They bumped the 9/11 First Responder's bill so they could vote on the tax cuts for rich people. This was supposed to provide health care to people who got sick trying to save the lives of our fellow citizens in that nightmare.
And as pointed out by the Washington Monthly, the only media covering this is ... The Daily Show. Watch this interview, it's goddam heartbreaking.
There's not a giant post-game on this. We'd talked about doing it as five viewpoints of a single con/heist happening in the present day, with the puzzle element being the audience piecing together the plan along the way. The time-frame was undecided up until the point where we started breaking it -- it's the script we're discussing in the room in this video:
Although many people can see links to the shifting viewpoints and dreamlike quality of House's "Three Stories", this was really inspired by Coupling's "Remember This" and "Nine and a Half Minutes". Who am I kidding -- it was inspired by all of Moffat, really. There are very few television writers out there who play with meta-structure and perception the way Stephen Moffat does. A lot of the great moments in Jekyll depend on the writer knowing the viewer knowing he's watching Jekyll & Hyde. He pulled off an absolutely magnificent season-long time-screw with Doctor Who this season by ...well, that would be spoilers. It's streaming. Go watch it.
All those play with shifting viewpoints -- but I like writing about memory. How do we showcase those different memories of the same night? Showing them with differing views of each other would make sense, but if we started screwing with differing views of the objective events, we'd all get lost. So one outside character would become the lens for that trick. But how?
One of my favorite experimental films is Hal Hartley's Flirt.* Three different sets of characters in three different cities experience three different stories all speaking the exact same dialogue. Flirt is, insanely, only available on DVD in Australia as far as I can figure. Time to go haunt your hipster DVD store.
And, so Coswell was born. We were just very lucky to get John Billingsely, who can play both sides equally convincingly.
The structure -- one character per act -- breaks out nicely from their roles as "Mastermind, Grifter, Hitter, Hacker, Thief." It's amazing how a throw-away line tossed into the S1 finale -- essentially just because I like the sound of it -- has wound up being such an oddly iconic facet of the show. The "power surge" acted like a starting gun in each act, gave us something to hang objective reality off of. However, assume anything and everything on eitherside of the surge is fluid. In all the stories, including Nate's.
All the acts were intentionally stylized -- it just made sense considering the characters, and is one of the original concepts of the show from the first ideas three years ago. They're actually less stylized than originally envisioned. In the original version for example, Parker sees people in black and white, and valuable objects in color.
Eventually the script fell out as a weird "whodunnit". We were deep into the end-of-season chaos. Downey and Thorne and Veach were breaking the first half of the finale, Colton & Aboud went up to Portland to shoot #313 (they came back to help with the finale scripts), the Wonder Twins were just back from #310, and Boylan was, for a chunk of this, up on her very fine episode "The King George Job." So I disappeared into the half-built editing bay that serves as our EP office and started making notes. Lots, and lots of notes.
Every now and then I'd emerge into the light, grab whoever was in the writers' room and try to break the choreography on the heist. We wound up doing this with Legos and office supplies, as seen in this Twitter pic:
For a while there was a full-on armored car heist. For a while there were more fake daggers, some shipping boxes within boxes ... This is one of those times where it's really, really good to have a writer's room. I'll admit that this episode is one I've been waiting to write for three years; I could never have done it without the help of every person in that room.
I then basically puked this thing out, and we shot ... pretty close to my first draft. This was a script where it's better to just write the damn thing than think yourself out of a good idea. After all, when you look at the handy timeline/continuity flowchart our amazing Script Coordinator Kerry Glover came up with, no sane human would ever give this a shot.
Production at first had a collective aneurysm. But then our very capable 1st AD for this episode, Eric Hayes, broke out the posterboard. He tracked every scene in every timeline on the wall of the set as they shot it, allowing Arvin Brown to focus on the actors and the non-insane bits. Big shout out to our DP Dave Connell (two N's, two L's, mate) and A operator Gary Camp for cooking up all the cool in-camera dream-fades, etc.
Oh, that's right -- scheduling. Our season was originally broken at 9/6 (nine summer, six winter) or 10/5. The we found out we'd be doing 16 at the same time we were told it would be 12/4. I was planning on writing "The Rashomon Job" as one of the off-speed Winter episodes.
But then we found out -- and again, I have no problem with this, it's just how cable rolls -- that we'd be just 3 episodes in the winter, with the season finale shown as a two-hour event. That meant no room for "Rashomon" as #314 ... but "Ho Ho Ho Job" was already written for the Christmas slot. Downey's script was always going to be the summer finale (#312) and Boylan was even then shooting the script (#311) that led directly into Downey's script.
So, "Ho Ho Ho" was slid to the #314 slot, even though it spent its life numbered "#313". "King George" and "Morning After" were always a matched set, so that meant "Rashomon" slid earlier into the season than planned.
