LEVERAGE #413 "The Girls Night Out Job" Question Post

Hey, it's Peggy! Where'd Tara learn How to dance like that? Where the hell are Hardison and Eliot when she calls them? All your questions, comments and snark addressed below.

The Nerdist Writers Podcast

The latest in the very excellent series of TV writer interviews done by the infamous Acker and Blacker is up. This one features myself, Zach Whedon, and Jeremy Carver(Being Human US). The lads do a great job with this, and I think we get down into the nuts and bolts of writing a bit more than most of the panels so far. Go and (hopefully) enjoy.

LEVERAGE #412 "The Office Job" Question Post

Here you go -- where was Dwight?  Did Jim hit on Parker?  All your Office-y questions and complaints answered.

LEVERAGE #411 "The Experimental Job" Question Post

Reactions, questions and snark in the Comments, kids.  Welcome to the back 8!

LEVERAGE #403" "The 15 Minutes Job" Post-Game

Things to do, things to do …

Fourth season is an odd season for TV shows. Not just for meta-structure reasons, but because it tends to be a very high turnover year on most TV staffs.  For those of you who are curious, most TV writer contracts are for three years.  After three years, young writers are ready (and urged by their agents) to go off and work on other staffs, make more connections, taken more responsibilities, etc.  

The first year staff consisted of myself and Chris Downey as showrunners; the widely beloved Amy Berg (@bergopolis); intrepid ex-journalist Albert Kim (@MagicBranch); scrappy Victoriana heroine Christine Boylan (@KitMoxie); and the Wonder Twins, Melissa Glenn (@theothermelissa) and Jessica Reider.  By the end of third year Berg was already on Eureka; Albert went off to Nikita; Boylan to Castle; and the Wonder Twins to Hawaii Five-O.  That's a full staff turnover of all the original writers.  The ones who were here for the long days of "Exactly what the hell IS this show?"

That said, we managed a soft landing in Year Four.  Filthy Assistant Becky Kirsch (@BeckyKirsch) has been with me since before the pilot.  After three years of scribbling down our whims and distilling our rants into outlines, she was more than ready to become a staff writer. Also, we'd hired two of our freelancers to staff Year Three: M.Scott Veach (@mscottveach) had first come in on #206, "The Top Hat Job".  Our rule is that the freelancer comes into the room to rebreak and write their episodes.  Scott impressed us enough in Year Two that we added him to the room for Year 3 -- I believe that, after his trial weeks, the Wonder Twins actually asked "Can we keep him?" As if a giant, shambling computer genius polymath sheepdog had wandered into the room.  

Geoff Thorne (@dreamnasium) had sold us the idea for #303 "The Inside Job" back during Year Two.  He had the best set of pitches we'd heard of all the freelancers, and so we added him in Year Three. Usually, when a show runner decides to make your episode his directing debut, it means you have a good sense of the show.

With some money freed up by various means, we added a lot of young talent.  There are shows that run on the "Four Executive Producers" model, but both Downey and I like young, hungry writers who haven't picked up habits on other shows. Also, as we've discussed, this show is an idea shark.  We burn three or four plot lines a show that would be the single a plot line for most crime procedurals.  Between that churn and the sheer volume of research necessary to keep us, well if not interesting, at least different, more brains are better. 

We added staff writers Jeremy Bernstein (@fajitas) and Jenn Kao (@kaogirl).  We found two story editors: Joe Hortua from Life (@jhortua) and one of the co-creators of Jericho, Josh Schaer (@joshuaschaer1).  Then we did something we've never done -- brought in a very experienced hand, the life-saving Paul Guyot (@Fizzhogg).  Paul was crucial this year, as a quirk of scheduling meant that both Chris and I were out of the room together when we were absent.  I directed Downey's episode #404, and we shot episode #411 -- which he wrote -- and #412 -- which I wrote and directed -- not just sequentially, but simultaneously.

That will make more sense when you see them.

#403 was the first story broken properly in the room for this season.  #401 was written a bit AFTER a few of the others were broken.  (Common for season openers.  For example, #102 "The Homecoming Job" was actually written and shot sixth for the season)  Geoffrey Thorne already had a couple months of tangling with #402.  So $403 was when we got to take the new staff out for a spin, kick the tires.  

There we were, the first week with almost all new humans, kicking about Leverage ideas.  Downey and I were originally concerned going into the new year with a mostly new staff.  What we hadn't anticipated (but should've) was the difference between staffing a show that does not exist, and one that has aired 44 episodes -- the writers knew the character voices, some of them were actual fans of the show.  They came in with the Leverage stories they wanted to tell, as opposed to cool con stories we then hammered into Leverage stories.  (Jenn Kao, as you'll see, actually wound up writing her first pitch idea, the one-liner that got her hired.) 

After the first day of pleasantries, learning each other's spouse's names, what our lunch ordering system would be like, Josh threw out a backhanded pitch. "You remember that movie FX?  I think a guy like that, who can manipulate perception the same way the Leverage team can, that's a good villain."   With blood in the water, the room surged.  We broke it in three days, in the room. 

Again, for those of you not in the TV business, this is not normal for one-hour shows.  On many one hour shows, 

a.) you bring your idea to the show runner. OR

a*.) The show runner assigns you a story he thinks would be good for the show.

b.) You bugger off and outline it.

c.) Get notes on the outline.

d.) Bugger off and write it.

e.) Turn it in and if you're lucky, get more notes.  Often your script is word-one rewritten by the show runner.

There are one hour rooms that run closer to ours, and one hour rooms that in theory do not need a room at all.   Where the writers barely talk to each other.  Ones where the writers meet for a couple hours a week on meta-structure issues, or meet intensely for a few weeks pre-season to break out the season arcs.  Every show is different.

There are also rooms that start at 2pm and run until 2am.  Those showrunners are dicks.  I'm planting my flag on that. 

We run a sitcom room.  You can pitch an episode, but you only maintain as much creative control over it as the prep you've done.  If you come in with something meticulously plotted, with a ton of research, more of it will stay intact.  The room is there to solve problems, not suborn your work.  On the other hand, ideas expand to fill a vacuum.  If you don't know what that fourth act is, the room may well give you one you weren't expecting.  

Sure, once the episode is broken, it's the writer's completely.  He/she writes the two-pager, then the outline, then the draft, addressing notes form Downey and I along the way.  Occasionally I'll do a pass on a trouble spot, or to address production concerns in prep, but that's it.  Once they're in prep and on set, the writers -- no matter their experience level -- are steering the ship.  Or at least lashing themselves to the wheel and trying not to scream too loudly.  Lose a location the day before shooting?  Good luck, kid.

But back when that proto-episode hits the table, best idea wins.  "Best idea" as judged by myself and Downey, so it's a rigged game.  That does, however, allow the writers to harbor a secret righteous belief that their pure version would have been better.  This is particularly useful when they are on set and can use this as a shield about their soul when things are going horribly, horribly wrong.  Never deprive a man of his right to second-guess his boss.  It's one of the few refuges he has in a troubled world.

