have justification to at a minimum point out the irony if not exact some payback ill feelings.
Just watched and haven't really had a chance to mull the finale over.
Any ep of Lev is better than 99% of what other shows offer. Having said that, I thought the "San Lorenzo Job" was a nice, average Lev ep. "The Big Bang Job" was better but the TNT scheduling gap really took me out of my happy, continuity place.
Hardison just gets better every freakin' ep. Can we have Istanbul cabbie-drivin' Sophie all the time instead of the new "found herself" Sophie?
Okay, Nate gets laid, Parker gets gold, and Eliot gets...what? No payback. No closure. He's pretty much wall-paper in the second half of the finale. He went from warehouse massacre to puppy-cuddler? And really, Moreau shoots...her? Because, yeah, she's the biggets danger. What's she gonna do, tilt her head fetchingly at him til he's immobilised, lol?
Also, the train was amazing and I would have loved to have seen more! Eliot in the warehouse would have worked for me if there had been one bullet wound...a graze...hell, a frikkin' hole in his shirt. It would have given the scene a more hiegtened sense of danger and tension for mke. But, hey, his hair did look really good...
I absolutely REFUSE to believe that Eliot knowingly killed an entire family. I think he set a bomb, or something, with the intention of killing his intended target, not knowing that the entire family would be coming home. Of course, the intended victim would be a bad, bad man. Eliot wouldn't leave the pony farm otherwise. :)
To believe my theory, I also have to believe that he was working with a partner who knew, and that is why he now works alone. He may have had to kill a child soldier in Africa in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, but I won't believe he intentionally killed innocents unless Rogers & Co say so. Won't, won't, won't.
Also, I don't understand why anyone invested in a Nate/Sophie relationship would think there would be a courtship. Their relationship began with him chasing her, and at one time she shot him. It is not a wine-and-dine relationship. It's an excitement and sudden decision relationship. The kiss was even a sudden passion decision.
I really liked the reveal, with Sophie saying uh-oh and Nate's expression saying uh-oh. Season 4 will probably find them trying to decide whether to move forward or try to go back to being friends. Or not. It will still be awesome!
@ Jill No offense but that scene shouldn't have been about what people who don't really care about them want but about what fans who have been invested in their relationship for 3 seasons wanted.
Seriously? Last time I looked, the show's writing was about telling a good story, not about making a group of fangirls who can't tell Leverage from Dawson's Creek happy.
@RevTrask, there is actually a scene after the shootout where you can see a tiny little bit of blood on Eliot.
It's after the explosion, when he's getting to his feet, and we get a, *ahem*, very nice belt buckle-area shot. If you pause that shot, you can see a little scratch on his left hand with a bit of blood.
And, yes, I paused on a belt buckle shot. Don't judge me.
Something occurred to me this morning, so one more question: Ribera's last act as President of San Lorenzo was to sign the arrest order for Moreau. Why not just have Vittori sign it once he was in office? If we're realistic, we know Vittori is too naive and inexperienced to be an effective President, and that someone else will soon pull his strings -- did you mean to leave his ability to keep Moreau in prison an open question, or was it simply an opportunity for Ribera to get even with Moreau and leave office more willingly? Or both? It's hard to imagine that Vittori could keep Moreau in jail for long, no matter what The Italian says.
@Guru - It's implied that the General will be doing a lot of the leading.."advising". As he was essentially the "client" in this ep, we can assume he's a good guy.
SueN: I could never judge you, darlin'. I myself have always had a keen interest in...belt buckles. Nothing sexier than a man with great...accessories.
While beautifully shot, that scene is still juuuust a tad OTT for me. But, who knows, some of that may be attributed to that pesky continuity disruption from TNT's scheduling. And his hair really did look good.
PS- My GF just said "Couldn't he have *rolled* in the oil a bit?", lol!
... we get pretty broad hints (as in, subtle as a freight train) that Eliot has experience in killing innocents (or "exterminating the entire family," as the Busey put it).
SueN., could you please explain to this poor noob what a "Busey" is? Urban Dictionary had one entry where Gary Busey was unfavorably compared to Nick Nolte, but that didn't shed much light.
Also, thank you for "Peppard/Hepburn"; made me smile.
wv: insith. A moment in which one becomes attuned to the darker side of one's own nature.
@JLT - This is talked about on the commentaries for the Season 1 and 2 DVD's. I'm paraphrasing what I remember from those. 'Busey' is the term that Rogers et al have given to the main bad guy's sidekick. It comes from Gary Busey's role in the first Lethal Weapon movie, Mr. Joshua.
Mr. Joshua's job was basically to do the dirty work for the main bad guy. There's not always a 'Busey' in every episode of Leverage, but more often not, there is.
In The Big Bang Job, the 'Busey' is Chapman, the guy who now has Eliot's old job for Moreau, the one who drove the car when Eliot went to 'kill' Atherton.
A friend sent me a link to an..unusual (but safe for work) product.
http://www.x-tremegeek.com/puppy-tweets.html
WHY, upon reading the description, was my first thought "Hey, Hardison could have a FIELD DAY with something like that tucked into some bad guy's pocket..."
Thanks Rusty for the explanation of "Busey." I have the DVDs for Seasons 1 and 2, but in my region they came without extras of any kind, not even subtitles! I've whined about this elsewhere, but will repeat here. It makes me sad not to have access to moments of backstory that had to be cut for time, the no-doubt hilarious and informative commentaries, and other goodies that Region 1 viewers got. Still, having Leverage on disk is way better than NOT having Leverage on disk, so I'll count my blessings.
To all of you associated with the show, best wishes for 2011. I'm keenly looking forward to the new season.
Oops, I lied. My Season Two DVD set has episode commentaries, creators' Q & A, several "making of" featurettes and a gag reel. Still I would have loved deleted scenes, also subtitling to assist comprehension when my ears fail me.
Or it should have been, and obviously was, about what the writers and creators of these characters felt was the best way to advance and develop the characters, their relationship, and their overall arc.
We could argue if it was the best way. I think the TV tropes site should be closed, that way maybe Rogers & co could actually come up with something original for the Nate/Sophie relationship.
Rogers & Co. don't "owe" us scenes of Nate and Sophie cooing and courting like a couple on the Lifetime network. They only owe us a Nate and Sophie who are growing and maturing and learning how to be people.
Drunken sex means growing and maturing as a couple? Wow, that's a first.
Also, this is a 47-minute con/heist show, not Breakfast at Tiffany's. Which part of the basic premise of their show should the writers jettison so Nate and Sophie can get their Peppard/Hepburn on?
I could live without the silly and over-the-top Eliot fight scene, maybe the half naked young ladies prancing around a pool scene, that kind of thing I never thought I'd see on Leverage. So lame. I'd rather see a meaningful scene between a couple. The kind Amy Berg knows how to write, we used to get those when she was around.
Seriously? Last time I looked, the show's writing was about telling a good story, not about making a group of fangirls who can't tell Leverage from Dawson's Creek happy.
Obviously you watch that show since you mentioned it, I don't so I don't know what you're talking about. All I want is a mature writing of this adult couple. And telling a good story? Okay, maybe in like half of episodes per season, certainly the Moreau arc isn't what I'd call that.
FritznBrenda, do you even understand what Leverage is about? It appears that what you want, and all you want, is to find a couple to 'ship on every show you watch, including Leverage. Then, you expect the show's episode premise, plotting and character development to arrange themselves around the development of Nate and Sophie's relationship, regardless of how relevant to the show's concept that may be. Worse, you expect the writers to ignore who Nate actually is and turn him not Sophie's swain, bringing her chocolates, kissing her hand and being "nice" to her, simply because of one impulsive kiss that had a totally different meaning than you chose to see.
You are the one person on planet earth who actually thinks that Leverage is about Nate and Sophie's romance. Heaven knows why you've pinned all your romantic hopes on Amy Berg, but I think most of us here would agree that she understands the real premise of this show, as well as the real nature of Nate and Sophie's relationship, and were she still with it, would write them accordingly.
Dawson's Creek and Everwood are teen-oriented shows full of the kind of romance you want, which is no doubt why the posters mentioned them. What you don't seem to get is that Leverage is not.
I can see why the people on the TNT board got so darned tired of your nonsense and finally said so en masse. Hopefully, it's not our turn to be treated to endless diatribes every time you don't get the cheap romcom romance you want, but rather get the kind of relationship damaged and non-communicative people have. Because that's what you'll continue to get on Leverage.
Rogers please set her straight if you can. Amy, are you out there? If so, help us out.
Drunken sex means growing and maturing as a couple? Wow, that's a first.
Have you watched much drama before?
And I mean that seriously. This is almost certainly the next step in their relationship--but not all steps are positive. In any relationship, there are often steps forward and steps backward, and these steps are not the same for every couple. (And, um,hello? Virginia Woolf?)
And remember...Nate is not a nice man. And he still has ISSUES (in capital letters, boldfaced type and headline size) he has to deal with. And we'd be pretty naive to think that Sophie doesn't have skeletons in her closet. This behavior is, in retrospect, almost inevitable given the two characters' history.
I like this move. The bed is not the endgame; it's still the middle game. There's still room for growth and there's still story to tell. I'm not sure people are surprised by this.
At best, the bed, like the kiss, is a complication. That's why the romantic comedy analogy as well as the teen-dream TV show comparisons used by other posters are so apt. If Nate and Sophie did the deed, and I haven't signed on to that view of the final scene, things just got a whole lot more complicated. A hearts-and-flowers view of this relationship (and a soft-core love scene to accompany it) simply aren't part of the equation.
@Anonymous - Drunken sex means growing and maturing as a couple? Wow, that's a first.
*sigh*
Seriously, you don't get this show or these characters or their arc at all, do you?
The "growing and maturing" I referred to had nothing to do with sex (drunken or otherwise), or even romance. It had to do with their growing and maturing as people. And, yes, Rogers & Co. gave us quite a bit of that this season.
For the first time, Nate and Sophie have been interacting as equals, partners, friends, adults, with affection and respect for each other. No more doormat, co-dependent, enabling Sophie, and very little overbearing, condescending, congenital prick Nate. What we've seen is the actual, honest-to-God development of an actual, honest-to-God relationship. These two characters are worlds away from where they started in S1, when the "romance" you harken back to so lovingly was based on fantasy, wishful thinking, and the flirtation of two people who had no idea who the other really was.
As for the halcyon days of Amy Berg … she wrote seven of 27 eps in S1 and 2. And, yes, she wrote great character stuff (for all five characters, btw). She also wrote 12 Step, where Nate was at the height of his assholery, and Fairy Godparents, where he was perfectly willing to break a child for the sake of the con. Yeah, boy, Berg's Nate was a prince.
(And, yes, I'm a huge Berg fan, too. But I also recognize that she was just one in a stable of talented writers.)
We get it. You don't like this show as it's written. You don't like the "wasted time" spent on fight scenes. You don't like the geek references or the thief stuff or the heist stuff. You don't like that Nate's an asshole. But this is the show the rest of us are watching. This is the show that Rogers & Co. are writing, and that Amy Berg used to write for. I have no idea what show you're watching, but I suspect it exists only in your imagination.
Also, coming onto Rogers’ blog and insulting him for writing his show and not yours is probably not the way to get him, or anyone else, to take your complaints seriously.
Also, coming onto Rogers’ blog and insulting him for writing his show and not yours is probably not the way to get him, or anyone else, to take your complaints seriously.
Nicely said. I've been resisting the urge to post regarding the insults flung at Rogers et. al. on a blog where he does us a huge favor and answers our question. But these recent few petulant posts are well beyond reasonable or appropriate, and it's time this was pointed out to her.
I once saw Steven Moffat walk away from BBC America's forums because a few posters insulted the actor who replaced Richard Coyle in "Coupling." I would hate to think Rogers, who has shown himself to be as patient, good humored and gracious as they come, would be pushed to do something similar.
But really, FNB, insulting the man on his own blog because he isn't writing the show the way you want is more than a bit much. You really should do what we suggested on the TNT board and find a group of like-minded viewers to complain to. I don't know where you'll find them, but at least you'll find someone who cares.
I have every confidence that Rogers will continue to make fun, entertaining TV for us to enjoy.
We tend to view the Twitter chatter, Livejournal and forums stuff as your conversation and creativity using what we make, like, ah, we're the starter stock on your entertainment soup. We do our thing, you guys do yours, and we appreciate you dig the show. I think that works best.
Guru, I like that you quoted this over in the TNT forums. I honestly can't see him getting his knickers in a twist over any of this. (Er, Mr. Rogers, I DO hope that your knickers ARE remaining tangle-free? :D )
Actually, after reading many pages of impassioned posts (and writing, over the years, an embarrassing number of overwrought spiels of my own) I wonder if advocates for worthier, weightier causes look upon the energy and time expended in fan discussions, and sob their hearts out with envy.