All that said, It's pretty standalone, and this is one of those situations where script/shoot order really doesn't matter.
Right, into the questions:
@Barbara: Did i just see the duchess' address as warren ellis road, or am i imagining things?
Hey, he deserves a shout-out too, you know. if only for introducing his readers to Godzilla bukake.
@Gina: Only thing I don't understand is, when they met years later, how did none of them recognize that any of the others had been there? You'd think at least one or two would have a good enough memory for faces.
Five years ago, for three sentences, tops, and they were distracted. That was one of the things we worried about, making sure the exposures were short enough.
@IMForeman: Of course, I do wonder how Nate and Sophie missed each other, since they knew each by that point. And I wonder if this isn't one of the first big jobs Hardison pulled, given that he would have been real young by that point.
Nate was focused on Gladstone, and wasn't on the floor much, Sophie never saw him. But yes, that could have gone very differently. Assume Nate at some point realized Sophie was there in the wrap-up, but never pursued it, as he got his man.
@Jordan: This is non episode related. I was wondering if any of the five cast members could make an appearance on his season's commentary? I like watching the commentary and getting the writers perspective but I would like to hear the actor's too.
They've missed the last few years because of scheduling conflicts, but a couple of them are kicking around on the Commentaries for Season 3.
@Joey C: Are we supposed to take Nate's telling of the story the catch-all "here's what happened?" or is there still some room for debate in that?
Despite what some actors have said in interviews, no. Nate is still an unreliable narrator, although about 80% accurate. He's not making up the crush, or the crime plot, or how they interfered with each other.
@Traeia: The only criticism I would have is that the way the entire crew felt the urge to move to another part of the bar at every break felt very forced to me. Except Nate's movement to the bar. That felt veryNate.
I wrote that to allow us (and the actors) to track attitude. That way, they were always aware just how much they knew in the framing device-timeline by where they were sitting.
@Sammie323: That was Riley Smith as Sophie's Eliot, right? Did he enjoy trying to be Christian Kane? :)
Indeed, he had a ridiculously good time, and it was great to have him on set. He's known Kane for ... Jesus, I don't know, but I've seen a photo of the two of them as bloody teenagers hanging out together.
@Anonymous: Let's get right down to the important stuff. :) Did Sophie imagine Nate unzipping her or did he imagine doing that to her? Is it a little preview for a future episode?
Sophie flirts even in a narrative device.
@workworkwork: So how did you keep everyone from cracking up every time Gina had to roll out a new accent? (I especially loved Sophie's comment to Hardison's story - "I hate you all.")
We could not stop the laughter. Beth barely got through her sequences with Gina. And I suspect that's how Brits think of their American friends all the time ...
For the record, for Gina's last accent, the script simply reads "Sophie: Absolutely incomprehensible British-sounding gibberish." She came up with the accent herself.
@Sarah W: have to ask---do y'all have post-it notes all over your writing rooms that say things like, "Eliot---Monkey---North Korea---sapphire?" Or does someone just look up and say, "Hey, this would be a good place to stick a monkey reference as a special treat for Team Eliot." ?
Pretty much the second one. We do have those notes assembled by Kerry Glover and Rebecca Kirsch, but as we're not a continuity heavy show, we rarely need to go looking for something we don't know off the top of our head. 40 odd episodes between references, btw.
@Evening Shadow: (1.) In the Reunion Job, we find out that Hardison originally stole the Iceland money to pay for Nana's medical bills. In the Miracle Job, when he says, "I am so sorry Nana," he raises his gaze upwards and he also speaks of her in the past tense. I took all that to mean Nana had passed away. Yet in your Q&A for Ep 306, you refer to her as being alive to make Parker's dress. Soooo alive or dead? (2.) If Nana is indeed alive, does this mean she's met Parker or any other members of the crew? (3.) Speaking of Parker, will there be any more Parker/Hardison goodness coming this season? The 'pretzel' scene was excellent and I'd love some follow-up on that. (4.) I'm hearing impaired and I was wondering if there might be the possibility Leverage would take a page out of its TV boyfriend's Psych's book and do video commentaries. I can't listen to regular commentaries because it's the episode that's cc'd and not the commentary itself. On Psych S3, the video commentaries were cc'd and I was finally able to get some behind the scenes dish.
1.) Alive. 2.) Hmm. Hmmm. I do not know. Yet. 3.) Heh. Finale. 4.) We don't really have the abilities to do video commentaries (also, I'm drunk in a lot of them. Uh, all of them...) The closed-captioning is up to the DVD humans, but I'll see what I can do.
@Anonymous: ok my question is: since "eliot" had short hair is this where he starts growing it out so he's not as recognizeable and his enemies can't blackmail him and assassins can't find him?