Where were -- right, sorry.  We started with the villain: what does "image manipulation" mean in this current day?  That lead us into politics.  The current GOP battle for the nominee brings this into high relief: one bad day, one bad photo, one note-perfect hint that something's hinky -- you're done.  We already had a ton of research on the Carvilles and Roves of the world for the election-stealing episode. (I respect Rove's absolute commitment to ruthlessness and fine understanding of systems design).  

We then attacked the emotional through line.  Fun fact -- if you ever find a Leverage episode pitch, it has both a logline and a "heartline", to let the network know what character story we'll be exploring through this plot. We had the overall arc this year of consequences; the consequences of becoming involved with someone, good and bad; the consequences of your past -- and for Nate, the consequences of being an arrogant son of a bitch who's letting his anger and his brilliance become a shield.  Yeah, yeah, I know, we're just a little pulp adventure show, but we do try. 

Parallel stories then, made text when Nate says "How would we take down me?"  Josh, a little vertiginous at the speed, went off and wrote a hell of a script.  He managed to touch on some meta-points I found amusing -- Nate's desire for "the gloat", for example, aligns with Dean Devlin's Holy Trinity of what makes a good Leverage episode.  

We then got insanely lucky with casting, nabbing the super-fine Michael Gladis, late of Mad Men.  There's something about episodes where we really lock in on the bad guy ...  We can't do them every week, they eat up a disproportionate amount of page space relative to our leads and their stories.  But in this case, Gladis just planted this feet and swung.  He had a ton of fun, and watching he and Hutton dig in, and I mean dig in, no quarter asked on those two-handers.  You almost feel a little sad for him, that moment in the spotlight.  Some of the writers performed for a living and we know, that feeling, when they love you -- that is a drug that is almost cruel to inflict on someone who's not ready.  And there's Nate just out of the spotlight …

The final shot, where Nate and the villain both walk off into darkness, was conceived by the director Marc Roskin. It's a lovely moment, when a guy who's in charge of seeing stuff figures out how to really nail what the guy who's in charge of saying stuff is trying to say.  Roskin is a fantastic director, and you should go buy the DVD to hear his commentary on how he set up the very spiffy car crash shot. 

This is also the first appearance of Val Lundrum as Detective Grayson, in a throw-away.  Veach had mostly completed his draft of "The Experimental Job", where she plays an important part, and we though it would be fun to lay in the character early in the season.

Wow, that was … either detailed or indulgent, depending on how your coffee was this morning.  On to your filthy questions!

@Miranda: Starting with the Evil Speech of Evil. Nice.

Not just the Evil Speech of Evil -- laying out exactly how we will eventually begin him down.  Legitimizing a somewhat shaggy-dog plot by making it the effective villain plot.  Old pulp trick.

And yes, I am fully aware that's not how Photoshop works.  But it is boring to watch Photoshop render, and our job is to entertain you.  Rendering is not entertaining.  Just ask our VFX guys.

@Gina: Oh, Parker! How could you say that about Yoda? You may have just torpedoed any chance of a relationship with Hardison!  (Hardison's little yelp of shock was the funniest thing I've heard all day!)

We are tweaking Hardison a bit there.  He cares just a bit too much, in the way that we all care about something a bit too much.  That reaction was all Aldis, btw.  He just killed it.

@Anonymous: Hardison as a thug is hilarious! He is funny no matter what he does... But his bad ass is fantastic.

It was a pleasure to realize (and this was Josh) that we had an African-American character who was the least convincing street hoodlum of the group.  Maybe Dulee Hill over on our brother show PSYCH would be worse …

@SueN: So how long until Eliot rearranges Nate's face? I do have to wonder how much longer Eliot's going to tolerate being brushed off by Nate. He's the one most directly responsible for the team's safety, is raising some very valid concerns … and Nate's treating him like a lackey. Given this season's "theme," are we going to see any consequences of that?

Also, when Eliot left (after being dismissed by Nate), Parker seemed to follow. Was she showing a moment of solidarity with Eliot? It seemed like a nice nod to their developing rapport, as well as a none-too-subtle jab at Nate. I mean, how bad is your behavior if Parker is offended?

@Becks: There seems to be a lot of tension between Nate and Eliot this season. Are we going to see that come to a head at some point?

 Eliot's job is to keep them safe, and that just means reminding Nate of when he's banging off the guardrails.  As long as Nate doesn't go through them, they should be fine.  And Parker knows when to leave Nate alone.  There are times it's just not worth talking to him.

@Gibbs: WHAT THE HECK? How did Nate get away with talking Crap to Eliot without getting his face punched? NOT COOL! Also what's up with Hardison repeatedly calling Parker "woman"? Not bitching, Love you guys to no end. Good to see the bantering between siblings again, missed it.

Hmm, are they really that hostile to each other?  Don't see it, but then again, I'm attaching these form this end of the telescope.

The "woman's" and "girls" are Aldis's improvs.

@Sarah W: Parker said, "Squee." Parker said, "Squee." I . . . I love you guys.

That is the dead sexiest "squee" on earth.  When we were editing this, Downey noted "you know, you don't need the rest of the con to convince this guy to embrace fame.  If anything on earth made women who looked like that come up to me and talk to me in a bar, I would do nothing but that for the rest of my life."

@SPrite: Random question from way back in season 2 opener and all of season 2. Is Eliot still in the military? Is this a secret arc?

Eliot still does contract work.  Nice catch.  You actually meet a friend of his in the winter episodes.

@Rachael: I don't understand the bit about the negatives from the car accident. I took three semesters of photography in college with real cameras and film and dark rooms and all that stuff and I don't understand how you could alter real negatives. Can anyone help me with that part?

It is tricky as hell, and super hard to do.  There were some Hollywood scandal guys in the 50's who were aces at it, apparently.  

The trick is, you don't alter the negatives -- you create new negatives off an altered print.  So at the time Rockwell would have gotten the negative, developed it, altered the print, then locked off the camera and reshot the roll, print by print, then substituting the negative.  He's taking advantage of the prejudice, at the time, that negatives immediately convey authenticity.

To a great degree, it's like how you collapse layers on a pdf.  Kind of.  @PurpleOps in the comments did a good job of explaining it.

@PurpleOps: I'm also concerned that the show may be trying TOO hard to make Nate unlikable. Your DVD commentaries keep repeating the point, and the episodes now seem to be driving it home VERY strongly. We still need to be able to root for him, and his crew still needs to work with (not for) him and support him.

See, this is always tricky.  I don't find darker. conflicted Nate unlikable.  He's still helping people, still risking his neck personally, often, to do so.  I still find him charming as hell, even when he's being a jerk.  But that's me.  Again, all we can do is deliver the show in our heads, and see where it lands.

@demonbrat-98  I loved the "And I didn't even stab him" nod to continuity.

The show timeline really is just two years so far, three by the end of this season.  Parker's changing, but not that fast.

DaveMB: METH-uen? I guess the local-color experts can't be on set the whole time... (It's MeTHUen.) Seriously, a great episode.

You're lucky we didn't make him say Gloucester or Worcester.