@JLT, I'm sure you're right, and have little doubt Rogers is made of sterner stuff. But at the same time, I felt the need to use the Moffat example to underscore the inappropriateness, and possible consequences, of the content of posts such the ones FNB has left of late.
I think the TV tropes site should be closed, that way maybe Rogers & co could actually come up with something original for the Nate/Sophie relationship.
I don't really care about someone feeling the need to lecture the showrunners on how to depict a relationship – opinionate away, you're only making yourself sound entitled and petulant, and I'm sure it's nothing he hasn't heard before – but this little moment kind of boggles me. Honestly. I'm struggling to know where to start.
One, you want an amazingly fascinating site, crammed with volunteer manhours, dedicated to exploring a subject that thousands of people love – and exploring it entertainingly and well – to be closed down so that a couple on a tv show can be written the way you want? Even if that was a flippant remark intended to show how such a populist pursuit as TV Tropes is beneath your notice (which I gather was the idea, but if not, I'm open to correction), do you not think the desire you expressed is rather astonishingly self-involved?
Two, TV Tropes merely tracks the ways stories incarnate, the ins and outs of patterns that play out in our culture of storytelling. It's not completely comprehensive, but it covers a LOT. Demanding that storytellers debar themselves from using the tools of story just because they've been documented is ludicrous. They use them because they communicate something. It's like telling someone to not to use any of the words listed in the dictionary, and find original ways to talk to others. The skill is using them well, not finding a new way to communicate every single time you try to say something. You may not like how Rogers&co chose to go about communicating Nate and Sophie's development, but to complain that it's because he relies on tropes is ridiculous.
Three, from what I can gather, your issue with what was shown between them was not that it was too conventional, but that it didn't show the conventional couply beats that most of us have seen numerous times before (and which have been well documented). If anything, doing it this way is comparatively original, because it shows their relationship isn't really about the sweaty moments, and "getting together" isn't the happily ever after of most chick flicks; it's about the consequences that come after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't THAT the bulk of your complaint?
wv: extend. This rant could have been so much shorter....
Okay, I apologize if these questions have been asked before. I didn't read all of the posts above ;-) They are burning on my nails though...
1. Why didn't Eliot tell Nate about his past with Damien Moreau? He knows that Moreau is dangerous, he knows they don't have enough time for careful planning. Eliot is a professional. Nate could have used that kind of information to make a better and safer plan. Why would Eliot risk the safety of his fellow team members by not telling Nate??? (Please don't say he did it because it is a nice twist in the story.)
2. Um, that Matrix-like shootout with Eliot in the empty warehouse. Does Eliot have superpowers now? I mean, I do realize that this show is not primarily about being realistic... Eliot showed an amazing dexterity in the pilot, after all (and that was fun). But this was too much for me. I mean, when I saw Eliot facing all those armed goons, I thought "Wow, this is exciting! How is he going to get out of this?" You had me biting me fingernails there! - And when he started ducking the bullets in slow motion, taking them all out like a super hero... I felt betrayed. This wasn't bending the laws of nature, this was breaking them. It looked good, I'll grant you that. But it made me feel like crying. Could you please explain this choice of solution?
3. In the end of ep. 15, why did Moreau only shoot the Italian and then run? It takes a second to pull a trigger. Why didn't he shoot Nate and Eliot, too?
Um, last but not least - thank you for this show. I really love it :-D
No one seems to have pointed this out yet, and I think someone should:
For 3 seasons now we've watched Parker do the moral equivalent of what Eliot did, but with laser beams not bullets. She's never set off an alarm and no one seems to have a problem with believing that-- although there are some senses in which those fields were even more impenetrable than the gantlet Eliot was running (or sliding through...and no, "gantlet" is neither a typo nor a misspelling). If she misjudges by a nanometer, the alarm goes off; if he misjudges by a nanometer, he gets grazed - unpleasant but not fatal. So her escapades of this sort require far more specificity and his have far greater risks, but there are other things which make both actions easier and harder than the other.
But on the whole: If you can buy Parker dancing through one of those sensor fields, I can't imagine why you'd have trouble buying Eliot sliding through a hail of bullets.
Thoroughly enjoyed both finale episodes, but Rogers, you’re sure setting that bar awfully high for Season 4’s finale. The park scene was superb! Kudos to you, Dean, Chris, the L-Team & the entire crew for a fun & adventurous Season 3.
Don’t recall anyone mentioning these 2 great lines: Nate complains about Hardison’s ‘decoy corpse’ Hardison: “… You asked for a white male John Doe you got a white male John Doe. This ain’t the GAP!” and later Moreau (to Eliot): “By the way, the white hat doesn’t suit you, but I looove the hair.”
Sorry, don’t remember who asked, but loved the question about Eliot vs. Raylan Givens! It would reunite Christian & Tim Olyphant (although these new characters are soooo opposite what they played in ‘Broken Hearts Club’). Eliot Spencer… master Retrieval Specialist; “Justified” Deputy U.S. Marshal, Raylan Givens… fastest draw on FX; Having to look at both of them on the screen at the same time… priceless .
Thanks again, John! Season 4 can't come soon enough.
Who was the Italian's call to in the episode when Nate told her to buzz off (The Morning After Job)? Who was she working with? Did I miss a clue to this in the last two eps?
If I did not, does this mean the Italian will return?
"I have a 24-year-old genius with a smartphone and a problem with authority" That was one of the best lines ever!
My questions: 1. Did you know what you wanted to do for the finale from the start of the season? Not episode related but I hope you will answer: 2. Parker is just a great character! And for what I know, Beth is a very good actress and person. Do you have any fun moments to share when filming with her? And last but not least: 3. I live in Spain and will start college in the fall. My dream would be to become a filmmaker and I specially love video&sound editing + visual effects. What film school would you recommend me?
Thank you for your time and for making such an awesome show. I love every minute of it! :)
For 3 seasons now we've watched Parker do the moral equivalent of what Eliot did, but with laser beams not bullets. She's never set off an alarm and no one seems to have a problem with believing that.
Maybe that's exactly why some people have a problem with it. We've seen Parker avoiding laser beams for 3 seasons - it's a part of her character. Eliot diving through a hail of bullets was a first time.
@Samantha Maybe that's exactly why some people have a problem with it. We've seen Parker avoiding laser beams for 3 seasons - it's a part of her character. Eliot diving through a hail of bullets was a first time.
I don't think that's it. If Eliot spends all next season in those types of situations, and comes out similarly unharmed, people will be more, not less, angry about it.
I like the point kta made. You don't think about it with Parker, but it's true. She could breathe wrong and set off an alarm. We generally acknowledge that these people are so skilled that they rarely fail.
I kinda agree that TV Tropes should be closed...or not allow to have dumb people posting rights...
Too many of them devolve into people posting things because they want to post, but have no clue what they're talking about. like a trope "Falling on your sword" about sacrificing yourself for honor, will devolve into examples of people tripping when holding a knife. Or just holding a knife...or just tripping.
Today I had a vivid discussion with my dad about the time you spend answering all the questions. He said this is probably done by one of your secretaries. He didn't convince me at any point but if you could answer anything that would prove him wrong it would be fantastic (and feel fantastic too ;)) Thank you very much!
Ah, well. That's the problem with letting anyone (for a given value of "anyone") have a voice, isn't it. Anyone uses it. No doubt the discussion taking place over there would be much better undertaken by the learned and the sophisticated over cigars and cognac, but that would require us taking showers and leaving our houses and computer screens, and no one wants that.
I agree, it's not ideal. But the flotsam is pretty easy to navigate, and for the rest, it's informative and fun and hews to the communal nature of story. Or is it so existentially difficult to bear that there are decent forums and wikis out there which have an element of people who don't get it speaking just for the sake of speaking? Because if that's the case ... like graft and stealing in Africa, I don't think there's anyone in the world that can help you with that. Sorry.
Perhaps some kind of trap, baited with My Little Pony Rancher Eliot, could be set up. And once they're all safely in one place, with no telecommunication access, treacly fanfic can be read over a loudspeaker to keep them happy and corralled away from our conversations.
Okay, now this is turning into a lame-ass reality tv show in my head. I think I have to stop.
Just read all 465 comments - whew! The only thing I want to add is that just before Eliot took on the warehouse full of goons in that spectacular shoot-out, it seemed to me that when Nate said Eliot's name he was conveying that he knew Eliot might not make it out alive and letting him know he didn't have to do it - which of course Eliot felt he did in order to save Nate and The Italian and bring down Moreau. As for the unbelievability of the shoot-out (and even when Moreau shot The Italian) - everyone seems to assume that it is a simple thing to hit what you're shooting at, which is especially not true of a moving target. Moreau has men who do his shooting for him - I doubt he spends much time on a shooting range honing that particular skill, so I can easily see how he did not kill her. That said, it likely would have added a little credibility to the scene if Eliot had been grazed by a bullet on his arm or leg or something, but who really cares - it was just a blast to watch and everything I expect out of Eliot!
Wow, 465 comments. And I'm late to the party, saw the finale when it aired, but then didn't think to come here and comment until after I'd re-watched the whole thing yesterday. So, if this gets missed, ah well. My fault.
First, just wanted to say that I've admired each of the actors for their performances over the three seasons of Leverage. But Christian Kane just did fantastic work in Big Bang Job. Moving, gripping, goose-bump inducing stuff. The scene in the park especially.
And me, I'm thrilled that Nate and Sophie ended up in the sack. Can't wait to see what impact this has on their relationship.
My question was...I noticed similarities in the structure of this two-part finale with the First and Second David Jobs. The first part of each finale was more action-oriented, with things almost going to hell towards the end, while the second part of each finale was less action, more con. When your team wrote Big Bang/San Lorenzo, was there some inspiration from First/Second David, or did it just work out that way?
Either way, thanks much. Tremendously enjoyed watching!
@Neenah, and not just a moving target, but a moving target who is shooting back.
One can assume Moreau's goons are very good at execution-style shooting (the wiping out whole families thing), but there's a huge difference between that and being in the middle of a firefight where the bullets are coming not just from the target, but from your own side as well.
@Sullivan, that's ripe for Leverage. But there are two frauds here. First is the faked study (which is not news in the academic community.)
Second, and more insidious is Jenny McCarthy and her autism-lovin' celebrity pals, who have not only irresponsibly fueled the now epidemic levels of denial about a non-existent autism/vaccine link among parents, but also put a veneer of credibility on all manner of beliefs about curability of autism, unsubstantiated dietary practices and who knows what else. They play on the gullibility of far too many Americans, who will believe a celebrity sooner than they will an expert.
And that is how we got the faked vaccine study, by a huckster doctor who long ago lost his British license, so far. Check CNN's article and see how many people have rallied behind him; it boggles the mind. If there isn't a couple Leverage episodes in all that, the writers aren't trying very hard.
Man, both episodes were cracking awesome. Loved Eliot, loved the link with Parker and him as buddies, LOVED Sophie, but why the teasing again with the name. Will we find it out at all and when did you decide not to share it? Anyway, I really liked the end scene(who didn't) and I hope you keep the fun bit between those two by playing with The Kids next season- S and N trying to hide it, the rest trying to find it and bugging them. Great job! Keep up with good work
Sorry, John, but I have one more question now that I'm rewatching the season. In #302, when Nate and Sophie win the Reunion king/queen role, they ask Hardison if he was responsible. His reply: "I don't rig elections. I mean, I could..." Was that line written knowing that he'd rig one by season's end? This series is full of throwaway lines in there that I miss all the time, aren't there? Damn you!
Anon @6:54 - good point re: people believing celebrities over experts.
At the same time, I don't know that Jenny McCarthy is so different from many other parents of children with autism - they're so desparate for an answer to the WHY question, that they're willing to believe any answer that's presented with a veneer of authority.
Not to say that the cult of celebrity isn't there, and that her activism hasn't helped to propogate the fraud, just that I see her as more of part of a big sad circle than an active deceiver in it.
All that said, the show definitely tackled the way the masses can be manipulated in the SLJ, and it would be interesting to see how they would deal with something like this.
Nate Ford once said something to the effect that 'causation is very difficult to prove'... After reading the CDC's most current opinions, I simply opt for the single-use/thimerasol-free vaccines... but I digress... I'm so glad we have the Leverage team to shed light on injustice and give us pause. It can be unsettling to see the diversity in Ethics around the World, the feeling of having them to Champion your cause is priceless.