When he transitioned from primarily, ah, dampwork to retrievals.
@Jason: (1) How far would Hardison go just to satisfy his ego and will it ever get him into serious touble?he did all of that planning just to steal a sword to prove something to other hackers.(2).Will we ever get to see Hardisons nana in a flashback type of episode? (3).How old would the leverage team be 5 years ago when this took place?
1.) I think we've seen Hardison's ego bite him in the ass a couple times. And as it's part of his superpower, he's not losing it soon. 2.) I think so. 3.) Nate & Sophie late 30's, Eliot about 30, Parker and Hardison early 20's. We always play them roughly parallel.
@Cameron Hughes: (1) What did Nate mean by "You all ARE criminals. I have no choice." I thought he was past this. (2) A late question, I know, but I talked to Beth about this and wanted your take. Nate was outraged by the fact that Archie didn't take her in and help her. Said he "ruined" her, but Nate himself could get her help, but instead uses her like a tool. Elaborate on this?
1.) He can still be a petty shit about it. It's like how people who went to an Ivy league school always somehow manage to mention the school in any conversation, no matter the relevance. 2.) Parker was a fully-functioning adult thief by the time Nate got her. He wasn't going to drug her and make her go to group. (Although, as we've seen, that was surprisingly effective.) He relies on her for a lot of the physical infiltration planning. He may use her, but she's at the very least complicit, and capable of her own judgment.
And hey, better you've got Parker pointed in the direction of "good".
@Shawne: My question is -- what is the significance of the team drinking with Nate?
He's back to a balanced state of functioning alcoholic. If you're going to hang with him, you might as well drink.
@The Pink Peril: What happened to Billingsley character? He lost the girl, found out he was oblivious to the crimes happening on his watch by his boss, and didn't catch a single bad guy. He needed a happy ending.
Oh, he got one. Nate let him take all the credit for the bust, and he wound up dating that other nice girl from the Antiquities Room. He's just ... sweet. He still think Nate is a swell guy, actually. And Nate is inordinately fond of him.
@CtRokJ: Ok a few of us were wondering. When we first see Eliot we spotted a number 7 on the back of his vest. What does it stand for? Mickey Mantle or Rule number 7?
We had to put something on the vest, might as well be ... Rule Number 7.
@Anonymous: (1) did nate realize that it *was* Sophie before tonight? or any of the rest of them? and (2) why couldn't't parker feel that it was a fake? she was the only one of them to hold it, but she clearly thought it was real.oh, and (3) where did Sophie's amazing duchess dress come from?
1.) He figured Sophie out shortly thereafter, but let it lie. He's had some questions about the funkiness of the night ever since the incident. 2.) It was a good fake, and Parker didn't have it for long. 3.) Your subconscious.
@nonniemous: (Long complicated question about Eliot being set up by Gutman)
No. It's not linked to the arc. Straight-up job.
@Whimseyrhodes: My question(s) are not episode related, but I hope you'll answer them anyway. Do you (or any of the cast/crew) ever read any of the fanfiction on the internet? You guys obviously know it exists, from comments/spoofs done on the extras of S2. What do you think about it? Does any of it offend? Do any of them spark ideas for new storylines?
We're genre writers, so know it's there. As I've stated before, I think fanfiction is the sign of a healthy show. But we don't read it. It's ... well for us, to paraphrase my old showrunner, it's a bit like a dog eating his own vomit. And I don't mean that in a bad way, I mean -- well, you either get the metaphor or you don't. It's just meta and recursive.
I'm sure some people would find some of the stories offensive, but ... eh. That's for you guys to enjoy.
@Richard Howe: With all this talk of Nate being a bastard, and having finally seen his dear old dad, I'm left wondering: was Nate a good dad? I know he loved his son, but that alone doesn't make you a good dad (though it certainly helps).
He was a great dad. He was a far better man with Maggie and Sam than he was before or has been since.
@Coren: One, how are these works of art being scanned? You obviously can't slap a barcode on or implant an RFID chip (even if RFID was that advanced five years ago) Two, so the dagger was gonna go back to Gladstone when it got scanned, but then Sophie changed the shipping address. But then Hardison hacked it so it was going to stay put - so why was the nice box which the dagger would be kept in still sent, without the dagger?
1.) Image recognition. Pretty primitive for then, but used widely now. Not good enough for authentication, just for filing. 2.) Two different assistants were working at that table. One saw the nice box was closed, assumed the other had packed it, and so put it in the delivery crate.
@ANonymous: There was at least one of Aldis' paintings on the wall? I thought I recognized the red one...
I think so, but I am not sure. I'll ask him tomorrow.