@Kristin: This week's Leverage finally got me to post how great of a job you guys did this week. Definitely outstanding. There are so many wonderful tidbits foreveryone. When Nate kicked Eliot off the job I finally understood why you didn't answer anyone's "eliot seems really angry this season" questions from last week. 1.)It seems odd to me though that a senator knows about the leverage team? Seems really high profile for them even if it is an old friend of Nate's. 2.) Also, aside from staging, why did eliot move over to the seat next to parker when they were discussing Rockwell in the beginning? It seemed odd to devote a camera angle and cut to it. 3.) How is it Sophie has been the voice of reason this season? She has been the team's moral compass for quite sometime but it seems to really be shining this season. Definite character development. 4.) Why was Nate so hungover the next day? Yes, he's an alcoholic but I thought he was functioning. Sleeping in his clothes seems like such a reversion back to season one Nate. Is that the parallel we are supposed to draw from that?

Thank the staff Kristin.  All I do is drink and keep track of the index cards.  1.)The District Attorney and Nate were childhood friends, and Boston is a city of corruption and fixers.  2.) Just staging. 3.) It's intentional.  Sophie is on much more of an even keel than Nate is, as you'll see.  She's always had personal conflict, but never the level of self-destructive anger and bullshit he deals with. 4.) More lack of sleep, than the booze, or a combo plate.  I'll admit, there are nights when I can drink for six hours and feel fine, and there are raggy nights where three drinks will make me sour the next morning.

@Calla: 1.)Eliot does seem to be on Nate's case a lot this season, as does Sophie, only Nate is calling Eliot out on it a lot more than with Sophie. Is this because Sophie is better able to work her way around Nate's rough edges and come at things from several different angles where as Eliot goes straight from direct to angry? 2.) Finally, I wanted to ask about Nate. Nate said, "We take Rockwell down the same way we'd take me down." And Sophie kept saying she was afraid Nate would manage to go down with Rockwell. Would Nate succumb to the limelight like Rockwell did? Is he feeling under appreciated, despite the fact that they've had 3 (now 4) very successful cons in a row, even if Nate took a bit of an unorthodox route in the last two?

1.) That's a good explanation.  As you've seen, she soon comes at it from a very different angle.  Ahem.  2.) Not so much succumb to the limelight, but in his compulsive need to win tie himself to Rockwell's fate, over-extend himself.

@RRabit42: We've seen some of the marks recognize when they're being conned. What kept Rockwell from noticing that Nate was listing all of his own tactics back to him? Nate was definitely not subtle about this. Blinded by the realization that being in the spotlight could be attractive?

There's actually a moment, early in the show, where Rockwell shuns the limelight because he knows how dangerous it is.  We made it text.  But you can't -- or only the strongest can -- logic yourself out of the way that feels.

@Famous4it: 1.) Is Nate scared of anything?   2.) And I'm just curious: does the team have their own keys to the apartment. I know Parker doesn't need one, and Hardison's the landlord, but what about Sophie and Eliot. Did Nate or Hardison give them some or did obtain them in a more underhand manner...

1.) The only thing Nate Ford is afraid of is failing. 2.) Hardison gave them all keys.  Assume that for a while Nate tried changing the locks on a regular basis, but then just gave up.

@Allyone: 1.) If Nate is an honest man, does that mean he can no longer be a con artist? Cause you guys are making me nervous there. 2.) Is Nate really so susceptible to fame, as Rockwell was, or is it just the idea that you would need to draw him out to bring him down? I see Nate's gloating as more a function of anger than desire for recognition.

1.) There's definitely a different edge to how we write Nate on the con than when he called himself an honest man.  He can give himself permission to be a bit more of a dick.  2.) Not susceptible to fame, but to validation, to … need.

@MercedesA: So, every time Nate mouths off to, or generally dismisses Elliots' concerns I feel a general sphincter clench in the country! The tension between the two is palpable. (1) What is the outcome going to be? (2) Will Elliot be the one to walk away this time, just so Nate gets a taste of what it would be like without his muscle? (3) Will one of the weaker members have to get hurt for Nate to consider his drinking? (4) Is the tension due to the nature of Nates' relationship with Sophie? Or, (5) Is it that he's keeping the relationship from the team, or thinks he is? After all it is a form of conning the team.

1.) You'll see.  Not what you think.  2.) Oddly, one team-mate does decide to teach the crew a lesson this year … 3.) None of them are "weaker".  And if you go back over the seasons, Nate's always the one who suffers most for his drinking. 4.)No, Eliot can just see Nate's starting to edge close to those guardrails.5.) As of this episode, there's no "relationship" to speak of.  Yet.

@Brave: 1)I'll say "if" but it's more of a "when" the rest of the team finds out about Nate/Sophie will they feel like they've been betrayed by the duo? Because Elliot doesn't like when people con their own crew.  2)Just like my first question. With the way the team has become a family will that add tension because of secrets kept? Like what Elliot did last season and Nate/Sophie?   3) Does the rest of the team even know that Elliot killed all those people?  4) Will Nate ever realize he can't be an honest man when he is in fact a thief? I would say he's an honest thief.   5)In the last scene with Nate/Sophie was that her way of telling him she loves him either way?  6)Did we get an answer to who Nate chose to be in that last scene when he left the drink on the bar and turned the light to darkness or was it just a plot point to the episode?  7)Nate actually let someone in on his childhood, is that a sign of him improving on any front?  8)So I'm thinking since Rockwell had a skeleton in his closet, is there one in Nate's we haven't been privy too?  9)Nate seems to need validation and recognition in what they are doing. In some twisted way is he getting or going to get that satisfaction from the "Big Bad"?

1.) As you see in #408, it's more that they're annoyed than betrayed.  People I know aren't "betrayed" when their friends start sleeping together.  Annoyed, but not betrayed.  2.) There aren't a lot of secrets in this crew anymore.  Or at least, they're acknowledged "don't go there" secrets.  Friends respect boundaries. 3.) They know something unpleasant happened.  4.) It's always hard to give up who we think we are. 5.) "I love you" with a caveat.  Figure it out, one way or another.  6.) It's an ongoing arc.  The ending was more, well … foreshadowing isn't the right word.  But Nate is going into the darkness, and it may be the ending Rockwell had, or it may be something else.  But it ain't good.  7.) Nate's good at sharing surface stuff.  That's a longer post. 8.) Nope, the Nate you see is the one you got.  Everything that happened back in Act Zero is just there to support his multi-season arc. 9.) Oh no.  Oh, oh no.

@Philip Okita: Was Parker wanting to go to the "You can't love him until you love yourself" talk a total Parker/Hardison moment?

More a general "Holy Shit, you mean there are instructions on how to be a normal person?"

@Odie: Where were Parker and Eliot when they were going through the brochures and eating Chinese takeout?

Back room of the bar.  Odd angle, that's all.

Hmm, the comments then become a fairly spirited discussion of Nate's relationship and responsibility to the team.  Damn you people are clever.  All right, skipping down a bunch …

@Oona: I do worry a bit that we're revisiting Nate's identity crisis from the first two seasons, yet I know we're way early and you guys are smarter than that, I just worry by nature. Any chance that the thing Nate's anger can't beat is something less related to cons and more related to his relationship with, oh I don't know, someone on the team whose name he may have forgotten? (Hey, a girl's gotta try.)