I'm looking forward to more Nate/Sophie next season. It's like you're torturing us not giving us enough of those two to keep us wanting more but even if/when you give us a lot more, they will still be awesome and will never get tired of them. Just saying.
"Correlation does not equal causation" is one of the basic axioms of research. It's also what I call "The Great Tobacco Loophole" because it allowed the line of Big Tobacco CEO's to sit in front of Congress and state, with straight faces, that they did not believe cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, even when they knew full well the evidence was overwhelming that it did.
People keep saying that Eliot is Batman. I've said since Season 1 that Eliot is Wolverine.
And Kane would rock hard if he took the part over from Jackman.
I enjoyed the finale, the San Lorenzo Job more than the first half. When the General asks Eliot if he would leave his team behind, and Eliot looks at Parker, who goes full-on Woobie -- all innocent and trusting -- yeah, that worked wonderfully. Nobody could leave anyone behind who manages to make that kind of face. Parker is the only one who could pull that off without breaking character. I see her as everyone's favorite little sister.
I also liked how something the crew did earlier came back to bite them -- Moreau's reference to Doucherman. Foreshadowing? Will Moreau come back for revenge?
The bookends to 0316 were also nice: starting out with Moreau changing (or creating, I'm vague on that) a law for his convenience, and at the end protesting, "You can't do that! There are laws!" Wonderful.
I am also currently watching the Season 1 DVDs, which makes it even more obvious how much the crew has changed and grown. Parker has learned to like and trust these people, even developed feelings. Eliot the loner seems to have come to need the others. I see Hardison as the crew's heart and center, without him, I think the crew would fall apart. And while Nate started out as the crew's conscience, it's now Sophie who acts as his conscience.
Which makes me think that springing Nate from jail at the start of the season might be a missed opportunity. It would have been interesting to see how the crew would function without Nate. Could someone else fill in for him, like 7-of-9 did for Sophie? Stirling for example? Is Nate actually the most easily replacable member of the crew?
1). Why would you ever want to break up one of the best ensemble casts on TV unless you absolutely had to?
2). I think its understood that the team could technically run cons w/o Nate, but that Nate is the superior idea man on the team and brings that big picture and genius-bordering-on-crazy viewpoint that allows the team to aim and achieve at a much higher level than they would w/o him. I have to think that a Nate-less team wouldn't be stealing countries anytime soon.
I think its understood that the team could technically run cons w/o Nate, but that Nate is the superior idea man on the team and brings that big picture and genius-bordering-on-crazy viewpoint that allows the team to aim and achieve at a much higher level than they would w/o him.
I think it's understood. And I also think it's understood that THEY are now able to aim and achieve at a higher level even without Nate. But they all bow to the master in a particular area, whether its Parker and thieving, Hardison and hacking or Nate and his schemes...
1) For variety. Just to see how things would change, and how much influence the character has. I didn't say, do away with Nate entirely. It's like with Sophie: when she was replaced for a while, the team dynamics changed. It might be fun to explore for a couple of epiosdes how the team would operate under another Mastermind. For example, who of the others might try to take over, and how would the others react? If Nate brought Sterling in as a replacement (sorry, my favorite tongue-in-cheek idea, as per Parker's "He's like Nate. Evil Nate.") while he was indisposed for a bit, what would happen? Afterwards, an exasperated Nate might have to pick up the pieces. Which might also be fun to watch.
The need you cite would simply be interesting stories. Sure, replacing someone doesn't automatically make interesting stories. But neither does categorically refusing to explore the possibilities.
2) Considering that they were all successful criminals before they joined forces, that's such a given it doesn't need saying.
For example, who of the others might try to take over, and how would the others react? If Nate brought Sterling in as a replacement (sorry, my favorite tongue-in-cheek idea, as per Parker's "He's like Nate. Evil Nate.")
Well, that'd be the interesting one, with lots of nice overtones. (and that's mostly because we've already seen when Sophie and Eliot's sat in the big chair).
The only other interesting one is where Parker has to play the big cheese (i.e., the area where the character is most out of their element....)
Not a question, but I think Eliot's slide across the floor on his knees, both guns out and shooting and dodging bullets from a six or seven evil henchmen at the same time...I think it broke my badass meter.
Superb finale with lots to keep every character, every actor and every viewer delighted. San Lorenzo is a bow to Cat's Cradle? Just moved from the Caribbean to the Med? The Global Aviation building looks a lot like the airport at Beaumont sur Mare in "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Or is it just Cookie Cutter International Style? Thanks for having so much fun and sharing it with us. --ml
For example, who of the others might try to take over, and how would the others react? If Nate brought Sterling in as a replacement (sorry, my favorite tongue-in-cheek idea, as per Parker's "He's like Nate. Evil Nate.")
Sterling taking over could be fun IF they could do it without making it too OOC. On the one hand, yeah, more Sterling is always good. On the other, the team specifically rejected that idea in Zanzibar, when Nate's and Maggie's safety was on the line, and so I wouldn't want to see the writers force the situation just cause it sounds good on paper when it's not, at this point, consistent with their characters.
And really, the show has mined that territory already. Nate has already been temporarily indisposed in Bank Shot Job and Zanzibar with Hardison and Eliot stepping into the planning roles, and Sophie has run a con or two in her time.
I think the more interesting development at this point (so we're not going to the same well again) might be to have the team be forced to step in and work around no Hardison, no Eliot or no Parker (not incl. Sophie since they obviously worked around her).
Those guys have more concrete skills, so it presents a bit more of an obvious challenge, and it'd be hysterical to see Hardison or Eliot trying to crawl through a ventilation duct or Nate trying to keep his ass from getting killed by goons that Eliot could easily take out, etc.
The team did fine without him (or a replacement) during the six months he was in prison. We may not have seen it but the rest of the team (almost certainly) ran lots of cons during that time.
They stayed together, see the redecorating, the closeness and all of them knowing Sophie's real name.
Like Rogers said in the 301 post game: "They are now much more Nate's peers."
I think they definitely missed Nate and wanted to get him out of prison. But I also think that they would take more time to recover from a job and they'd be more focused on that particular job, without Nate's scheming and his unrelenting, almost addictive, search for more clients.
To the people saying that pairing Nate/Sophie would ruin the show, well, I think that only bad writing could ruin it.
I trust the team behind Leverage :) this show keeps getting better.
I think Nate/Sophie can be a good thing, if they do it well. You can't play the will-they-won't-they card forever.
Are there any chances we'll see Sterling back next season? ...pretty please? ^^
As an Italian fan, I hope Elisabetta Canalis won't be back. You can say she's a nice girl and everything, but...she's not nearly as good as anyone else on the show. Did you know that she dubs herself in Italian? *Double pain* ;_;
Gina saying just a couple of Italian words in season 1 was way better. I wonder if she actually speaks some of my language. (Tim speaking Italian sounds funny :P)
Just when I think I can't love the show any more, you have a finale like this.
Questions - sorry if they've been asked, I did read through the other comments, but there were a lot.
1) Is The Italian Moreau's ex wife? Maybe it was just me, but I totally read a scorned woman vibe about her. Plus the fact that Moreau shot her and not Nate or Eliot. Those two have history.
2) Was the mention of Larry Duberman and Manticore subtle foreshadowing? Like, by taking down all these criminals, the team leaves crime world in shambles, and other people are going to step up into those vacancies. Someone else has to finance all these drug cartels, etc - will whoever replaces Moreau be even worse? (Will it be The Italian?)
3) Did Hardison and Parker further discuss her pretzel cravings?
4) I love Leverage's non-cliffhanger-y cliffhangers. But the S1 and S2 finales both left a clear starting point for the opening eps - get the team back together. This time, the team is already together - so does that make it more difficult, to decide on a starting point for S4?
5) Is there an ETA on the season 3 dvd?
Also, thank you for the Nate/Sophie bed reveal. I adored it, and read it as totally in character. The third season, to me, was all about them developing an honest, real friendship, and this seemed like the perfect way to continue moving that relationship forward in their own, unique, screwed up way. I hate shows that drag out the whole will they/won't they for the whole series, and one of the things I like best about this show is the constant character development you see in all of them. And let's face it - they were never going to have a typical courtship.
I have so much love for this show and everyone who works on it, so thanks - now I just have to find a distraction until S4.
I'm sorry, really. But apparently I'm compuslive. Or obsessed. Or just need to stop watching the damn eps. But:
1) In "San Lorenzo," Eliot said he was the one sent to kill Flores (the "half" time he saved the general's life). Was he sent by Moreau, or was he freelancing by then?
2) So, Sophie is Evita, and all of Argentina … I mean, San Lorenzo … is crying for her now. How did they finesse what had to have been an elaborate state funeral (which usually includes the dear departed lying in state), and how did they get her out of the country without anyone recognizing her? And did they ever tell poor Michael?
Seriously, you need to come back to us and stop me before I post again!
Thanks for an awesome double finale to season 3, rock on season 4!
I laughed my ass off at Eliot's gun fighting scene - I hope that's the reaction you were going for, if so, you totally got it. His BAMF scenes at the pool also rocked.
I'd be interested to know which big moments in the eps we can attribute to which writer, if you can remember that far back! <3
1. San Lorenzo -- Cat's Cradle? (forgive me if this has been mentioned before.)
2. How much of Eliot's fight scenes are scripted, on average? I can't imagine it's shot-for-shot, but it's got to be a little bit more than "They fight," right?
What I liked most about the season finale were the tidbits of information on Eliot's background. Made him darker and way more interesting - and makes me wonder what else there is we don't know about. Any chance that we'll get so see some flashbacks of his past in season 4? I loved how you used the flashbacks in the first season (gee, how I would like to learn more about the monkey story!) and it would be so awesome to see something like that again.
Oh yeah, and the gunfight was cool, but I think I like Eliot better in close combat. By the way, will we ever see Eliot meeting his match?
Quick question....on closer look were those throwing knives in the harness Eliot wears and was there originally intended to be something more/different to the epic fight scene? :)
Okay, only recently found this blog so am reading up on as much as I can to catch up-pretty late to the party I know, but how often do we get blogs like this? Magic.:)
@Anon RE: Eliot considering leaving Parker behind; I really did not think that at all.
These two made the eps for me with these small moments-the reveal in the park, brilliant, brilliant scene, and that look, when asked if he would leave anyone behind and he looks at Parker, he knew damn well he wouldn't.
I loved the reveal of Eliot's past, the pool scene was amazing, the shoot out beyond epic, Hardison's wobbling trust issues with Eliot, everything was amazing. Hardison rocked his political rigging, I love all that stuff. It's what he does best. Sophie shone in TSLJ, she loves a good death scene does Sophie, and she worked it out totally!!Loved was both cool and chilling.
I don't get a sibling thing with Eliot and Parker at all. I see two broken people who respect each others abilities and have learned to care about each other and trust in each other, to a point that they are an awesome team. To me the deepest bonds are those that need no words. In a couple of looks I felt a deeper connection between these two who aren't meant to hook up than either of the pair that are hooking up lol!!
I know I know, y'all ain't going there. What a waste is all I'll say about that! Their scenes write themselves!! (Okay not quite but they rock!!)
1) Maybe I'm being dumb, but what exactly is Sophie enjoying in the car after the battery exploded? Are they being chased?
2) Why did Eliot choose Hardison to go with him to work Moreau? He must have known his past would come out and that Hardison would not react well, even if Hardison was never in any actual danger. Could he not have gone alone? It seemed like he was implying that he had been trying to take down Moreau alone anyway.
Penderita Penyakit kondiloma atau Kutil Kelamin yang telah terinveksi disarankan untuk segera melakukan pengobatan secepat mungkin sebelum Virus HPV penyebab kutil kelamin makin banyak berkembang biak di dalam sel darah makin lama dibiarkan akan memperparah kondisi organ vital karena kutil kelamin akan terus membesar sehingga terlihat seperti jengger ayam untuk penderita yang baru tertular kurang dari satu bulan biasanya akan lebih cepat ditanggulangi obat kutil kelamin Paling ampuh dari De Nature dan terbaik ada hanya di http://obatkutildikemaluan.blogdetik.com/ untuk mendapatkan informasi yang lebih jelas mengenai pengobatan kutil pada kelamin silahkan kontak langsung di nomer 0852 808 77 999 atau 0859 7373 5656 Bagaimana mengobatiAmbeienitusendiri. pengobatanyangterbaikuntukAmbeienadalahdariluardandalamsehinggaAmbeienbenarbenartuntasdantidakakankambuhlagi. obatAmbeienterbaik "AmbecleardariDeNature" AlamiAdalah obat Ambeien herbal yang memang terbaik untuk mengobati Ambeien, dan sudah terdaftar di badan obat dan makanan (BPOM) dengan nomer registrasi POM TR: 133 374 041. terbuat dari bahan alami antara lain terdiri Daung Ungu, Mahkota Dewa dan Kunyit Putih.
obat wasir, Adalah Obatalamiberkhasiatdalambentukkapsulyangberasaldari tanaman herbal seperti daun ungu, mahkota dewa dan kunyit putih, diberikan pada penderita jika penyakit masih dalam tingkatan stadium ringan
Okay, I'm very late to the party, and who knows if anyone will ever read this. Still, there may be someone else out there like me, who has just been introduced to Leverage and is coming here to read up on back discussion.