@Maya: I have a few questions. (1)Why is Nate wearing a ring/wedding band on his right hand, middle finger in the bar? I don't think I've ever seen Nate wearing jewelry before. Does it have a special meaning (for Nate/Sophie or Nate) or is it random and we shouldn't give it a second thought? (2) Did Nate know that it was Sophie going up the stairs in that fabulous dress right before him and Coswell? We do know that Sophie had no idea he was there as the insurance agent 'cause none of them did. (3) What happened to the roses that were meant for Sophie in the first place? I was hoping Nate would give them to Sophie in the end. (4) Was Nate projecting a bit of himself and his feelings for Sophie in the real version of Coswell? They're both into Sophie, they live for work and Nate might realize he shouldn't let her get away...
1.) Random. 2.) No, he compressed their distance in his version of the story, for time. 3.) Nate gave them to Maggie, who was pleasantly surprised, and a little suspicious that he was about to pop another "Nick and Nora off to Istanbul" trip on her. 4.) No. Coswell's crush is real. I could leave it all vague and Inception-y, but nah.
@dyluke: question: is the sapphire monkey the same monkey in the two-horse job?
Yep.
@Anonymous: do have a question, though. In the first two stories (Sophie's and Eliot's), John Billingsley says "I saw my first Duchess upstairs -- she -- you--". I don't completely understand the "first Duchess" reference. Was that the line as written? In these two stories, he's not coming on to Miss Ipcress (or her file :-), and he's not trying to impress her with culture, so if he was trying to say that she looked like the Duchess (as she did!), I think he would have expressed himself somewhat differently. What's the story with that, if anything?
It's a play on Robert Browning's poem "My Last Duchess." No, seriously, it always stuck with me.
Anyway, Coswell's trying to say she's as pretty as a Duchess. He is not having a good night.
@Anonymous: Question-wise: did the crew misremember the museum security chief as being super-competent to give themselves a better story, or did they just misplace the invisible hand of Nate in the proceedings?
No, it's their natural bias in a tense situation dealing with authority figures.
@Anonymous: We saw the Dr. Wes Abernathy persona in the Jailhouse Job. Is this where he came up with it for the first time?
I would say it's the name of a childhood friend he uses when he needs a quick character.
@MacSTL: (1) Hardison & the choking. We saw Sophie drug the champagne. Did Eliot really take that glass? But Hardison is not really alergic to shrimp -- so what did he choke on? (2) How did Eliot happen to pick the car of a guy whose clothing with fit him so well? We need to see a con where this trips the team up!! (In fact - Eliot did it twice in this and Hardison did it once.)
1.) he was fake choking, not realizing it would play into Sophie's plan. Sophie's the one who accelerated it. 2.) He watches the head height as they drive up.
@Radagast: One thing bugs me - would Hardison-five-years-younger really be able to pull off being a government minister? We saw him as he looks today, of course, but in the actual situation, he'd be a tad less mature. And I doubt he'd look like the memory Sophie and Eliot had of the 'minister'.
They weren't paying all that much attention to him. And kleptocrats run young. Not to mention the fact that most of you are convinced Aldis is older than he really is, anyway.
@Odie: Oh. A question: What was the security guy about to do that made Eliot's flying tackle necessary?
Eliot needed the uniform, and he needed to clear the guy out of line of sight of the door. Big kudos to Arvin Brown for using the locked-off comedy frame there.
@Kathleen: nice Guttman ref.
Thanks for getting it.
@Heronymous: Jon, you've said in several media that you believe there are a finite number of stories to be told with this crew (a point with which I agree, btw); is that number something you can share, at least in the ballpark? Or is that a "we don't say the name of the Scottish Play" kind of thing?
Less than a hundred.
@Jimbo: (1) was it written as we saw it, or did you start with the getout, and work your way back? (much like the heist in A Sacred Art Of Stealing by Christopher Brookmyre - recommended reading) (2) was the Baron Oil bit added in later on as a reaction to BP's little misadventure? Or was it just good timing, like the plane landing in the Mile High Job?
1.) Pretty much as you saw it. The conceit was "five versions of the same crime", then invented a crime with the fiddly bits that would work, then the character beats. 2.) It was happening at the time.
@Livlife:Nate has chased ALL of them at some point in the past, before the team came together. I can buy that being in the museum, he might not have seen one or two of them. Is is possible that Nate didn't know any of them were there? (I can't believe that). If he knew they were there, was HE there because of it? He stated that he was acting for IYS because of the suspected forgery by the evil owner, but was there something more...maybe to make certain that the fake wasn't stolen by one of the gang
Nope, didn't know they were there. The basic premise is not subject to the unreliable narration.
@SueN: I loved how, when the lights blinked off, everyone else went "power surge," while Parker's immediate reaction was, "somebody's broken into the security system." She is such a thief!
Although some people think Parker's streamlining her story, I'm going to go with this. She knew and didn't care, because it didn't impact her plan at that moment.