You're close. But don't worry, Nate knows who he is, even if he has a hard time verbalizing it.

@NO Illusions: Great episode! One question: didn't Nate tell Eliot to take the job off? So did Eliot rejoin on his own (unofficially or else through the rest of the team) or did Nate ask him back? Thanks :)

No, that was more a cooling off walkaway.  Assume Eliot came in and took over the car hit on his own, with no apologies on either side given.

@Devinoch: Are we ever going to see a Nate/Hardison pairing for an extended time in an episode? We've seen most other pairings, even briefly, but we haven't seen Hardison and Nate paired up for a long point of time, and I feel like the two could do with a little bit of bonding.

#416, a great great episode by Joe Hortua.

@Raven Akurei: 1.) Will Leverage have a presence at Comicon this year? I've seen a couple writers/producers on the panel lists but haven't found a show panel. Leverage had one last year and I was hoping to catch one this year.  2.) And related question more about the industry: big fan-shows and cons that generate buzz - and occasionally draw off resources. Obviously to the fans these are big deals, but what about within the TV industry? How much pressure is there from the top to attend? How important of a marketing tool is it really?  Coming from the video game industry, I'm curious about your view of the super-mega-con.

1.) With the benefit of hindsight, no were prepping the finale.  No time for Con in 2010.  2.) It is a limited marketing tool, but any sort of internal reinforcement that the show is popular, particularly with a very passionate audience, is crucial to protecting it in the shark-waters of television cancellation. 

@Meagan: 1) The scene with Sophie and Hardison (btw, LOVE them together, they should have more to do together) while Hardison is working on Nate's backround check and Sophie says something, looks over to him and then gets all blustered...what was that about? Is she mad he wasn't listening and participating in her lil mind meld thing like Nate does with her. (Like I mentioned before, I love scenes with just Sophie and Hardison...their scenes have a different vibe then the rest and I am intriqued)  Question 2.)  When Eliot and Parker were checking out the brochures and Eliot mentions the seminiar "you can't love him until you love yourself" and Parker says "we should go to that one"...it seemed like it was played for laughs but instead of the usual "there's something wrong with you" look, he looks at her with real thoughtfulness...was this another acknowledgement of sorts that he knows there's something going on with Parker and Hardison and of her trying to work through her issues?

1.) That was an actor choice.  I honestly, on reviewing, am not sure what the intent is there.  They do have great chemistry together, you're right.  And there's a great Sophie/Hardison scene coming up in #416.  To tell you the truth, you get a much better sense of Sophie and Hardison's working relationship over the course of the next few episodes.  2.)  Yep, nice choice on Christian's part. 

@Fish: I know you can't do it this year (since you've practically finished scripting the season), but will we ever get to hear updates of Hardison's World of Warcraft character? The last time we heard about it, he mentioned that the "new expansion" was going to be dope (since I assume at the time you wrote/filmed it, Blizzard hadn't announced the Wrath of the Lich King title)... but we've now completed that expansion and are in the middle of Cataclysm. At some point we need to know how he feels about the rebuilt Azeroth. Not to mention what his character actually is (my guess would be Forsaken warlock with Enchanting/Engineering professions.)

Hardison, like myself, is an alt-aholic with multiple builds.  But always Horde.  And he digs new Azeroth.  Lately, though, he's been playing a lot of FPS on consoles.

@Robin: I know you have no question, but describing Nate and Eliot as " The man with the way in, and the man with the way out, as it were" is something I wish I'd written.  Nicely done.

@Elaine: I'm working on the Commentary transcripts thing.  

@Emma: In a completely unrelated-to-the-episode question, I have to ask: how influenced are you/the writers by the late, great Donald Westlake's Dortmunder series? I'm probably letting my fannish glee read too much into things but I can't help but draw parallels between my favorite show and my favorite heist author -- they plan cons in the back room of a bar! Nate's mastermind plans always go awry! You have an episode named "The Bank Shot Job"! (although, admittedly, the team doesn't actually steal the entire bank in that episode.)

She's named Parker, isn't she?

@Kevin: we played the Leverage RPG last week. That's the best licensed game I've ever played, hands down.

Play report!  I want a play report!

@allyone: Just thought of another question - Hardison created an extensive alias for Nate online in this one. Did he then go back and scrub the web to remove all that? As much as there's been talk of past marks going after the team, it would be kind of a funny riff to have someone go after not the team member but the alias that was created for them for a con.

Hardison has a full post-con protocol he follows.  We have had something similar happen, in "The Juror Number 6 Job", where it was one of Parker's aliases that got them sucked into the game.  And that alias recurs in #411 "The Girls Night Out Job."

@Kate: I was interested to see another figure from Nate's past make an appearance in this ep. Especially one who seemed to have cleaned up more than Nate himself. Can we look forward to seeing more of the team's other affiliations make an appearance? What do you think are the pitfalls and demands of using a character from backstory in appearances like this?

A few folks swing by - one of Eliot's army buddies makes an appearance a little later in the season.  I think the pitfall of any "past" character is that they take you out of the current action and relationships, where all the interesting story should be happening. 

@JeanG: Did you do the pardison part for the parker/hardison's fans?

Oh, you get far, far more fanservice in #405, as you've seen.

Okay, not bad.  Stay tuned, another one of these should go up in a semi-timely manner.

COWBOY BEBOP opening credits

Because @marcbernardin reminded me. I actually went online to learn how to make ringtones for the iPhone so I could make my own for this tune. In the comments -- your favorite opening credits, animated or not.

"The Pig with the Froggy Tattoo"

Seriously.  Seriously.

LEVERAGE #402 "The Ten L'il Grifters Job" Answer Post

I can only console you (and myself) by deciding that these long delays were my clever plan all along, so that we'd have something to talk about during hiatus.

This episode pitch came from the actors, actually.  They'd been kicking around stuff they wanted to do, and "fight crime while wearing rad costumes" was apparently near the top of everyone's list.  To be fair, I think they had the infinitely more adult and original "run a con during a murder mystery party" idea -- but without costumes, what's the whole point of that?  Bonus points: combining the "classic murder mystery" with "costumed con" forced us to not run "costumed con" in superhero costumes.  Considering the fixation several members of the staff had with putting Parker in a Supergirl outfit, that was probably for the best.

(FWIW, it should probably be -- Eliot/Wolverine; Parker/any Gail Simone character, probably Batgirl; Hardison would want to be John Stewart GL but we'd make him Spiderman; Sophie / Zatanna; Nate/Nick Fury.  I assume you will fill the Comments with endless discussions of both "characters/characters" and "actors/characters" matches.)

This is a good example for our Spec Monkeys,  of premise vs. execution.  "Run a con during a murder mystery party" is a perfectly good pitch.  But now how do you execute it?  In our cons, each team member wears what we call "the hats", the roles inherent in the scenario they're working in.  One of the good signs of a pitch is when it instantly generates hats.