About why Moreau shot the Italian at the end of BBJ:
He had only one bullet. Eliot was shouting, "You've got one bullet, Moreau!" during his charge. I took that to mean, "You can either shoot Nate (and I'll be in your face in two seconds) or you can shoot me (and Nate will get away to plot against you another day)." Moreau took a third option by shooting the Italian, delaying all three of them when Nate and Eliot went to see if she was okay. That gave Moreau the time to make his escape.
549 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 549 of 549Part of what made Goran Visnjic so great was what an utter departure his performance was from what we ordinarily have seen him do. The guy's usually a pretty serious dramatic actor (and a damned good one), and it's a barrel of fun to see him play a villain with such relish. You're right Rogers, you had the perfect Moreau.
@ NinaMay
I thought the Nate's hat hidden by Sophie's face scene was an effective way to show Moreau first sensing his vulnerability. I know a lot of people thought he recognized Sophie, but he'd never seen her in person, just via the video feed, and how well could he be expected to remember her? That was all about the white hat, and what it might mean for Moreau.
@Guru
I agree it showed that he knew something was up, but to me it didn't read like he was at all concerned about it. He didn't react like a man who felt threatened or vulnerable; his amusement at Eliot's puppy ad alone was the reaction of a lazy lion to a man armed with a BB gun, or at least so it seemed to me. Not that he was ignorant of something being aimed his way, but just having no comprehension that it could actually do him damage. If he hadn't simply blown it off to begin with, I imagine the team would have faced a much bigger problem.
@Anonymous
The "dry heat" line is one from Aliens – Bill Paxton's character, Hudson, says it early on – and it's heavily sarcastic. What I wouldn't give for a "Game over, man! Game over!"
I haven't seen that movie since the first time, in the theater. I'd recognize the 'Game over, man' line (but they didn't use that one.)
So my question for Mr. Rogers is "Do you ever feel that cramming in wall-to-wall references and homages to other creative works (a la 'Family Guy' and 'Community') gets in the way of telling a good story?"
@Guru
I agree it showed that he knew something was up, but to me it didn't read like he was at all concerned about it. He didn't react like a man who felt threatened or vulnerable; his amusement at Eliot's puppy ad alone was the reaction of a lazy lion to a man armed with a BB gun, or at least so it seemed to me. Not that he was ignorant of something being aimed his way, but just having no comprehension that it could actually do him damage. If he hadn't simply blown it off to begin with, I imagine the team would have faced a much bigger problem.
Yeah, but that was the point..he WAS ignorant of the ways to fight what Nate was doing. And that was part of the reason he turned into a paper tiger. Because to THAT attack he DID have no defense.
Excellent episodes, and thanks for helping me win a bet that Sophie would make an Eva Peron joke during the San Lorenzo job. I do have one question, "The Italian" was always referring to her secret organization, and it seems to be beyond a single national affiliation, so... Was she on the Frequency?
Yeah, but that was the point..he WAS ignorant of the ways to fight what Nate was doing. And that was part of the reason he turned into a paper tiger. Because to THAT attack he DID have no defense.
Sure, he was blindsided by the method they used to attack him. I'm just saying that if he'd taken the threat seriously from the beginning, he's of the stature that I can easily see him finding some way of stopping them. Otherwise, for my mileage anyway, he's not much of an opponent.
Too much fun by half. Bravo! :D I liked both episodes equally, although my favorite, favorite bit was Eliot and Parker's "Don't ask me because I'd have to tell you". Just so well-played, and great sibling vibe from both actors that I'm a sucker for.
Brilliant casting of Moreau, too.
Questions
1. I did a cursory search through the comments so far and doesn't seem anyone asked, but at the end of 315, why did the Italian stroke the side of her neck, sort of exposing it? And coincidentally enough, that's the side Moreau ended up shooting...It came off as sort of a baseball signal to me. I kept expecting her to turn bad in the finale!
2. This is just my own crazy, detail-loving curiosity, but was San Lorenzo a Spanish/Portuguese colony before being taken over by the British? Hence the name? Seems like some kind of influence from Spain or Portugal. How much detail do you as writers come up with when you create a place like that? Do you have maps and things made up?
3. Dog fighting! Worse than a sex or money scandal (agree, although greenlighting bad reality shows is a close second, I'd say.) Was there a poll that determined that?
4. Vittori and Sophie getting thrown together seemed like the premise of a really cute romance novel or Korean drama. Can someone get on that? And that was jealousy on Nate's part, right?
Did you read this review?
http://assignmentx.com/2010/tv-review-leverage-season-3-the-san-lorenzo-job/<
"Also, the way the Nate/Sophie hookup is presented may work for people who couldn’t care less how the characters relate. However, for those who’ve been invested in their three-seasons-long courtship (which was enough to drive Sophie away at one point, because Nate wouldn’t get closer), the reveal of Sophie under the covers beside Nate without showing a deciding moment squelches the payoff. Subtlety is often an admirable quality, but this would seem to be overdoing it."
Loved both episodes, and thought it was a great ending of the season. If this was the last episode of the series I'd be sad but I'd still think it was a perfect ending. It wrapped up most of the loose ends from earlier episodes (ie cavalry, emp gun) and had much more of a team vibe than the first few episodes of s3.
Thank you so much for keeping the references to couple stuff subtle, this is the first time I liked (and laughed about) an Nate and Sophie relationship moment.
Kane was incredible in these two episodes. His acting is so subtle, his facial expressions show so much emotion even if his tone and words don't.
Loved that we saw a glimpse of how ruthless Eliot can be in BBJ and I loved the camaraderie with the general in SLR.
Most of my favourite moments have been mentioned, but two that I don't think have been are Eliot's lip trembling when Hardison asks him if he's cool, it's so subtle and it shows that he really didn't want to make the decision to confront Moreau.
Also the "tell me what he said" scene in the car, loved it when Eliot catches the bullet after it bounces of the roof and Chapman rolling his eyes after Eliot leaves the car.
Two questions:
The filming of the gunfight must have been awesome to witness. Where you there? And was it as brilliant as I am imagining it to be?
And speaking of loose ends, where do they go from here?
I really do apologize for this, Rogers, but, alas, I have another question. (It's your own damned fault for giving us characters who fascinate us so!) And I've read through the 410 comments/questions posted so far just to make sure it hasn't been asked before.
But, after repeated watchings of BBJ (which still blows me away every time), I've begun wondering just why Eliot took Hardison with him to meet with Moreau.
He's been trying throughout the season to hide the fact that he knows/has worked for Moreau from the team. Yet he had to know that having Hardison there would out him (so to speak). And he had to know that Hardison and the rest of the team would be pissed that he's kept this from them. But, had he gone alone, he possibly could have preserved his secret.
So … why take the risk of turning the team against him? Was it that he knew the jig was up and the past relationship would likely be exposed anyway? Or was it that he was just tired of hiding this from them and decided, "Fuck it, it's time to come clean, and I'll deal with the fallout later"?
Eliot's not a man who does things without thinking them through. So, if at all possible (and if you haven't given up yet), I'd love to know his reasoning behind this.
2 questions:
1. Did Parker and Hardison just kill the two guys who were guarding the bomb? I mean, they were still in the wagon when it exploded ...
2. Was Michael in on the plan to "kill" Rebecca / Sophie? And if not, did they tell him afterwards or does he still think she's dead?
Finally saw the finale. Fantastic work. My first instinct is to be a little off with the Elliot fight, but upon reflection I get it.
I think those henchmen were well aware of the reputation of Elliot Spencer. Some of them might've been around for his time with Moreau. If he's stopped shooting and he's just standing there, and knowing he was capable of doing what he did just a moment later, they might have retreated to the caveman brain, trying to work out just how utterly screwed they were.
That explanation works just spiffy for me. If I'll suspend my belief for Batman, I'll gladly do it for Elliot.
Question: Was "ramshorn" a call out to the fabulous Sparkhawk novels by David & Leigh Eddings?
wow. ;o) Once again, you and your writing team are simply amazing. Thank you for the show and for talking to us little people.
I would be surprised if you managed to make it to post #415, but I'd like to say that 1) Missed you guys! Can't wait for S4 2) Kane in a tank-top will be enjoyed for days 3) Eliot is awesome!
I, for one, am not sorry that Eliot ended up killing on screen. Sometimes it has to be done - and by god - he is the one to do it.
Jane said: Thank you so much for keeping the references to couple stuff subtle, this is the first time I liked (and laughed about) an Nate and Sophie relationship moment.
No offense but that scene shouldn't have been about what people who don't really care about them want but about what fans who have been invested in their relationship for 3 seasons wanted.
love your casting. any chance of ever getting oded fehr? he would make a great bad guy - and i heard he guest starred on kari's new show, maybe he could bring her along...lol.
Let me just say that the scene in the park (bbj) they all hit it out of the park, especially Christian. I know everyone wants to know what he did, but I'm guessing you aren't going to tell us because you don't like filling in all the blanks; you prefer to let us use our imaginations. I'm ok with that. I like being where Parker is - we know it was bad, and part of us wants to know, but we really really don't want to know because that will take something about Eliot that we like/trust away. We accept him as a man with a bad past who is trying to change his ways. I like the mystery better.
@Jill:
No offense but that scene shouldn't have been about what people who don't really care about them want but about what fans who have been invested in their relationship for 3 seasons wanted.
Or it should have been, and obviously was, about what the writers and creators of these characters felt was the best way to advance and develop the characters, their relationship, and their overall arc.
Rogers & Co. don't "owe" us scenes of Nate and Sophie cooing and courting like a couple on the Lifetime network. They only owe us a Nate and Sophie who are growing and maturing and learning how to be people.
Also, this is a 47-minute con/heist show, not Breakfast at Tiffany's. Which part of the basic premise of their show should the writers jettison so Nate and Sophie can get their Peppard/Hepburn on?
I loved all the shout-outs to past eps:
"We'd be the cavalry," from the bank shot job. Sophie showing up for 2 of her funerals. Pretzels (although that seemed extremely unresolved). It also seemed like at the beginning of the bbj, Parker is asking if the battery blows up, Hardison gave her a look and mouthed to knock it off, was that a reference to her occasional jealousy over smart, troubled clients or was is more a 'stop being weird and freaking people out kind' of look? I was also wondering - when Eliots friend (in sjj) is asking him if he would leave behind anyone from his team - it seemed to me for a minute, when Eliot looks at Parker, he almost questions if he would leave HER behind. She might be the one he would, at least sarcastically, consider to leaving. I believe he has actually saved everyone individually, as well as a team, at one time or another; the only time it seemed he was trying to rescue/save Parker was the inside job, and that seemed very reluctant, and even though he stayed and helped (and technically didn't leave her), he really never 'rescued' her. If that was what I saw, I'm glad he [silently] agreed that he would never leave her behind. Very older brother being protective of the little sister who annoys him but he actually loves. Although, I will agree with the minority that they would make a smoking hot couple, who would no doubt seem sexier in their professions working together, but I kind of see why that wouldn't happen.
Oh, hey, such a long shot, but maybe we just didn't see Parker and Hardison 'snacking on Pretzels', and they actually did. maybe Sophie and Nate won't remember what happend, or they didn't actually sleep together because they were too drunk.
@SueN - well said, very well said. Thank you!
I'm not sure I quite get what the confusion is over what Eliot did? It seems pretty obvious that he killed innocent people for Damien Moreau - quite likely an entire family. Did some people watch and still think that maybe he didn't kill people as a job or is there just clamoring for a body count?
I strongly suspect "pretzels" and the wake-up scene were brilliant pieces of legerdemain. Both were actually nearly static minor changes in status. That inevitably leads to the question of where the actual intimacy increase was happening? Seems to me it was in the park, on the benches. Especially after I watched the webchat (where you may or may not have actually announced it -- y'all are getting good at this doublespeak!). Are you really going to run your audience through that wringer? Sounds like fun.
@Oona, I don't quite get it, either. In both BBJ and SLJ, we get pretty broad hints (as in, subtle as a freight train) that Eliot has experience in killing innocents (or "exterminating the entire family," as the Busey put it).