Remember, our rule is "whatever explanation creates the coolest interpretation of the character wins."
@Anonymous: The one gag that had me rolling, (and no one here has commented on,) was when Coswell stopped Hardison, he had a photo of Sophie, along with her personnel records. In other words, he had the Ipcress File. Hilarious.
@Anonymous: (1) ANSWERED EARLIER (2)Does Sophie have safe houses of stolen stuff all over the world, she had one in LA, and now London? (3)What happened to the Monkey, did Eliot ever get it? (4)I LOVED the accent gag, I'm British originally, and have the accent, and at that bit could NOT stop laughing. Who came up with it? (5)Loved Parkers bit with the dagger, the flailing and the skipping, is that improvised or scripted, either way, pure directed genius.
2.) As you've seen in "King George", yes. 3.) Season 5. 4.) I have a lot of annoyed British friends. 5.) All Beth.
@Ally: 1) Had Nate already worked with Eliot at the time of this attempted theft? Did he realize that he was helping Eliot when he got Gutman arrested? If so, how? 2) How did Parker escape when Coswell knew she was there? 3) What exactly was Nate doing in the "security office" and what made him come out to check the hallways?
1.) Yes, then no. 2.) Climbed right into another vent while Coswell was nursing his nose. 3.) Checking onthe food poisoning case, which had mysteriously disappeared.
@SueN: Stealing the dagger in modern day. I defer to Rogers – competition or collaboration?
Competition. How the prime storyline was originally conceived, three years ago.
Eric Palicki: why didn't Nate recognize Sophie from her employee file? Am I correct in assuming that she and he had a history by then? Did he not screen the museum employees?
He didn't see the file until afterwards -- he already suspected Gladstone, and came into the case very, very late.
@MagsMc: You’ve mentioned before that we need to keep our eyes on that envelope/file from Scheherazade, did we see a glimpse of it as Eliot searched through the shipping crate?
Nope.
@Kris: That's the same actress playing the reporter in this episode as in The Inside Job. Well done with attention to detail! (Nosy production question - did you have to bring her back to film this bit, or did you just film it when she was on set for The Inside Job?)
Brought her back. She's part of the Leverage-verse.
@Simon: With the argument between Sophie, Hardison & Eliot at the beginning of the show, Sophie's argument was the only one I could make out clearly from start to end. Was the audio manipulated to make her argument stand out over the other two or did it naturally end up that way?
That's just vocal tone. The argument was all improvised.
@Katie: (1) Was it just me or did the normal leverage background music have a bit of a Coupling spin? Noticed it mostly before Sophie's story, am I just hearing what I want to hear?
(2) How hard was it for Gina to pull off an Americanized fake-ass Cockney accent? And the worst dwarf imitation ever? Big ups to her for that, btw.
(3) You write such amazing Sophie scenes, is it mostly cause you like making Gina work for her money or because you have an affinity for the character? Do not in any way infer that you don't write them all splendidly, but your Sophie stands out as being particularly amazing :)
1.) Coincidence, I think. Not sure Joe DeLuca ever saw the show. But it's a Sophie-spin. 2.) She can do it in her sleep. 3) I have to admit, I always like writing Sophie. Part of me pines for the justification for a Tara/Sophie spin-off.
@Erin: Question: Regarding the Nate-Gutman-Eliot reveal - to what extent, if any, was Nate aware at the time that taking out Gutman would benefit Eliot? At first I assumed it was inadvertent, but on rewatch that second beat at the bar after everyone else walks out sure reads as Eliot being grateful for more than Nate's unknowing involvement in a happy coincidence. Are we meant to be reminded that Nate, at his chessmaster finest, knows where *all* the pieces are and arranges them exactly as he sees fit?
Inadvertent. Total coincidence.
@Rebecca: Please settle a debate from TWoP - did Sophie put some kind of shrimp juice or shrimp product in the Minister's drink to cause an allergic reaction or did she put something to make him sick and then just point out that the food he'd been eating had shrimp in it, making everyone believe he was having an allergic reaction? A moot question, I know, since the Minister/Hardison never drank the drink, but still...
Shrimp juice. Sophie was a professional criminal who didn't give a shit what happened to some corrupt ass-grabber on her way to the prize. Assume, however, she was working under the belief he'd have an allergic reaction and be fine.
@Erin: You know what theory I do like, though? That Nate was *never even there* that night. Think about it...that's right... Here, you can borrow my tin hat, it's quite comfortable :)
That works just fine, actually.
@Wa: I apologize if this has already been addressed? Who wrote the episode? Was it yourself, or a collaborative effort with each of the centric character's writing team working on their version of the tale?