Look at "The Stork Job", which began as a monumentally depressing Eastern European adoption scam episode.  When we figured out what we'd need to find the kid -- the movie -- that secondary scenario kicked free the hats: Eliot/producer, Hardison/SFX, Nate/Director, we got to touch on Sophie's acting, and do backstory on Parker.  That is one dense goddam episode, I'll tell you that.  Still one of my favorites.

... sidebar.  I wonder if the dark, always "night" setting in the old offices subconsciously pushed us into different tones and launch scenes for the show versus the very bright Nate living room.  It had a dreamlike quality that lent itself to the darker flashbacks, like Parker's childhood reveal in that episode.

The nature of the briefing scenes is something we've always struggled with, even going into our fifth season.  For example, I was not fond of the "couch" setup in Season two.  It tended to suck momentum.  But at the same time, it reinforced the very family vibe that we touched on all the way back in the pilot and that's been the backbone of the show. Looking at the set as it is now, I don't know how we'd block that scene in "The Future Job" where Parker comes home freaked out after the cold reader's cracked her past.  She needs to be in that living room, surrounded by her loved ones.  Maybe we'd do it in the back room of the bar now?  Not sure ... anyway, good example of how TV shows evolve constantly.  Or "fail to establish consistency through clarity of vision", if you want to take the negative view.  There are days I would sacrifice a staff writer for a reliable template.

(I can't remember the source for this, so I'll claim I invented it: "Movies are planned.  Television happens.")

... Right, back to "Ten Grifters".  What are the hats during a murder mystery party?  Planner, guest, uhhhh, waiter ... yeah.  That gets thin fast. And the tension in one of those parties tends to come from the hunt for a fictional murderer.  Not that gripping.  The pitch, at this point, is going a bit south on us.

So Geoff Thorne, writer of the fantastic "The Inside Job", decided to embrace the murder mystery aspect whole-heartedly.  We will do a classic murder mystery inside a party designed to ape classic murder mysteries. A bit meta, but hey, that's what fourth season's for.

Now, let's follow the first pitch path, where somebody else murdered the mark while our guys investigate, with our team not implicated.  Our team's trying to solve a murder mystery while running a con -- but why?  And what's the ticking clock?  If the cops are coming, all they have to do is slip out before the police arrive, and they're out -- after all, they would have appeared in cover stories, so there'd be no trace back to them.

No, that means one of our guys needs to be implicated.  Publicly.  We must have stakes in solving the murder before the police arrive.  And let's face it, in modern days of cell phones, the cops would arrive toute suite.

That led us to Nate being accused as the murderer, and gave us the parallel plotlines.  Our mid-show complication became running the stall, which would fall to Sophie.  Nate couldn't investigate , which meant Eliot had to switch roles.  Always fun.  That left Hardison and Parker on the original treasure hunt, which took advantage of the "spooky old house" tropes. (NOTE: You say "trope", I say "well-honed story tool.")

This also allowed us to set up one of Nate's issues this year -- his growing frustration at the sheer endless wall of bastardry that they deal with. This season Nate is both dealing with his anger and perhaps, more dangerously, becoming comfortable with it.  Would Nate, in a moment of weakness, cross the line?  Or even, worse, would he coldly and deliberately cross that line, because he decided that this one had it coming?  Would he actually kill one of these sonsabitches?  He didn't kill the man who he held responsible for the death of his son ... but that Nate Ford is not today's Nate Ford.  And today's Nate Ford is not necessarily a better man that Season One.  Not necessarily worse, either, just different.

A lot to cram into your fun little comedy meta-episode, eh?  Anyway, Geoff dove in and wrote a classic whodunnit, with lighting flashes and multiple suspects and an offered three-way.  You know, the classics.  Casting about for costumes that would both be strong choices (and would clear), we landed on classic detectives -- and that led us straight to Tim homaging his father's role as Ellery Queen.

Geoff gave Nate the line I said in the writer's room. "Ellery Queen is America's greatest detective."  I love Chandler and Hammett and Block and Ross MacDonald,  don't get me wrong.  But Ellery is my detective, the one who knocked me on my ass at age 12.  As soon as this idea hit the table, I actually jumped up to call Hutton and ask if he'd be cool with it.  (Thank God he was, because making him Holmes would have been so hacky.)  When you watch the performance, its a bit boggling; he's even got his father's rhythms down in the reveal scene at the end. It's just one of those nice little Easter Eggs for fellow mystery fans.

My only regret is that we really didn't have the time in 42 minutes to really do classic misleads when tied into a single location.  There's a reason most cop shows start with a dead body -- motives are then folded into the investigative arc storyline.  The investigative arc is a discovery mystery, in which the audience cannot possibly figure out who the killer was ahead of the detectives because they only get the relevant clues at the same time as the detective.   As much as I love PSYCH and CASTLE, you can't solve them before their detectives do, because their job is to find the clues.  Their goal is not to solve the equation, their goal is to find the clues which when plugged in will automatically solve the equation for them.  Their clues lead to other clues, more significant clues.  Like, you know, real detective work.

But if you want the classic drawing room scene, you need to have the detective assemble clues that we've seen scattered about the setting.  That means clues we've seen before the murder, too.  Layer in our victim scene, intake, briefing, setting up the con -- well, there's a reason, as a Holmes buff friend of mine remarked, that MYSTERY does these things in 90 minutes.

All said -- a lovely little offspeed, with Costume Designer Nadine Haders building her case for an Emmy with those great detective costumes. (Add in her work on "The Van Gogh Job" and really.  Really.  Just give her the damn thing.)  We built the order of the first five of the season very carefully, which we will discuss when we get to episode five.

Okay, your questions.  From two months ago.  Well, I'll assume most fo you are still kicking around.  As always, for you new folks -- I haven't looked at these yet.  I type the answers as I read them.

@The Goozer:  When are they going to steal a chalice?  Or stop a human sacrifice?

Next season, when magic returns to the Leverage-verse, and we finally get the Supernatural crossover you people have been whinging about endlessly.

@Mercedes A: Is Hardison supposed to be A Hardy Boy in this episode? Cause, wow that is hysterical!!!


He is both Hardy Boys at once, combining the keen mental powers of Frank with the sensuality of Joe.


@Jen Erickson: I own a copy of "Dreamnasium". Can I get it autographed by Geoffrey
Thorne? I hear you may know him. It would have a place of honor next to my autographed Leverage mug. Looking  forward to the Leverage version of Clue!


Tag him at his author page on Amazon.  I'm sure he'll think of something.


@Video Beagle: Foul!  Nate should have gone as Archie Goodwin!


As great as that was, been there, done that.


@Anonymous: More of a general question, since the ep just started, but how much instruction/planning does Nate handle when sending the team out on a straight out job? Is it like, "Parker, Eliot, break into the records room," or is it, "Eliot, you will be the janitor. Parker will hide in the garbage can. You will do [this], go [here], singnal [this way]. Eliot will cover Parker while she does [this], and give [this] as a signal if there is a problem..."? I'm thinking it's more the first but Nate is such a control freak, you never know.

They plan, and run it by him to see if he thinks everyone's plan will interlock.  They have a fair amount of freedom to handle their specialties.