I mean, I love Eliot to death, but I don't need to see bodies stacked up like cordwood to know he's a killer.
Even Sophie knows. "You're not that man any more," not, "But you're not a killer!"
You know, while I loved, loved the park scene and of course the OOT warehouse (he is so hot) ;) I think the best little bit of Kane was in SLJ at the beginning after his friend was captured. Grumpy or annoyed Eliot is one thing and rather funny. However, when he turned away from the big screens, he was scary - just flat scary. I actually recoiled a bit from the look in his eyes.
Well done.
So big deal, Eliot is a killer. I was more troubled that he was also a hypocrit :-) Afterall, who was the one who busted up Sophie in terms of not being able to trust her? Then we find out after they've been targeting Moreau all season, that he held back the fact he used to work for him. I realize in the heat of the chase the team gave him a pass on this but can we expect this secret to effect the way they trust Eliot in the future. Of is everyone going to be in such a feel good mode it will be forgotten. It would seem that Sophie would have justification to at a minimum point out the irony if not exact some payback ill feelings.
@Oona. Like I said before...too many people dreaming of Pony Rancher Eliot.
http://scavgraphics.deviantart.com/#/d35m267
Just watched and haven't really had a chance to mull the finale over.
Any ep of Lev is better than 99% of what other shows offer. Having said that, I thought the "San Lorenzo Job" was a nice, average Lev ep. "The Big Bang Job" was better but the TNT scheduling gap really took me out of my happy, continuity place.
Hardison just gets better every freakin' ep. Can we have Istanbul cabbie-drivin' Sophie all the time instead of the new "found herself" Sophie?
Okay, Nate gets laid, Parker gets gold, and Eliot gets...what? No payback. No closure. He's pretty much wall-paper in the second half of the finale. He went from warehouse massacre to puppy-cuddler? And really, Moreau shoots...her? Because, yeah, she's the biggets danger. What's she gonna do, tilt her head fetchingly at him til he's immobilised, lol?
Also, the train was amazing and I would have loved to have seen more! Eliot in the warehouse would have worked for me if there had been one bullet wound...a graze...hell, a frikkin' hole in his shirt. It would have given the scene a more hiegtened sense of danger and tension for mke. But, hey, his hair did look really good...
I absolutely REFUSE to believe that Eliot knowingly killed an entire family. I think he set a bomb, or something, with the intention of killing his intended target, not knowing that the entire family would be coming home. Of course, the intended victim would be a bad, bad man. Eliot wouldn't leave the pony farm otherwise. :)
To believe my theory, I also have to believe that he was working with a partner who knew, and that is why he now works alone. He may have had to kill a child soldier in Africa in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, but I won't believe he intentionally killed innocents unless Rogers & Co say so. Won't, won't, won't.
Also, I don't understand why anyone invested in a Nate/Sophie relationship would think there would be a courtship. Their relationship began with him chasing her, and at one time she shot him. It is not a wine-and-dine relationship. It's an excitement and sudden decision relationship. The kiss was even a sudden passion decision.
I really liked the reveal, with Sophie saying uh-oh and Nate's expression saying uh-oh. Season 4 will probably find them trying to decide whether to move forward or try to go back to being friends. Or not. It will still be awesome!
@ Jill
No offense but that scene shouldn't have been about what people who don't really care about them want but about what fans who have been invested in their relationship for 3 seasons wanted.
Seriously? Last time I looked, the show's writing was about telling a good story, not about making a group of fangirls who can't tell Leverage from Dawson's Creek happy.
@RevTrask, there is actually a scene after the shootout where you can see a tiny little bit of blood on Eliot.
It's after the explosion, when he's getting to his feet, and we get a, *ahem*, very nice belt buckle-area shot. If you pause that shot, you can see a little scratch on his left hand with a bit of blood.
And, yes, I paused on a belt buckle shot. Don't judge me.
Something occurred to me this morning, so one more question: Ribera's last act as President of San Lorenzo was to sign the arrest order for Moreau. Why not just have Vittori sign it once he was in office? If we're realistic, we know Vittori is too naive and inexperienced to be an effective President, and that someone else will soon pull his strings -- did you mean to leave his ability to keep Moreau in prison an open question, or was it simply an opportunity for Ribera to get even with Moreau and leave office more willingly? Or both? It's hard to imagine that Vittori could keep Moreau in jail for long, no matter what The Italian says.
oh damn - SueN, now I have to go back and watch the warehouse scene again, just to see if I can spot the blood in the, ahem, belt buckle shot
;o)
@Guru - It's implied that the General will be doing a lot of the leading.."advising". As he was essentially the "client" in this ep, we can assume he's a good guy.
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed the *ahem* lingering belt buckle shot. Emphasis on virility NOTED and LOGGED!
@VideoBeagle
All true. But it doesn't answer my question.
SueN: I could never judge you, darlin'. I myself have always had a keen interest in...belt buckles. Nothing sexier than a man with great...accessories.
While beautifully shot, that scene is still juuuust a tad OTT for me. But, who knows, some of that may be attributed to that pesky continuity disruption from TNT's scheduling. And his hair really did look good.
PS- My GF just said "Couldn't he have *rolled* in the oil a bit?", lol!
... we get pretty broad hints (as in, subtle as a freight train) that Eliot has experience in killing innocents (or "exterminating the entire family," as the Busey put it).
SueN., could you please explain to this poor noob what a "Busey" is? Urban Dictionary had one entry where Gary Busey was unfavorably compared to Nick Nolte, but that didn't shed much light.
Also, thank you for "Peppard/Hepburn"; made me smile.
wv: insith. A moment in which one becomes attuned to the darker side of one's own nature.
@JLT - This is talked about on the commentaries for the Season 1 and 2 DVD's. I'm paraphrasing what I remember from those. 'Busey' is the term that Rogers et al have given to the main bad guy's sidekick. It comes from Gary Busey's role in the first Lethal Weapon movie, Mr. Joshua.
Mr. Joshua's job was basically to do the dirty work for the main bad guy. There's not always a 'Busey' in every episode of Leverage, but more often not, there is.
In The Big Bang Job, the 'Busey' is Chapman, the guy who now has Eliot's old job for Moreau, the one who drove the car when Eliot went to 'kill' Atherton.
You know what was missing from that reveal at the end? Handcuffs.
(I know, I know... spoilers...)
A friend sent me a link to an..unusual (but safe for work) product.
http://www.x-tremegeek.com/puppy-tweets.html
WHY, upon reading the description, was my first thought "Hey, Hardison could have a FIELD DAY with something like that tucked into some bad guy's pocket..."
The sickness, it pervades.
Thanks Rusty for the explanation of "Busey." I have the DVDs for Seasons 1 and 2, but in my region they came without extras of any kind, not even subtitles! I've whined about this elsewhere, but will repeat here. It makes me sad not to have access to moments of backstory that had to be cut for time, the no-doubt hilarious and informative commentaries, and other goodies that Region 1 viewers got. Still, having Leverage on disk is way better than NOT having Leverage on disk, so I'll count my blessings.
To all of you associated with the show, best wishes for 2011. I'm keenly looking forward to the new season.
Oops, I lied. My Season Two DVD set has episode commentaries, creators' Q & A, several "making of" featurettes and a gag reel. Still I would have loved deleted scenes, also subtitling to assist comprehension when my ears fail me.
Or it should have been, and obviously was, about what the writers and creators of these characters felt was the best way to advance and develop the characters, their relationship, and their overall arc.
We could argue if it was the best way. I think the TV tropes site should be closed, that way maybe Rogers & co could actually come up with something original for the Nate/Sophie relationship.
Rogers & Co. don't "owe" us scenes of Nate and Sophie cooing and courting like a couple on the Lifetime network. They only owe us a Nate and Sophie who are growing and maturing and learning how to be people.
Drunken sex means growing and maturing as a couple? Wow, that's a first.
Also, this is a 47-minute con/heist show, not Breakfast at Tiffany's. Which part of the basic premise of their show should the writers jettison so Nate and Sophie can get their Peppard/Hepburn on?
I could live without the silly and over-the-top Eliot fight scene, maybe the half naked young ladies prancing around a pool scene, that kind of thing I never thought I'd see on Leverage. So lame. I'd rather see a meaningful scene between a couple. The kind Amy Berg knows how to write, we used to get those when she was around.
Seriously? Last time I looked, the show's writing was about telling a good story, not about making a group of fangirls who can't tell Leverage from Dawson's Creek happy.
Obviously you watch that show since you mentioned it, I don't so I don't know what you're talking about. All I want is a mature writing of this adult couple. And telling a good story? Okay, maybe in like half of episodes per season, certainly the Moreau arc isn't what I'd call that.
FritznBrenda, do you even understand what Leverage is about? It appears that what you want, and all you want, is to find a couple to 'ship on every show you watch, including Leverage. Then, you expect the show's episode premise, plotting and character development to arrange themselves around the development of Nate and Sophie's relationship, regardless of how relevant to the show's concept that may be. Worse, you expect the writers to ignore who Nate actually is and turn him not Sophie's swain, bringing her chocolates, kissing her hand and being "nice" to her, simply because of one impulsive kiss that had a totally different meaning than you chose to see.
You are the one person on planet earth who actually thinks that Leverage is about Nate and Sophie's romance. Heaven knows why you've pinned all your romantic hopes on Amy Berg, but I think most of us here would agree that she understands the real premise of this show, as well as the real nature of Nate and Sophie's relationship, and were she still with it, would write them accordingly.
Dawson's Creek and Everwood are teen-oriented shows full of the kind of romance you want, which is no doubt why the posters mentioned them. What you don't seem to get is that Leverage is not.
I can see why the people on the TNT board got so darned tired of your nonsense and finally said so en masse. Hopefully, it's not our turn to be treated to endless diatribes every time you don't get the cheap romcom romance you want, but rather get the kind of relationship damaged and non-communicative people have. Because that's what you'll continue to get on Leverage.
Rogers please set her straight if you can. Amy, are you out there? If so, help us out.
Drunken sex means growing and maturing as a couple? Wow, that's a first.
Have you watched much drama before?
And I mean that seriously. This is almost certainly the next step in their relationship--but not all steps are positive. In any relationship, there are often steps forward and steps backward, and these steps are not the same for every couple. (And, um,hello? Virginia Woolf?)
And remember...Nate is not a nice man. And he still has ISSUES (in capital letters, boldfaced type and headline size) he has to deal with. And we'd be pretty naive to think that Sophie doesn't have skeletons in her closet. This behavior is, in retrospect, almost inevitable given the two characters' history.
I like this move. The bed is not the endgame; it's still the middle game. There's still room for growth and there's still story to tell. I'm not sure people are surprised by this.
At best, the bed, like the kiss, is a complication. That's why the romantic comedy analogy as well as the teen-dream TV show comparisons used by other posters are so apt. If Nate and Sophie did the deed, and I haven't signed on to that view of the final scene, things just got a whole lot more complicated. A hearts-and-flowers view of this relationship (and a soft-core love scene to accompany it) simply aren't part of the equation.
@Anonymous - Drunken sex means growing and maturing as a couple? Wow, that's a first.
*sigh*
Seriously, you don't get this show or these characters or their arc at all, do you?
The "growing and maturing" I referred to had nothing to do with sex (drunken or otherwise), or even romance. It had to do with their growing and maturing as people. And, yes, Rogers & Co. gave us quite a bit of that this season.
For the first time, Nate and Sophie have been interacting as equals, partners, friends, adults, with affection and respect for each other. No more doormat, co-dependent, enabling Sophie, and very little overbearing, condescending, congenital prick Nate. What we've seen is the actual, honest-to-God development of an actual, honest-to-God relationship. These two characters are worlds away from where they started in S1, when the "romance" you harken back to so lovingly was based on fantasy, wishful thinking, and the flirtation of two people who had no idea who the other really was.
As for the halcyon days of Amy Berg … she wrote seven of 27 eps in S1 and 2. And, yes, she wrote great character stuff (for all five characters, btw). She also wrote 12 Step, where Nate was at the height of his assholery, and Fairy Godparents, where he was perfectly willing to break a child for the sake of the con. Yeah, boy, Berg's Nate was a prince.
(And, yes, I'm a huge Berg fan, too. But I also recognize that she was just one in a stable of talented writers.)
We get it. You don't like this show as it's written. You don't like the "wasted time" spent on fight scenes. You don't like the geek references or the thief stuff or the heist stuff. You don't like that Nate's an asshole. But this is the show the rest of us are watching. This is the show that Rogers & Co. are writing, and that Amy Berg used to write for. I have no idea what show you're watching, but I suspect it exists only in your imagination.