Each episode of Leverage, with the rare exception, is written by a single writer (or writing entity, in the case of partners). Although most shows are broken in the room, the writer of record usually pitched the idea in the first place and takes lead in figuring out that plot. They then produce an outline, and finally a draft. Downey and I will give notes, and occasionally I'll do a light pass, but the writer's in charge of all revisions. That writer is then on set to adapt to any changes in physical production, director's notes or actor's input.
The exceptions tend to be the finales, where Downey and I will sometimes split up acts, but then the writer of record does the final unifying pass. If you look back through the post-games, we usually note any other exceptions.
@Michael: One further comment/question: Did I just imagine things or did Hardison, in the scene where he pretends he actually had the dagger (a few seconds later replayed as dismayed not having the dagger) pull a perfect copy of an Eddie Murphy as Axel Foley-face?
Aldis was showing off.
@scooter5203249: (1.) Nate was just being sarcastic when he said he'd go back to jail "forever" if they didn't find Moreau, wasn't he? I can't think of anything he did that would warrant a life sentance, and what the hell, he gave state's evidence. He may be a thief, but he's still a good guy. (2.) Sophie gives some of her artwork to the museum to be exhibited while the dagger is on display to get an easy in. Why isn't she worried that someone will recognize one of her pieces as a stolen item? Or are these suppose to be items she bought with, perhaps, proceeds from stolen goods?
First off, I'm disturbed that there were 5,203,248 Scooters in line in front of you for that screen-name.
1.) The organization The Italian belongs to is not a big fan of due process. Enjoy your frame-up and banishment, Mister Ford. 2.) Stolen items have actually been exhibited in museums countless times. She was making a safe bet.
@Dawn/StL-MO: (A) When Eliot’s in the van opening the crate, first he tosses & breaks the “Ming” vase (hysterical) the next thing he pulled out was a pocketed folder with papers in it. Was the information in the folder something regarding Moreau? (B) In Parker’s pov, she crawled into the storage room from the vent, set her duffle bag down & went for the door. She couldn’t get out the door because Eliot & the security guard he tackled were leaning against it, so she went to Plan B. If Parker was really planning on walking out the storage room door, why would she have put down her bag? Was it just a move to make the bag switch work & I should just ride the fun train?
A.) No, see above. B.) The closet, as written, was WAAAAY smaller. She needed to get her hands free to open the door. Set changed, bit didn't. Plus, all it had was her climbing rig, which she didn't need to lug around until her escape.
@Kate: My main question for this ep, however, is this: Does realizing they have NEW first impressions of each other change anything for any of the Leverage crew?
Nope. They're pretty set in their ways by now.
@Gentry: Question: When did Parker start being able to understand Sophie? Or was it more to do with the fact she just didn't care to really listen to what some random Duchess was saying.
That. You can assume most people sound that way to her, actually.
@Rusty: When Sophie's telling her story, "Dr. Abernathy" has short hair, but in each subsequent version, Eliot has his current long hair, albeit in a ponytail. The "waitress", before we know it's Parker, has long blond hair not in a ponytail. After Parker is revealed, her hair is always in a ponytail. My take was that, once each of them knew the other(s) were involved, they were 'seeing' them in the retelling as looking like they currently do - thus the subtle changes. This is similar to how, for example, Eliot's attitude and actions with the knife (not to mention the knife itself, lol) kept changing to fit how the others perceive Eliot now.So, was it really thought out that far, down to the hairstyles?
I wouldn't say "thought out that far", more "internally consistent." It only made sense to drop present day versions of the characters into the story as we went. However, because of the order of the stories, you have no idea what Sophie looked like back then...
@Anna: (1) Does that pic Hardison snapped of Eliot and Sophie exist somewhere? (2) Why did everyone remember Caswell being such a hard-@$$? Do they feel that way naturally about all authority figures? (3) Current status of Hardison's nana? (Sorry if it's already been addressed). (4) Was it hard to clear the bit about Baron Oil?
1.) Oh yes. If he snapped it, it's on a hard drive somewhere. 2.) Authority figure bias. 3.) Alive. 4.) Barron Oil is a fictional Company with no relation to companies currently in existence. Why would we have a problem clearing it?
@bluetiger: Question: Why isn't Nate wearing a wedding ring in the flashback? And what, on the other hand, is that ring that he's wearing on his right hand in the bar?
He doesn't wear a wedding ring. (Neither do I, actually. Feels weird typing all day with one.)
@TJ: (1) I'm assuming everyone's mad at Parker, not because she stole the dagger, but because she didn't say anything about stealing it? (2) Did Beth Riesgraf actual do her cup and ball bit? And how? (3) During Hardison's explanation, she seems confused - is that her working out what happened before her theft or did Parker accidently fool herself with her cup and balls routine? It is Parker... (During a later read of my own post (Note she's also the first person who figured out Nate was there.) Is that when she realized Nate had been there that night?) (4) Why are they all arguing that they stole it even though none of them had hands on it at the end of the night?