@Video Beagle: Oooh, someone finally called out on Hardison's use of real names for Ids as in-world references.  Though I thought Nate's record was erased. Guess not.

Yeah, although I am always amused by the number of you people who assume anyone but you people would know who Yma Sumac, or the Avengers, erc, etc, were.

Everyone's record was cleared in Season Two EXCEPT Nate, and at the end of S3 only his jailbreak prison record was wiped.  Theres a lot of loose chuffa in the Interpol files.  You can thank Sterling for that.

@Miranda: I felt bad for Nate at the end of the show. The team are the only friends the guy has and they doubted him.

They doubted him because they know him, because he's the only friends he has.

@Wesley Gibson: Who thought of the flashback skit with Hardison being there when Halle Berry won an Oscar for best actress? Pure comedic gold.

Geoff Thorne.

@Brave: Also from that ending is Nate more upset that everyone thought he was capable of murder or that He himself thinks he's capable of murder?

Super good question.  Super good.  Answer's probably coming in November/December.

@Zenkitty (and others): 1.) I can't believe anyone thought Nate killed him! Killing Beck would have messed up a simple grab-and-get-out scheme, and left him trapped on an island with his victim. Even if Nate meant to kill someone, he wouldn't have done it so stupidly as that. Besides, Nate wants the bad guys punished, not dead.  2.) Eliot seems to be especially put out with Nate this season. What's up?

1.) They are worried about his impulse control.  That has not been an unknown problem in the past.  The intention here is not to make you ask "why does the team think Nate could kill?, it's to place into text "The team thinks Nate might be at the point where he could kill someone.  That's serious."

2.) Eliot's not really that put out, he's just annoyed at Nate constantly forgetting to put his own welfare into the equation.  Eliot's job is to get everybody out alive.  Nate's plans do not always line up with that goal.

@Anonymous: I'd like to know when Elliot is going to have his 'Come to Jesus' talk with Nate? And what will be the repercussions of that talk?

In the season finale, and it's not the talk you think it is.

@Sarah W: How many times is Nate going to hit bottom before he cleans up? He touches on the possible root of his problems in #401 (when he warns the client about revenge), so he appears to be aware that there IS a problem -- but that obviously doesn't mean he can fix it. Or will. Will he?

When did Nate hit bottom?  I always count "My name is Nate Ford, and I'm a thief" as a victory for Nate, a sudden moment of clarity.  He's a functioning alcoholic.  He's good at his job.  His job is being a bastard.  But there's a conversation Nate has in, ah ... winter episode order is fluid right now, but Nate has a conversation with Hardison that will answer your question, I think.

@Mihir: 1.) Right, i've got to ask. A while back, you said that Eliot hasn't killed on screen. So was the Butcher of Kiev just knocked out? Same for Quinn (Was the the dude in the Series 1 penultimate ep?)? Because i'd have assumed that Eliot would have just gotten rid of him, especially as that was Quinn's job... 2.) Just something that's been bothering me - Hardison was so hurt that Eliot left him to drown for such a long time in 3.15, how does he get over that and start working with him again, let alone hug him?! Does Eliot see Hardison as a true friend?

1.) Both of those characters are alive.  Very.  Alive.  2.)  In the Commentaries, you can here Christian explain that he played that scene as Eliot getting ready to kill everyone in that room to get Hardison, but being very, very aware of how long a healthy man can hold his breath.  Assume Eliot explained that to Hardison, and they're cool.  Brothers -- even ones who don;t like each other all the time -- work shit out.

@workworkwork: Let me also put in my thanks to whomever decided that Parker would be going as Nancy Drew.

I'll pass it along to Geoff.

@chelle: So the coms work on airplanes and throughout the rooms of the mansion, but don't go through the plaster/wood lath of the secret passages? Hmmm. And why blueprints (no one has used them for years)? Just for dramatic effect? Or is he such a bad contractor that he doesn't use computers or CAD?

Go back, we mention that the house interiors are reinforced with metal, screwing with the signal.  And the blueprints are for dramatic effect -- even we get tired of those interminable flash drives.

@Stephanie: 1.) It seems Nate is more and more trying to do everybody else's jobs while having a harder and harder time doing his own. How close is he going to get to finding himself a one-man show? 2.) And have you used that office building before? The Reunion Job, maybe? Or do tall lobbies with lots of glass just make excellent places to shoot?

1.) We've ... toyed with the idea of a one-man Nate con.  It hasn't gone away entirely, but would be part of a bigger suite of episodes.  There's a half-stepped variant in this winter's "The Boys' Night Out Job."

2.) No, new building.  And yes, glass and steel make for good shooting.  Depth.

@msd: So Nate just calls Bonanna up and tells him "this is Nate Ford"? Have they come to some level of détente?

More than detente.  Nate brought down the man who tried to kill Bonanno, after all.  They've formed one of the traditional vigilante/cop friendships so common in corrupt systems.  And the Leverage-verse is corrupt.

@Famous4it: 1.)Who was in on the plan? The cop, daughter and 'lug', or just the daughter and cop? 2.) How on earth did she convince him to help her murder her father? Riches? Should we just accept that he's a man with his own back-story that's made him the murderous, dirty cop he is today?  3. Or was he just sick of drawing the short straw ;) 4.) Parker believed Nate right away, Eliot didn't quite and Sophie and Hardison were in between. Does this reflect their trust in Nate, or do they believe Nate, especially drunk Nate is capable of anything?

The cop is the "lug" in this case.  And she convinced him with feminine wiles and sweet cash.  Which has worked in the past.  4.) Ah, good question. I think it's more that even now, these are inherently suspicious people.

@pattyv02: The large house/ mansion Parker was referring to in the Phil. was it Imelda Marcos'?:)) And I'd like to congratulate you for the successful awesome ep. though I felt quite unsatisfied with the Nate and Sophie thing.,, mind telling us if they're gonna grow into more than what they are(the a little more than friends who went to bed together)? I mean yes its obvious that they have feelings for each other, which is quite something that many of us fans love.. so I really how they grow into something much more than what i described. I hope Nate gets his act together, to satisfy the NATE AND SOPHIE fans..

1.) Yes, Imelda Marcos.  2.) Oh, you Nophies.  Sate's?  What's your word?  Anyway, as you can see, it definitely goes somewhere.  Whether it survives the traumatic season finale is the question ...

@Scooter5203249: General question, not related to the ep - are scripts delivered to the actors on paper or digitally to their iPads or whatever brand of tablet?

Paper, because revision pages with paper are still easier. I like paper so I can scrawl notes on the side. We do offer full pdf scripts and revisions, and Dean, for example, reads (and annotates!) all the scripts on his iPad.  