Also, coming onto Rogers’ blog and insulting him for writing his show and not yours is probably not the way to get him, or anyone else, to take your complaints seriously.
@SueN
Also, coming onto Rogers’ blog and insulting him for writing his show and not yours is probably not the way to get him, or anyone else, to take your complaints seriously.
Nicely said. I've been resisting the urge to post regarding the insults flung at Rogers et. al. on a blog where he does us a huge favor and answers our question. But these recent few petulant posts are well beyond reasonable or appropriate, and it's time this was pointed out to her.
I once saw Steven Moffat walk away from BBC America's forums because a few posters insulted the actor who replaced Richard Coyle in "Coupling." I would hate to think Rogers, who has shown himself to be as patient, good humored and gracious as they come, would be pushed to do something similar.
But really, FNB, insulting the man on his own blog because he isn't writing the show the way you want is more than a bit much. You really should do what we suggested on the TNT board and find a group of like-minded viewers to complain to. I don't know where you'll find them, but at least you'll find someone who cares.
I have every confidence that Rogers will continue to make fun, entertaining TV for us to enjoy.
We tend to view the Twitter chatter, Livejournal and forums stuff as your conversation and creativity using what we make, like, ah, we're the starter stock on your entertainment soup. We do our thing, you guys do yours, and we appreciate you dig the show. I think that works best.
Guru, I like that you quoted this over in the TNT forums. I honestly can't see him getting his knickers in a twist over any of this. (Er, Mr. Rogers, I DO hope that your knickers ARE remaining tangle-free? :D )
Actually, after reading many pages of impassioned posts (and writing, over the years, an embarrassing number of overwrought spiels of my own) I wonder if advocates for worthier, weightier causes look upon the energy and time expended in fan discussions, and sob their hearts out with envy.
So what are these characters' New Year's Resolutions?
Hardison: learn to throw a punch (but don't tell Eliot)
Eliot: learn some hacks (but don't tell Hardison)
. . .
@JLT, I'm sure you're right, and have little doubt Rogers is made of sterner stuff. But at the same time, I felt the need to use the Moffat example to underscore the inappropriateness, and possible consequences, of the content of posts such the ones FNB has left of late.
@Anonymous apparently aka FNB:
I think the TV tropes site should be closed, that way maybe Rogers & co could actually come up with something original for the Nate/Sophie relationship.
I don't really care about someone feeling the need to lecture the showrunners on how to depict a relationship – opinionate away, you're only making yourself sound entitled and petulant, and I'm sure it's nothing he hasn't heard before – but this little moment kind of boggles me. Honestly. I'm struggling to know where to start.
One, you want an amazingly fascinating site, crammed with volunteer manhours, dedicated to exploring a subject that thousands of people love – and exploring it entertainingly and well – to be closed down so that a couple on a tv show can be written the way you want? Even if that was a flippant remark intended to show how such a populist pursuit as TV Tropes is beneath your notice (which I gather was the idea, but if not, I'm open to correction), do you not think the desire you expressed is rather astonishingly self-involved?
Two, TV Tropes merely tracks the ways stories incarnate, the ins and outs of patterns that play out in our culture of storytelling. It's not completely comprehensive, but it covers a LOT. Demanding that storytellers debar themselves from using the tools of story just because they've been documented is ludicrous. They use them because they communicate something. It's like telling someone to not to use any of the words listed in the dictionary, and find original ways to talk to others. The skill is using them well, not finding a new way to communicate every single time you try to say something. You may not like how Rogers&co chose to go about communicating Nate and Sophie's development, but to complain that it's because he relies on tropes is ridiculous.
Three, from what I can gather, your issue with what was shown between them was not that it was too conventional, but that it didn't show the conventional couply beats that most of us have seen numerous times before (and which have been well documented). If anything, doing it this way is comparatively original, because it shows their relationship isn't really about the sweaty moments, and "getting together" isn't the happily ever after of most chick flicks; it's about the consequences that come after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't THAT the bulk of your complaint?
wv: extend. This rant could have been so much shorter....
Okay, I apologize if these questions have been asked before. I didn't read all of the posts above ;-) They are burning on my nails though...
1. Why didn't Eliot tell Nate about his past with Damien Moreau? He knows that Moreau is dangerous, he knows they don't have enough time for careful planning. Eliot is a professional. Nate could have used that kind of information to make a better and safer plan. Why would Eliot risk the safety of his fellow team members by not telling Nate??? (Please don't say he did it because it is a nice twist in the story.)
2. Um, that Matrix-like shootout with Eliot in the empty warehouse. Does Eliot have superpowers now? I mean, I do realize that this show is not primarily about being realistic... Eliot showed an amazing dexterity in the pilot, after all (and that was fun). But this was too much for me. I mean, when I saw Eliot facing all those armed goons, I thought "Wow, this is exciting! How is he going to get out of this?" You had me biting me fingernails there! - And when he started ducking the bullets in slow motion, taking them all out like a super hero... I felt betrayed. This wasn't bending the laws of nature, this was breaking them. It looked good, I'll grant you that. But it made me feel like crying. Could you please explain this choice of solution?
3. In the end of ep. 15, why did Moreau only shoot the Italian and then run? It takes a second to pull a trigger. Why didn't he shoot Nate and Eliot, too?
Um, last but not least - thank you for this show. I really love it :-D
No one seems to have pointed this out yet, and I think someone should:
For 3 seasons now we've watched Parker do the moral equivalent of what Eliot did, but with laser beams not bullets. She's never set off an alarm and no one seems to have a problem with believing that-- although there are some senses in which those fields were even more impenetrable than the gantlet Eliot was running (or sliding through...and no, "gantlet" is neither a typo nor a misspelling). If she misjudges by a nanometer, the alarm goes off; if he misjudges by a nanometer, he gets grazed - unpleasant but not fatal. So her escapades of this sort require far more specificity and his have far greater risks, but there are other things which make both actions easier and harder than the other.
But on the whole: If you can buy Parker dancing through one of those sensor fields, I can't imagine why you'd have trouble buying Eliot sliding through a hail of bullets.
John -
Thoroughly enjoyed both finale episodes, but Rogers, you’re sure setting that bar awfully high for Season 4’s finale. The park scene was superb! Kudos to you, Dean, Chris, the L-Team & the entire crew for a fun & adventurous Season 3.
Don’t recall anyone mentioning these 2 great lines: Nate complains about Hardison’s ‘decoy corpse’ Hardison: “… You asked for a white male John Doe you got a white male John Doe. This ain’t the GAP!” and later Moreau (to Eliot): “By the way, the white hat doesn’t suit you, but I looove the hair.”
Sorry, don’t remember who asked, but loved the question about Eliot vs. Raylan Givens! It would reunite Christian & Tim Olyphant (although these new characters are soooo opposite what they played in ‘Broken Hearts Club’). Eliot Spencer… master Retrieval Specialist; “Justified” Deputy U.S. Marshal, Raylan Givens… fastest draw on FX; Having to look at both of them on the screen at the same time… priceless .
Thanks again, John! Season 4 can't come soon enough.
Dawn/StL-MO
Awesome episode! Can't wait for the next season!
Who was the Italian's call to in the episode when Nate told her to buzz off (The Morning After Job)? Who was she working with? Did I miss a clue to this in the last two eps?
If I did not, does this mean the Italian will return?
"I have a 24-year-old genius with a smartphone and a problem with authority"
That was one of the best lines ever!
My questions:
1. Did you know what you wanted to do for the finale from the start of the season?
Not episode related but I hope you will answer:
2. Parker is just a great character! And for what I know, Beth is a very good actress and person. Do you have any fun moments to share when filming with her?
And last but not least:
3. I live in Spain and will start college in the fall. My dream would be to become a filmmaker and I specially love video&sound editing + visual effects. What film school would you recommend me?
Thank you for your time and for making such an awesome show. I love every minute of it! :)
Where was the last episode shot?
Are you planning on doing any of the cons outside of the States on season 4?
@ kta
For 3 seasons now we've watched Parker do the moral equivalent of what Eliot did, but with laser beams not bullets. She's never set off an alarm and no one seems to have a problem with believing that.
Maybe that's exactly why some people have a problem with it. We've seen Parker avoiding laser beams for 3 seasons - it's a part of her character. Eliot diving through a hail of bullets was a first time.
@Samantha
Maybe that's exactly why some people have a problem with it. We've seen Parker avoiding laser beams for 3 seasons - it's a part of her character. Eliot diving through a hail of bullets was a first time.
I don't think that's it. If Eliot spends all next season in those types of situations, and comes out similarly unharmed, people will be more, not less, angry about it.
I like the point kta made. You don't think about it with Parker, but it's true. She could breathe wrong and set off an alarm. We generally acknowledge that these people are so skilled that they rarely fail.
@Nina May:
I kinda agree that TV Tropes should be closed...or not allow to have dumb people posting rights...
Too many of them devolve into people posting things because they want to post, but have no clue what they're talking about. like a trope "Falling on your sword" about sacrificing yourself for honor, will devolve into examples of people tripping when holding a knife. Or just holding a knife...or just tripping.
http://scavgraphics.deviantart.com/#/d35m267
Today I had a vivid discussion with my dad about the time you spend answering all the questions. He said this is probably done by one of your secretaries.
He didn't convince me at any point but if you could answer anything that would prove him wrong it would be fantastic (and feel fantastic too ;))
Thank you very much!
@Video Beagle:
Ah, well. That's the problem with letting anyone (for a given value of "anyone") have a voice, isn't it. Anyone uses it. No doubt the discussion taking place over there would be much better undertaken by the learned and the sophisticated over cigars and cognac, but that would require us taking showers and leaving our houses and computer screens, and no one wants that.
I agree, it's not ideal. But the flotsam is pretty easy to navigate, and for the rest, it's informative and fun and hews to the communal nature of story. Or is it so existentially difficult to bear that there are decent forums and wikis out there which have an element of people who don't get it speaking just for the sake of speaking? Because if that's the case ... like graft and stealing in Africa, I don't think there's anyone in the world that can help you with that. Sorry.
Perhaps some kind of trap, baited with My Little Pony Rancher Eliot, could be set up. And once they're all safely in one place, with no telecommunication access, treacly fanfic can be read over a loudspeaker to keep them happy and corralled away from our conversations.
Okay, now this is turning into a lame-ass reality tv show in my head. I think I have to stop.
Just read all 465 comments - whew! The only thing I want to add is that just before Eliot took on the warehouse full of goons in that spectacular shoot-out, it seemed to me that when Nate said Eliot's name he was conveying that he knew Eliot might not make it out alive and letting him know he didn't have to do it - which of course Eliot felt he did in order to save Nate and The Italian and bring down Moreau. As for the unbelievability of the shoot-out (and even when Moreau shot The Italian) - everyone seems to assume that it is a simple thing to hit what you're shooting at, which is especially not true of a moving target. Moreau has men who do his shooting for him - I doubt he spends much time on a shooting range honing that particular skill, so I can easily see how he did not kill her. That said, it likely would have added a little credibility to the scene if Eliot had been grazed by a bullet on his arm or leg or something, but who really cares - it was just a blast to watch and everything I expect out of Eliot!
Wow, 465 comments. And I'm late to the party, saw the finale when it aired, but then didn't think to come here and comment until after I'd re-watched the whole thing yesterday. So, if this gets missed, ah well. My fault.
First, just wanted to say that I've admired each of the actors for their performances over the three seasons of Leverage. But Christian Kane just did fantastic work in Big Bang Job. Moving, gripping, goose-bump inducing stuff. The scene in the park especially.
And me, I'm thrilled that Nate and Sophie ended up in the sack. Can't wait to see what impact this has on their relationship.
My question was...I noticed similarities in the structure of this two-part finale with the First and Second David Jobs. The first part of each finale was more action-oriented, with things almost going to hell towards the end, while the second part of each finale was less action, more con. When your team wrote Big Bang/San Lorenzo, was there some inspiration from First/Second David, or did it just work out that way?
Either way, thanks much. Tremendously enjoyed watching!
@Neenah, and not just a moving target, but a moving target who is shooting back.
One can assume Moreau's goons are very good at execution-style shooting (the wiping out whole families thing), but there's a huge difference between that and being in the middle of a firefight where the bullets are coming not just from the target, but from your own side as well.
Completely OT for 315/316, but possibly on topic for Leverage:
"A now-retracted British study that linked autism to childhood vaccines was an 'elaborate fraud' that has done long-lasting damage to public health, a leading medical publication reported Wednesday."
Apparently the study was funded by a law firm that was planning to help families of autistic kids sue the vaccine makers. Wow.