1.) Exactly. 2.) Yes, and we tell you on the DVD. 3.) No, she was trying to figure out who got it, because she knew she didn't get it. If you watch her face, you can see her tumble to Nate just a beat before everyone else. 4.) Because each one pulled off the perfect crime. it was just somebody else's fault that they didn't get the prize.
Okay, let's see if I can squeeze at least one more out before "The Ho ho Ho Job" airs. Regardless, have fun tomorrow, then strap in for the soul-shattering two-part season finale!
*Lovely Wife is a big Hal Hartely fan, and I wound up watching this over her shoulder on IFC one day. She's the classy one - she reads Serious Literature and watches Hal Hartley. I read Chandler and misted up during the Community Christmas Special. But it works.
Well, you don't have to go far for the bad guy here. The headlines were all over the place as we were breaking this episode -- indeed, it was one of the few times Dean sent us an email asking "We're doing this one, right?"
As you all know, I believe the government is best that governs least. But this really is one of those situations where the need of a regulatory body cannot be argued. I mean, in the dozen or so real cases we researched, some mine owners ignored hundreds of safety citations -- hundreds per mine -- and gamed the system with appeals and shenanigans with local judges. It doesn't take much to imagine what they'd get away with if there wasn't even the hollow threat of government intervention we have now.
Yes, yes, they paid fines. But as we all know, a fine is a price. In this case, the price of doing business without worrying about killing the men who are trying to feed their families by working your jobsite.
The Wonder Twins, as always, did a ton of research as they broke the story. Coltan, the MacGuffin of the episode, is real. Gave us a nice update on the old "salting a mine" con.
They actually found a mine worker's rep who talked to them for a good long time, told them about all the equipment, the safety measures, even gave them the shift-change dialogue for the opening sequence. His only request is that they not make coal mining look like a second-rate or pitiable job. We tried hard to make the point -- yes, it's dangerous and dirty, but somebody has to go into the goddam earth and crack her bones to make your electricity for your Facebook page and Xboxes and baby incubators.
As to the character beats, it wasn't a big stretch to put Eliot in the mine. After all -- pickaxe fight. C'mon, it's practically mandatory. His relationship with the kid is one of respect. The boy was stepping up to support his family. That, more than anything, is what got Eliot on his side. At the same time, he's acutely aware of dumb choices young men who lie about their age make -- hence his desire to move Cory over to something more advancement oriented.
We're always interested in putting Parker into the cons. As I've stated before, nobody quite writes Parker like the Twins, and they did a great job of advancing Parker's con abilities here. Sophie's been schooling Parker off and on for three years now. Parker's's never going to be great at it, and she'll always do it in her weird, obsessive way, but Parker's at least dependable in the short con. Just don't throw a curveball at her. And note I said "dependable", not "good." That may seem like a fine distinction, but considering how Hardison is simultaneously inspired and awful in short cons, it's a distinction worth making.
The character of the Attorney General was, for the first outline, a guy ... we'll deal with that in the questions. The mine owner, I will admit, was a decent character that turned into a great one when Bruce Davison signed on. Much like Michael O'Keefe made a series of small, inspired choices to build up his character, Bruce's off-beats grounded a villain that very easily could have gone over the top. My favorite moment, one of my favorite acting moments in the entire series, is when he's about to make the call to blow up the mine. He starts to dial the phone, looks at the AG and says "Here we go." There's a little ... naughtiness there, an almost sexual frisson. It's inexplicable and utterly necessary at the same time. I know people will argue Pesci deserved the Oscar for Goodfellas, but damn ... I mean, there are very few moments of such raw humanity as Davison's "goodbye" speech in Longtime Companion. It's a bit like how Hoffman won the Oscar for Rain Man, but Cruise had the much harder role -- but that's an argument for another post.
Before we dive into the questions, I want to give a big shout-out to Production Design and Sets on this one. They did a fantastic job of making a very small, twisty set of tunnels look like multiple areas in a much larger complex. That, combined with some great shot-making by Marc Roskin gave this episode a lovely feeling of scope.
All right. Here we go.
@SueN: Just a comment on the preview: Thanks for drawing attention to the recent (and unbelievable) Supreme Court decision which codified the selling of our government to the highest corporate bidder. That still pisses me off …
We talked to an election law specialist who consults for presidential candidates while researching ... Jesus, which was it, we've made 40-odd of these. Oh, yes, the season opener, when the PAC fund scam was a much more complicated piece of business than what wound up in the script. I remember how I was at first a little derailed when we were talking to him:
Me: "So wait, election funds are that tightly regulated --"
Expert: "Oh yes. You can't move a dime out of an election fund without the Feds bringing down the hammer."
Me: "Dammit. What about a PAC?"
Expert: "PAC'S are essentially slush funds. Like exploratory committees. You can move money all over the place with those."