@Sherri: Ok, another "there's a question in here somewhere" -- Hardison. Now, Parker takes a lot of her emotional cues from Hardison and Sophie, but she's never really had a problem with Nate, but Hardison has shown he DOES have some, and they are growing, and they remind me ever so much of the problems Nate has with his own father. I am going back to the Scheherazade Job with this and the subsequent "mind games" Nate is playing -- to shape Hardison into another mastermind? I mean, Jimmy was trying to make Nate in his own ruthless, hard-assed, mean, tough image but he started in on a small child and did damage. Hardison, for all his hacking ways and his bitching/whining, is emotionally pretty resilient. I don't think he sees it that Nate IS teaching him (yet) and that the father/son vibe is taking on solid echoes of the Jimmy/Nate one.  You know, of course, as a writer, that when you can get your audience thinking this much and this long about what you've written, you've done a proper good job, yes?

That relationship is definitely evolving in almost exactly the way you've noted. We address it in "The Gold Job", which is the Winter season ep I referenced earlier.  And thanks for the complement, but that's all the writers working their asses off.  I just drink and yell about index cards.

@MagzMC: 1.) Quick canon question, has Nate killed before? As an insurance cop (a justified one of course, he was an honest man back then) or in self defence for example. Or has he only killed by proxy via Eliot's actions in The Big Bang Job. 2.) And if he hasn't killed anyone yet is the day approaching when he might have to or might choose to?

1.) No.  2.) Yes.

@dogdragon86: 1.) Who was exactly from the Pinkertons was Elliot supposed to be? 2.) Are tired of answering the people who wanted Nate to be Archie? 3.) Could you ever write a Leverage Stage play? 4.) Any little tips from aspiring writers?

1.)  Charlie Siringo 2.)  I adore them. 3.) Hell no.  4.) Write every day and keep a notebook of ... stuff that catches your fancy.  Relevant to what you're writing.  Whatever.  I use Evernote.

@Lydia: 1. Did Tim ask to play Ellery Queen, or was that the brilliance of the writers at work?

2. Do you have a Guinness, as you do for the commentary, when you’re typing up the answers to our numerous questions? Are you ever surprised by some of the theories we come up with?

3. (S3 question - I sincerely apologize for not thinking of it at the time, but this has been bugging the hell out of me). Where did the character name/alias Dr. Wes Abernathy come from, was it inspired by the Abernathy bridge (which just so happens to be a mile or so upriver from where the Ice Man Job was filmed)?

1.) We asked Tim if he was cool with it, but then he totally took over and made it perfect.  2.) I am distressingly sober.  And you people always surprise me.  What I love is when one of you will guess a giant character beat that's coming, and then kind of gloss over it with techie questions. 3.) Wes Abernathy i think was just a name that cleared.  It's in two scripts I wrote, so I may well just be using a name form my childhood I've forgotten the provenance of.

@bluehex: One thing surprised me, though: Eliot's sudden problem with grifting. I mean, you said yourself, he's the second best grifter in the team after Sophie. He did use the skill a number of times already - The Snow Job, The Tap Out Job - so how come he's suddenly so uncomfortable with it and needs to "adjust"? He forgot he knew how-to?

He's not really aware of how good he is at it.  And he dislikes puttering about with investigations.  That was someone else's job in the military unit he was in, where they were all code-named as ... no, you'll figure it out.

@Mrs. Sunshine: 1- Why did Parker know about dimensions and architecture?  2- Does Hardison ALWAYS carry a laptop (plus multiple cables, his smartphone, etc...) around?  3- I've always noticed that every little thing you see during the episodes is important to understand the con and the result of it (for example when Parker goes into the kitchen where the mark's daughter is making out with the guy). My question is: How do you come up with everything so that it fits perfectly?

1.) As we've seen, she rotates objects in space well.  She likes houses, since she breaks into them -- has a feeling for them like a music fan has for musical styles.  2.) As you've by now seen in "The Cross Your Heart Job", yes. 3.) Very hard-working staff and a lot of index cards.  We try, we do not always succeed, but thank you for your kind words.

@theimecraft: again with the Kansas mention... although this time it wasn't such a negative context. seriously, is kansas the hollywood word for "the ninth circle of hell out in the middle of forking nowhere"?

It's ... kind of out in the middle of fucking nowhere.  Sorry.

@RevTrask: Question: Might there be some Eliot-related fisticuffs coming soon? I really dig the fights, mocha or no.

you know, there are shows where they go a whole season without fisticuffs.  Yes, plenty of Eliot ass-whooping this year, as you've by now seen.  Quite a bit int he Winter season, although both Parker and Hardison get in a few licks themselves.

@Anna: 1) Did Sophie have a method in picking everyone's costumes? Or, at least, did the writers have a method beyond "this costume would be the most funny/awesome/heartwarming"? 2) Does Parker usually hear mystery music while wandering through secret passageways? 3) LOVED the subtitled bit... reminded me a lot of Hustle. Who came up with that gag?  4) While we're on the subject of Hustle, I know you're really only a fan of the first season, but how many of your writers would kill for a crossover, or at least Adrian Lester as a guest star? Out of idle curiosity, if it were the Leverage team vs Hustle, who do you think would win?

1.) Nope.  Rule of Cool.  2.) She hears ... things all the time.  She also sees things a little differently.  3.) That's from Thorne's script.  4.)  As I've noted before, we're in the same genre as Hustle, but we're over here in the "blowing shit up, fisticuffs, pulp Robin Hood" corner, while they're waving at us from the very cool but very different "con cozy" corner of the bar.  (And only six episodes a season, Jesus, I'm jealous)  I cannot imagine they will ever run across the top of a moving train while another of their members has a giant gunfight, for example. 

I love Adrian Lester but I think it would be hard to have him guest star, since he's so iconic in that role.  And Leverage v Hustle?  Well, I think that would be a classic example of "meet, fight, team up", wouldn't you?

@Darryl Mott: 1.) With the theme of this episode being "famous detectives" and the influence of Boston on the series, I was expecting someone to show up as Robert B. Parker's famous detective Spenser, especially considering the author's recent passing and the imminent publishing of his final novel. Was there a creative reason there was no Spenser, or did you have problems clearing the rights, or did everyone in the writer's room just forget? 2.) Also, since you're an avid roleplayer, I've been dying to know since I got turned onto Leverage, did you ever play Shadowrun? What made me fall in love with the pilot episode was just after the scene in the warehouse. I literally stood up and started yelling "THIS IS A SHADOWRUN STORY!!" Johnson hires a team, team does the job, Johnson betrays the team, team gets revenge on Johnson. Eliot = Street Sam, Hardison = Decker , Parker = B&E, Sophie = Face, and Nate = Mage (What? Some of the crap he does has to be magic!

1.) Spencer has no distinctive wardrobe that would call him out.  2.) Of couse I played Shadowrun!  I think there are some hacks online for using the Leverage RPG for laying both Shadowrun and Mage.

@Baritenor: So obviously Nate forgot Sophie's name and will have to dig himself out of that hole AGAIN. So now that she's told everyone (even if one special person has forgotten) the question becomes 1. will we ever ACTUALLY hear her real name spoken on screen? 2. If so, will it be this season? 3. Why was the decision made to keep Sophie's real name a mystery after toying with us for a full season...longer, in fact. Remember, Sterling called her "Jenny" mysteriously back in Season One. Will THAT ever be explained? Sheesh.