If this isn't "Leverage" fuel, I don't know what is.
Then again... drug company as victim? Forget about it.
( Hey! Maybe that law firm will help the families of kids with vaccine-preventable diseases sue Jenny McCarthy? )
Not sure who else saw this, just found it myself but the question of Eliot's holster has been answered by the talented Nadine Haders.
@Debiajacks They're not gun holsters. They house his knives. We made them just for Eliot.
@Sullivan, that's ripe for Leverage. But there are two frauds here. First is the faked study (which is not news in the academic community.)
Second, and more insidious is Jenny McCarthy and her autism-lovin' celebrity pals, who have not only irresponsibly fueled the now epidemic levels of denial about a non-existent autism/vaccine link among parents, but also put a veneer of credibility on all manner of beliefs about curability of autism, unsubstantiated dietary practices and who knows what else. They play on the gullibility of far too many Americans, who will believe a celebrity sooner than they will an expert.
And that is how we got the faked vaccine study, by a huckster doctor who long ago lost his British license, so far. Check CNN's article and see how many people have rallied behind him; it boggles the mind. If there isn't a couple Leverage episodes in all that, the writers aren't trying very hard.
Man, both episodes were cracking awesome. Loved Eliot, loved the link with Parker and him as buddies, LOVED Sophie, but why the teasing again with the name. Will we find it out at all and when did you decide not to share it?
Anyway, I really liked the end scene(who didn't) and I hope you keep the fun bit between those two by playing with The Kids next season- S and N trying to hide it, the rest trying to find it and bugging them. Great job! Keep up with good work
Sorry, John, but I have one more question now that I'm rewatching the season. In #302, when Nate and Sophie win the Reunion king/queen role, they ask Hardison if he was responsible. His reply: "I don't rig elections. I mean, I could..." Was that line written knowing that he'd rig one by season's end? This series is full of throwaway lines in there that I miss all the time, aren't there? Damn you!
Anon @6:54 - good point re: people believing celebrities over experts.
At the same time, I don't know that Jenny McCarthy is so different from many other parents of children with autism - they're so desparate for an answer to the WHY question, that they're willing to believe any answer that's presented with a veneer of authority.
Not to say that the cult of celebrity isn't there, and that her activism hasn't helped to propogate the fraud, just that I see her as more of part of a big sad circle than an active deceiver in it.
All that said, the show definitely tackled the way the masses can be manipulated in the SLJ, and it would be interesting to see how they would deal with something like this.
Nate Ford once said something to the effect that 'causation is very difficult to prove'... After reading the CDC's most current opinions, I simply opt for the single-use/thimerasol-free vaccines...
but I digress... I'm so glad we have the Leverage team to shed light on injustice and give us pause. It can be unsettling to see the diversity in Ethics around the World, the feeling of having them to Champion your cause is priceless.
I'm looking forward to more Nate/Sophie next season. It's like you're torturing us not giving us enough of those two to keep us wanting more but even if/when you give us a lot more, they will still be awesome and will never get tired of them. Just saying.
More of a general question, but... Is Parker asexual?
"Correlation does not equal causation" is one of the basic axioms of research. It's also what I call "The Great Tobacco Loophole" because it allowed the line of Big Tobacco CEO's to sit in front of Congress and state, with straight faces, that they did not believe cigarette smoking caused lung cancer, even when they knew full well the evidence was overwhelming that it did.
Eliot, BBJ, scene in the park - hello Emmy!
People keep saying that Eliot is Batman. I've said since Season 1 that Eliot is Wolverine.
And Kane would rock hard if he took the part over from Jackman.
I enjoyed the finale, the San Lorenzo Job more than the first half. When the General asks Eliot if he would leave his team behind, and Eliot looks at Parker, who goes full-on Woobie -- all innocent and trusting -- yeah, that worked wonderfully. Nobody could leave anyone behind who manages to make that kind of face. Parker is the only one who could pull that off without breaking character. I see her as everyone's favorite little sister.
I also liked how something the crew did earlier came back to bite them -- Moreau's reference to Doucherman. Foreshadowing? Will Moreau come back for revenge?
The bookends to 0316 were also nice: starting out with Moreau changing (or creating, I'm vague on that) a law for his convenience, and at the end protesting, "You can't do that! There are laws!" Wonderful.
I am also currently watching the Season 1 DVDs, which makes it even more obvious how much the crew has changed and grown. Parker has learned to like and trust these people, even developed feelings. Eliot the loner seems to have come to need the others. I see Hardison as the crew's heart and center, without him, I think the crew would fall apart. And while Nate started out as the crew's conscience, it's now Sophie who acts as his conscience.
Which makes me think that springing Nate from jail at the start of the season might be a missed opportunity. It would have been interesting to see how the crew would function without Nate. Could someone else fill in for him, like 7-of-9 did for Sophie? Stirling for example? Is Nate actually the most easily replacable member of the crew?
@jensaltman:
1). Why would you ever want to break up one of the best ensemble casts on TV unless you absolutely had to?
2). I think its understood that the team could technically run cons w/o Nate, but that Nate is the superior idea man on the team and brings that big picture and genius-bordering-on-crazy viewpoint that allows the team to aim and achieve at a much higher level than they would w/o him. I have to think that a Nate-less team wouldn't be stealing countries anytime soon.
I think its understood that the team could technically run cons w/o Nate, but that Nate is the superior idea man on the team and brings that big picture and genius-bordering-on-crazy viewpoint that allows the team to aim and achieve at a much higher level than they would w/o him.
I think it's understood. And I also think it's understood that THEY are now able to aim and achieve at a higher level even without Nate. But they all bow to the master in a particular area, whether its Parker and thieving, Hardison and hacking or Nate and his schemes...
@allyone:
1) For variety. Just to see how things would change, and how much influence the character has. I didn't say, do away with Nate entirely. It's like with Sophie: when she was replaced for a while, the team dynamics changed. It might be fun to explore for a couple of epiosdes how the team would operate under another Mastermind. For example, who of the others might try to take over, and how would the others react? If Nate brought Sterling in as a replacement (sorry, my favorite tongue-in-cheek idea, as per Parker's "He's like Nate. Evil Nate.") while he was indisposed for a bit, what would happen? Afterwards, an exasperated Nate might have to pick up the pieces. Which might also be fun to watch.
The need you cite would simply be interesting stories. Sure, replacing someone doesn't automatically make interesting stories. But neither does categorically refusing to explore the possibilities.
2) Considering that they were all successful criminals before they joined forces, that's such a given it doesn't need saying.
For example, who of the others might try to take over, and how would the others react? If Nate brought Sterling in as a replacement (sorry, my favorite tongue-in-cheek idea, as per Parker's "He's like Nate. Evil Nate.")
Well, that'd be the interesting one, with lots of nice overtones. (and that's mostly because we've already seen when Sophie and Eliot's sat in the big chair).
The only other interesting one is where Parker has to play the big cheese (i.e., the area where the character is most out of their element....)
Not a question, but I think Eliot's slide across the floor on his knees, both guns out and shooting and dodging bullets from a six or seven evil henchmen at the same time...I think it broke my badass meter.
Superb finale with lots to keep every character, every actor and every viewer delighted.
San Lorenzo is a bow to Cat's Cradle? Just moved from the Caribbean to the Med? The Global Aviation building looks a lot like the airport at Beaumont sur Mare in "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. Or is it just Cookie Cutter International Style?
Thanks for having so much fun and sharing it with us.
--ml
No one's asked the most important question yet (at least not that I can find)...What happened to Cinnamon?
For example, who of the others might try to take over, and how would the others react? If Nate brought Sterling in as a replacement (sorry, my favorite tongue-in-cheek idea, as per Parker's "He's like Nate. Evil Nate.")
Sterling taking over could be fun IF they could do it without making it too OOC. On the one hand, yeah, more Sterling is always good. On the other, the team specifically rejected that idea in Zanzibar, when Nate's and Maggie's safety was on the line, and so I wouldn't want to see the writers force the situation just cause it sounds good on paper when it's not, at this point, consistent with their characters.
And really, the show has mined that territory already. Nate has already been temporarily indisposed in Bank Shot Job and Zanzibar with Hardison and Eliot stepping into the planning roles, and Sophie has run a con or two in her time.
I think the more interesting development at this point (so we're not going to the same well again) might be to have the team be forced to step in and work around no Hardison, no Eliot or no Parker (not incl. Sophie since they obviously worked around her).
Those guys have more concrete skills, so it presents a bit more of an obvious challenge, and it'd be hysterical to see Hardison or Eliot trying to crawl through a ventilation duct or Nate trying to keep his ass from getting killed by goons that Eliot could easily take out, etc.
re running cons without Nate.
The team did fine without him (or a replacement) during the six months he was in prison. We may not have seen it but the rest of the team (almost certainly) ran lots of cons during that time.
They stayed together, see the redecorating, the closeness and all of them knowing Sophie's real name.
Like Rogers said in the 301 post game: "They are now much more Nate's peers."
I think they definitely missed Nate and wanted to get him out of prison.
But I also think that they would take more time to recover from a job and they'd be more focused on that particular job, without Nate's scheming and his unrelenting, almost addictive, search for more clients.
To the people saying that pairing Nate/Sophie would ruin the show, well, I think that only bad writing could ruin it.
I trust the team behind Leverage :) this show keeps getting better.
I think Nate/Sophie can be a good thing, if they do it well. You can't play the will-they-won't-they card forever.
Are there any chances we'll see Sterling back next season? ...pretty please? ^^
As an Italian fan, I hope Elisabetta Canalis won't be back. You can say she's a nice girl and everything, but...she's not nearly as good as anyone else on the show.
Did you know that she dubs herself in Italian? *Double pain* ;_;
Gina saying just a couple of Italian words in season 1 was way better. I wonder if she actually speaks some of my language.
(Tim speaking Italian sounds funny :P)
Does Eliot eat Kevlar for breakfast? Also, can you comment on the rumor that Leverage is set inside the Matrix?
Have you considered adding a 6th member to the leverage team? Like with a different skill or talent... Someone different?
http://leveragemonologues.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-leveverage-new-character-idea.html
Just when I think I can't love the show any more, you have a finale like this.
Questions - sorry if they've been asked, I did read through the other comments, but there were a lot.
1) Is The Italian Moreau's ex wife? Maybe it was just me, but I totally read a scorned woman vibe about her. Plus the fact that Moreau shot her and not Nate or Eliot. Those two have history.
2) Was the mention of Larry Duberman and Manticore subtle foreshadowing? Like, by taking down all these criminals, the team leaves crime world in shambles, and other people are going to step up into those vacancies. Someone else has to finance all these drug cartels, etc - will whoever replaces Moreau be even worse? (Will it be The Italian?)
3) Did Hardison and Parker further discuss her pretzel cravings?
4) I love Leverage's non-cliffhanger-y cliffhangers. But the S1 and S2 finales both left a clear starting point for the opening eps - get the team back together. This time, the team is already together - so does that make it more difficult, to decide on a starting point for S4?
5) Is there an ETA on the season 3 dvd?
Also, thank you for the Nate/Sophie bed reveal. I adored it, and read it as totally in character. The third season, to me, was all about them developing an honest, real friendship, and this seemed like the perfect way to continue moving that relationship forward in their own, unique, screwed up way. I hate shows that drag out the whole will they/won't they for the whole series, and one of the things I like best about this show is the constant character development you see in all of them. And let's face it - they were never going to have a typical courtship.
I have so much love for this show and everyone who works on it, so thanks - now I just have to find a distraction until S4.
I'm sorry, really. But apparently I'm compuslive. Or obsessed. Or just need to stop watching the damn eps. But:
1) In "San Lorenzo," Eliot said he was the one sent to kill Flores (the "half" time he saved the general's life). Was he sent by Moreau, or was he freelancing by then?
2) So, Sophie is Evita, and all of Argentina … I mean, San Lorenzo … is crying for her now. How did they finesse what had to have been an elaborate state funeral (which usually includes the dear departed lying in state), and how did they get her out of the country without anyone recognizing her? And did they ever tell poor Michael?
Seriously, you need to come back to us and stop me before I post again!
Off topic, but I can't help but think that...
Mubarek must be thinking "From now on, running this country is going to be a pain in the ass..."
Thanks for an awesome double finale to season 3, rock on season 4!
I laughed my ass off at Eliot's gun fighting scene - I hope that's the reaction you were going for, if so, you totally got it. His BAMF scenes at the pool also rocked.
I'd be interested to know which big moments in the eps we can attribute to which writer, if you can remember that far back! <3
@Sullivan "Off topic, but I can't help but think that...
Mubarek must be thinking 'From now on, running this country is going to be a pain in the ass...'"