1.) yes. 2.) no. 3.) If it were up to me, you'd never hear her real name.  But back in the day the Wonder Twins convinced me that you people would riot, and so you will hear it.  But assume that Sophie;s name is the Leverage-verse equivalent of "He will knock four times."

@Oona: 1.) Questions: is it right to assume that Nate, after having his epiphany about anger last week and learning that they are targets from some unknown source is now feeling particularly introspective about why they do this and what he's become in the course of doing this? 2.) Was Nate testing Eliot to see how he would grift on the fly to find out information, as opposed to - say - distracting someone or getting access to an off limits area (which he has done a lot)? 3.) Would Sophie have dressed Nate as Sherlock if given the chance? 4.) Will we ever see flashbacks to Nate/Eliot working together in the past? 5.) And, most importantly, I know you've said the show has less than a 100 ep lifespan. Will you tell us if your goal is to have 6 or 7 seasons ? (Of course what I'm really getting at is please tell us you don't see the show going only one more season!)  6.) Have to add my appreciation for Nate's oh-so-very dad line "What's the Rule?" I use it myself all the freaking time with my kids. Is someone in the writer's room channeling their childhood (or parentdom)?

1.)  Good catch. 2.) No, its more he's aware of Eliot's talents than Eliot is.  3.) Absolutely. 4.) That is a card on the board.  We'll see if it happens. 5.) The goal is to keep it entertaining and good.  That's it.  We'll take it one season at a time. 6.) That's Downey's rule in the writers room, actually.  Very dad-like.

@Anonymous: my one and only question: is one of the consequences related to the fact that everyone seems extremely comfortable? What I mean is this: with the exception being Nate, the team trusts in the fact that Hardison will hack, Parker will steal, Eliot will beat booty, and Sophie will grift. Granted, the majority of this trust would come from working together for a number of years, but it seems a little too perfect from here.... Or am I reading way, way too far into it?

Hmmm.  Not really.  That's more a by-play of them being super-talented pros at the top of their game. The consequences are more personal.  But good question -- and some of the "role" issues will be addressed this season, but internally.

@Dave MB: If I'm not mistaken, Nate asked for "Detective Bonanno" at the end. A mistake, or was our State Police friend busted down in rank from Captain?

We just shorthanded.  He's a Detective Captain, but in case new viewers didn't know him, we wanted them to understand Nate had a police detective friend he could call.

@Anonymous: This episode kinda ended funny for me. Could you go over what happened to Eliot at the end one more time please? It seems like we say him check for rips in the guy's jacket and then nothing more after that. I know when Nate, Parker, and Hardison were running for their lives in the secret passage way Nate says "Eliot we need that exit plan NOW!" but Eliot doesn't respond. It almost seems like Christian missed a few days of filming. Was this because of his schedule or was this just how the episode was written?

No, hes there.  He did all the detective work for Nate, and we just lost track of him at the end because of editing.  We're a true five-hander, so sometimes some characrters wind up a smidge light.

@JK: 1) Was this an episode that ended up getting written with certain actors in mind for the non-team roles? I ask because there seemed to be a pretty high number of geek-recognizable cast members this time around, e.g. Steven Flynn (though I may be alone among Leverage fans in being excited to see Johanna Braddy from Greek back on TV). How often do you end up writing roles for particular actors? 2) Anyone in particular in the writer's room we have to thank for the Imelda Marcos and Halle Berry bits?  3) The latter gag brought up something that's been kicked around before on this blog, in the sense that the flashback implied that Hardison was actually sitting next to Halle Berry. We've already this season begun to see a lot of the team's past jobs and habits biting them in the ass - old enemies looming, their criminal records damning them, people catching the references with their aliases. Since this is a season of consequences, are we at some point going to see the repercussions of the fact that a number of them have had their faces splashed all over the place? Sophie as the international media darling in the San Lorenzo Job, Eliot's time as baseball and country music star, etc.? 4) Happy to hear Detective Captain Bonanno is still on the job. Will we be seeing him in person later this season? How about Taggart and McSweeten?

1.) Coincidence.  Almost every role is written actor-independent.  Never write to an actor.  As my old showrunner used to say. "You write for Cary Grant.  You get Conrad Bain." 2.) Thank the dude who's name is on the episode.  3.) Those particular issues will not be the ones that arise.  It's a big world.  Although I assure you, Sterling will occasionally watch the news footage of Sophie in San Lorenzo when he needs a pick-me up.  4.) Bonnano and McSweeten will return. Scheduling problems on Taggert.  One of the sad things about TV is that there are actual humans, with other jobs, attached to these characters.

@Meagan: Love the episode...this is my first time asking a question but I have been a reader of your blog for the last few years...anyway, my questions is: What the heck is Parker smiling/smirking about all episode? I found it absolutely adorable and since she's with Hardison the whole time, it made me think that she looks like a girl on a date with a really cute guy, lol.

She is happy to be stealing.  Stealing makes her happy.  Stealing with Hardison, particularly when she's figures things out before he has, is a very fun night for her.

@Rara: Will we be seeing Eliot use his Christmas Present from the "Ho Ho Ho Job" at all the season? If ever?

You came thisclose to a sword fight this year.  Maybe next.

@Anna: Question from my brother (which I'm sure has been answered before, but I'm not smart enough to find): What's the power source for the earpieces?

A funky little battery Hardison designed.  In the pilot he explains that they are ... possibly a little too powerful to be safe.

@Anonymous: 1) Did Eliot, as a retrieval specialist, ever have to retrieve something stolen by Parker? 

2) Did all of the team know of each other, by rep, prior to the pilot? I think is was mentioned in a Season 1 deleted scene that Sophie had heard of Parker's rep, but did the others really know of each other? I can't really imagine any of the others knowing about hackers like Hardison, for example, since it seems so far out of their wheelhouse, but it has been mentioned that these guys have serious reps in Crime World.

1.) ... I'll say yes.  That delights me.  Yes.  2.) They new of each others' reps, but never worked together and probably wouldn't have recognized each other at all.  Also, not a lot of crossover between Crime World fields.  Eliot would know all the hitters and retrieval specialists, but just kind of know about the big grifters.

@GBellmansNo1Fan: Thanks for proving Sophie really IS more bad ass than Eliot! *ducks flying objects from others* Hey, it takes Eliot a while to knock people out with the props he uses. Sophie, one shot, with the shaded end of the lamp, and little rich bitch was out cold? YES!!! However, I'm now left wondering exactly how long she took on the Annie Kroy persona for. Please say "years"...lie if you have to.

I could write Gina as Annie Kroy for five seasons.  She's my favorite cover identity.  Say she's been Annie off and on for years, whenever necessary.

Right, there are some miscellaneous comments left, but no real questions, so that's it.  Let's say #403 and #312 go up next week.  Gives you maniacs something to chat about in the meantime.

Talk to you soon.

LEVERAGE #410 "The Queen's Gambit Job" Question Post

That's it for summer! Questions, snark, and your plaintive cries for MORE STERLING in the comments.

LEVERAGE #409 "The Cross My Heart Job"

Hey, almost a bottle show! Kinda. Salutations, cheers and jeers, put 'em in the Comments.