As goes San Lorenzo, so goes the world.
Do you think the Leverage crew is sitting there watching all the nations rising up against their dictators and turn to each other and go "Oops"?
IMForeman: Looks like Rogers & Co. are off the hook - it's all Google's fault.
Russia, Glenn Beck agree: Google fomenting actual revolutions
@Sullivan, screw Google. I'm betting Eliot vacationed in Egypt.
It's been a while since he liberated a country.
1. San Lorenzo -- Cat's Cradle? (forgive me if this has been mentioned before.)
2. How much of Eliot's fight scenes are scripted, on average? I can't imagine it's shot-for-shot, but it's got to be a little bit more than "They fight," right?
What I liked most about the season finale were the tidbits of information on Eliot's background. Made him darker and way more interesting - and makes me wonder what else there is we don't know about. Any chance that we'll get so see some flashbacks of his past in season 4? I loved how you used the flashbacks in the first season (gee, how I would like to learn more about the monkey story!) and it would be so awesome to see something like that again.
Oh yeah, and the gunfight was cool, but I think I like Eliot better in close combat. By the way, will we ever see Eliot meeting his match?
Quick question....on closer look were those throwing knives in the harness Eliot wears and was there originally intended to be something more/different to the epic fight scene? :)
Okay, only recently found this blog so am reading up on as much as I can to catch up-pretty late to the party I know, but how often do we get blogs like this? Magic.:)
@Anon RE: Eliot considering leaving Parker behind; I really did not think that at all.
These two made the eps for me with these small moments-the reveal in the park, brilliant, brilliant scene, and that look, when asked if he would leave anyone behind and he looks at Parker, he knew damn well he wouldn't.
I loved the reveal of Eliot's past, the pool scene was amazing, the shoot out beyond epic, Hardison's wobbling trust issues with Eliot, everything was amazing. Hardison rocked his political rigging, I love all that stuff. It's what he does best. Sophie shone in TSLJ, she loves a good death scene does Sophie, and she worked it out totally!!Loved was both cool and chilling.
I don't get a sibling thing with Eliot and Parker at all. I see two broken people who respect each others abilities and have learned to care about each other and trust in each other, to a point that they are an awesome team. To me the deepest bonds are those that need no words. In a couple of looks I felt a deeper connection between these two who aren't meant to hook up than either of the pair that are hooking up lol!!
I know I know, y'all ain't going there. What a waste is all I'll say about that! Their scenes write themselves!! (Okay not quite but they rock!!)
1) Maybe I'm being dumb, but what exactly is Sophie enjoying in the car after the battery exploded? Are they being chased?
2) Why did Eliot choose Hardison to go with him to work Moreau? He must have known his past would come out and that Hardison would not react well, even if Hardison was never in any actual danger. Could he not have gone alone? It seemed like he was implying that he had been trying to take down Moreau alone anyway.
hancurkan kutil kelamin dalam 3 hari
pengobatan kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin manjur
obat kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin
pengobatan kutil kelamin
obat herbal rontokkan kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin di apotik
obat manjur kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin manjur
obat alami hancurkan kutil kelamin
pengobatan manjur kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin herbal
obat herbal atasi kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin manjur
obat kutil kelamin herbal asli
Obat kutil kelamin herbal de nature
Obat kutil kelamin
cara mengobati kutil kelamin
pengobatan kutil kelamin
Obat herpes genital
Obat herpes genital
cara mengobati herpes genital
pengobatan herpes genital
Obat sipilis herbal de nature
Obat sipilis
cara mengobati sipilis
pengobatan sipilis
Obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin herbal
Obat kutil kelamin tradisional
pengobatan kutil kelamin
thank you brother and i like share website
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kutil Kelamin Pada Pria
Obat Kutil Kelamin Untuk Ibu Hamil
Obat Kutil Kelamin Tanpa Operasi
Obat Kutil Kelamin Untuk Wanita
Obat Kutil Kelamin jengger Ayam
Obat Kutil Kelamin Pada Anak
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin Pada Pria
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin Pada Wanita
Cara Mengobati Kutil Pada Kelamin Wanita
Cara Menyembuhkan Kutil Kelamin Secara Alami
Obat Sipilis
Obat Sipilis De Nature Indonesia
Penyakit ini umumnya muncul karena penderita mengejan terlalu keras pada saat buang air besar. Dengan mengejan terlalu keras, maka pembuluh darah di sekitar anus dapat melebar dan pecah menimbulkan infeksi dan pembengkakan yang berakhir pada masalah wasir atau ambeien tersebut.
Penderita Penyakit kondiloma atau Kutil Kelamin yang telah terinveksi disarankan untuk segera melakukan pengobatan secepat mungkin sebelum Virus HPV penyebab kutil kelamin makin banyak berkembang biak di dalam sel darah makin lama dibiarkan akan memperparah kondisi organ vital karena kutil kelamin akan terus membesar sehingga terlihat seperti jengger ayam untuk penderita yang baru tertular kurang dari satu bulan biasanya akan lebih cepat ditanggulangi obat kutil kelamin Paling ampuh dari De Nature dan terbaik ada hanya di http://obatkutildikemaluan.blogdetik.com/ untuk mendapatkan informasi yang lebih jelas mengenai pengobatan kutil pada kelamin silahkan kontak langsung di nomer 0852 808 77 999 atau 0859 7373 5656 Bagaimana mengobati Ambeien itu sendiri. pengobatan yang terbaik untuk Ambeien adalah dari luar dan dalam sehingga Ambeien benar benar tuntas dan tidak akan kambuh lagi. obat Ambeien terbaik "Ambeclear dari De Nature" AlamiAdalah obat Ambeien herbal yang memang terbaik untuk mengobati Ambeien, dan sudah terdaftar di badan obat dan makanan (BPOM) dengan nomer registrasi POM TR: 133 374 041. terbuat dari bahan alami antara lain terdiri Daung Ungu, Mahkota Dewa dan Kunyit Putih.
obat kutil kelamin
Pengobatan Wasir
Pengobatan Wasir Tanpa Operasi
Pengobatan Wasir Dengan Propolis
Pengobatan Wasir Secara Alami
Pengobatan Wasir Bafar
Pengobatan Wasir Stadium 2
Pengobatan kutil kelamin dengan cuka apel
Pengobatan kutil kelamin di anus
Pengobatan kutil kelamin di bandung
Obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin di apotik
Obat Sipilis Instan atasi gonore dengan cepat
Obat Sipilis Apotik
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik K24
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Terdekat
Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh
Obat Sipilis Ampuh
obat kencing nanah selain ace maxs
obat kencing nanah apa
obat kencing nanah apa ya
obat kencing nanah atau gonore
obat kencing nanah akut
obat kencing nanah amoxicillin
pengobatan herbal penyakit kencing nanah atau sipilis
obat dari penyakit kencing nanah
obat alami penyakit kencing nanah
obat apotik penyakit kencing nanah
obat apotik untuk penyakit kencing nanah
obat kencing nanah
obat dokter untuk penyakit kencing nanah
obat resep dokter untuk penyakit kencing nanah
Obat Sipilis|Obat Sipilis Pada Pria|Obat Sipilis Resep Dokter|Obat Sipilis Instan|Obat Sipilis Tradisional|Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Kimia Farma|Obat Sipilis Di Apotek|Obat Sipilis Kimia Farma|Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri|Obat Sipilis Yang Ampuh|Obat Sipilis Yang Dijual Di Apotek|Obat Sipilis Alami|Obat Sipilis Ampuh|Obat Sipilis Atau Raja Singa|Obat Sipilis Apotik|Obat Sipilis Antibiotik|Obat Sipilis Apa|Obat Sipilis Apotek|Obat Sipilis Adalah|Obat Sipilis Anjuran Dokter|Obat Sipilis Ampicilin
cara mengobati kutil kelamin pada wanita tanpa harus menggunakan operasi cukup dengan menggunakan obat khusus kutil kelamin paling manjur dari klinik de nature manjurserta sangat aman untuk ibu hamil
Apabila anda sedang mencari pengobatan kutil kelamin untuk pria maupun wanita segera kunjungi kami http://obatkutilkelaminwanita.blogdetik.com cara mengobati kutil kelamin pada wanita tanpa harus menggunakan operasi cukup dengan menggunakan obat khusus kutil kelamin paling manjur dari klinik de nature manjurserta sangat aman untuk ibu hamil
Penyakit kencing nanah bisa disebabkan oleh beberapa faktor seperti seks bebas, penularan, virus hpv, lingkungan, gaya hidup dan lainnya, Maka dari itu kita harus waspada dengan penyakit kencing nanah ini, karena penyakit kencing nanah sangatlah berbahaya, Namun untuk anda yang menderita penyakit kencing nanah, maka anda tidak perlu khawatir,
Berhati-hatilah anda yang suka berganti-ganti pasangan seks, karena sangat besar sekali kemungkinannya untuk terkena penyakit kencing nanah atau gonore maupun yang lainnya.
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MANTAB * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *******
Cara yang sering di lakukan untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin adalah dengan cara pembedahah atau operasi, cara ini tentu memerlukan dana yang tidak sedikit. metode Pilihan pembedahan yang dapat Anda lakukan
obat kanker payudara herbal
obat herbal untuk kanker payudara yang manjur
obat herbal untuk kanker paru-paru
obat herbal untuk kanker prostat
obat herbal yang manjur untuk kanker serviks/rahim
obat kanker serviks yang ampuh
obat kanker serviks yang manjur dan aman
obat kanker payudara yang manjur dan aman
obat kutil kelamin tradisional yang paling manjur
Kadang disertai
dengan sakit saat kencing, perih, organ intim terasa panas menyiksa,
gatal,..
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... *********************************
penyakit yang ditularkan melalui hubungan seks : vaginal, oral dan anal. Juga dapat menular melalui persentuhan kulit dengan daerah yang terinfeksi.
Ambeien bisa mengeluarkan darah(seperti invander salim yang terkena ambeien dan mengeluarkan darah)
obat wasir, Adalah Obat alami berkhasiat dalam bentuk kapsul yang berasal dari tanaman herbal seperti daun ungu, mahkota dewa dan kunyit putih, diberikan pada penderita jika penyakit masih dalam tingkatan stadium ringan
Bismillahirrohmannirrokhim ......................................
Bismillahhirrohmaanirrokhim.... ************************************
???????????????????????????????????????
MANTAB???????????????????????????????
111111111111111111111111111111
manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur manjur
alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami alami
Wasir atau dikenal juga dengan ambeien merupakan salah satu jenis penyakit
Wasir atau dikenal juga dengan ambeien merupakan salah satu jenis penyakit
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
yang sangat mengganggu. Ambeien atau wasir ini muncul..
شركة رش مبيدات بالدمام
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالدمام
شركة مكافحة الصراصير ببقيق
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بعنك
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالجبيل
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالقطيف
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالظهران
شركة مكافحة الصراصير براس تنورة
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بسيهات
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالخبر
شركة مكافحة الصراصير بالدمام
Assalamualaikum wr.wb, Salam Sehat semuanya. numpang komen ya gan.
Okay, I'm very late to the party, and who knows if anyone will ever read this. Still, there may be someone else out there like me, who has just been introduced to Leverage and is coming here to read up on back discussion.
About why Moreau shot the Italian at the end of BBJ:
He had only one bullet. Eliot was shouting, "You've got one bullet, Moreau!" during his charge. I took that to mean, "You can either shoot Nate (and I'll be in your face in two seconds) or you can shoot me (and Nate will get away to plot against you another day)." Moreau took a third option by shooting the Italian, delaying all three of them when Nate and Eliot went to see if she was okay. That gave Moreau the time to make his escape.
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Sipilis
Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kencing Nanah Manjur
Obat Kencing Nanah Paling Ampuh
Obat Kencing Nanah Pria
Obat Kencing Nanah Wanita
Obat Kencing Nanah Alami
Obat Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik
Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Tanda Tanda Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Tanda Tanda Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
jual obat untuk bintik bintik di kepala penis
bagaimana cara mengobati kutil di kemaluan
obat kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin manjur
obat kutil kelamin salep dan kapsul
obat kutil dan herpes dari alam
obat kutil kelamin yang sudah terbukti manjur
obat kutil kelamin yang aman tanpa efek samping
obat kutil kelamin tanpa operasi
obat herbal untuk kutil kelamin
obat manjur untuk kutil kelamin
It is not every day that I have the possibility to see something like this.
Thank you for every other great article.
Thankyou so much for publishing such amazing content.
I am hoping to check out the same high-grade content from you in the future as well.
Thanks for sharing this marvelous post.
Post a Comment