Me: "What's the difference between a PAC claiming to support a general cause -- but actually dedicated to supporting one candidate -- and an election fund?"
Expert: "Ahhhh. Now you're getting it."
The Citizen's United Decision we reference in passing has managed to be precisely as miserable as its critics -- election reform experts both conservative and liberal -- anticipated. Politico -- not exactly a liberal news organization -- reported that out of the roughly $15 million one PAC raised in the months before the last election, nearly $7 million came FROM ONE GUY. A coal mining concern dumped in another $2 million.
All this is not to sob and boo-hoo about corruption. I'm not making a political statement, I'm making a crime-writing statement here. If you're a crime-writer, you look for ways to hack society's inherent social and legal regulations, because that's what smart crooks do. The really interesting crimes are the ones that aren't technically crimes. I'm as interested in the ability of rich people to influence elections -- that is, for people to protect their interests and maximize their money -- as I am in guys who provide bad service to game the Google search rankings, or people who crash entire countries' internets. (Okay, in theory that last one's a crime. But there are ways of doing it that aren't crimes ... yet.) Right now I'm kind of fascinated by research into charity grift. The Leverage CrimeWorld is a direct cousin of FilmNoirWorld -- corruption is its operating system.
@Joella Blue: For two episodes now Parker has mocked Eliot's pain such as being hit by a car and by a tire iron. If this was a novel, I would think this is foreshadowing some event where Parker regrets or is made to regret mocking him. Either he turns on her or really gets hurt. Close? or waaay out in left field?
It's more a mix of her belief that Eliot is invulnerable and her own annoyance at the situation during the times in question. Empathy is not her strong suit. I'm not even sure she owns that suit.
@Gina: Uh, guys? The Palin parody? Completely lame. Now, give us a parody of a First Lady who spends like a drunken sailor in the middle of a recession . . . then you'd REALLY have something funny. As a new fan, I usually like your show, but it might behoove you to remember that your audience isn't 100 percent liberal. Just every once in a while, you know. As a novelty. :-)
We wound up having a ... spirited discussion about this in the Comments. Apparently things got a little warm over on the TNT boards as well.
The character started as a male judge -- we were doing a straight-on buy-off conspiracy. We realized then that we hadn't had a female villain for a while, and putting the bad guys literally in bed with each other would give us some fun juice and another lever to use when we spoiled the conspiracy in the fifth act. So the male judge became a female AG. A particularly law-and-order female AG who went to a Serious University and revelled in her job and political career. And who wore the kind of suits female politicians have to wear like a goddam uniform in the American political scene, god help you if you diverge from that studiously desexualized image ...
That ain't Sarah Palin. Hell, you could argue it was based on Nikki Haley, or Kamala Harris, or Kay Hagan or, to tell you the possibly actionable truth, Kay Bailey Hutchinson ... but here we are, running right into the issues we ran into with sex in #207 and race in #304. We live in polarized times, and people read media as they will.
I think a more interesting discussion is: if we do parody figures who self-identify as conservative, is that parodying conservatism? For example, I don't think Sarah Palin can carry Senator Lugar's lunchbox. I once made fun of the book Liberal Fascism, and people were offended that I was making fun of conservatives. No, I was making fun of one well-written but horribly conceived book. (And I would remind you, if a post on this blog doesn't have the "Leverage" tag on it, anything is fair game. This blog preceded Leverage, and will survive it.)
If we make fun of Clinton's horndogginess, are we making fun of liberals? Amy Poehler's Hillary makes me laugh so hard I wince. I personally think Michael Moore's done some nice work, but Jesus Christ does he come across as an asshole, and is ripe for parody. I wouldn't consider slapping him around filmically a blanket condemnation of liberalism.
You can figure that the Congressman from "Homecoming" was Republican or Democrat, you can assume the AG was either, based on the accent and the location ... End of day the Leverage storytelling universe is built around an axis of People With Power, and People Without. Last time I checked, lots of R's and D's after the names of the People With, and plenty of R's and D's on the People Without.
And I cannot finish, without noting, as one commenter did, that you want people to spend during a recession. :P
@whimseyrhodes: So here are my questions: The mine was supposedly filled with methane, or pockets of. Why didn't the entire mine blow when the first explosion went off?-and-Why didn't Eliot seem to notice it when it DID blow?
Because they faked it. The methane detectors were rigged. That may not have been clear in the flashbacks. Our bad.
@J.J: I thought the "sounds like they were working out" comment was great but Is Parker really that naive about sex or is Parker just not a noise girl
Parker did not expect to hear those sounds in that context. I refuse to comment on her ... "noisiness."
@Caitlin: My mom and I were just wondering if there were any interviews done with the families of victims of mining accidents when this episode was being written. And is there any chance that Cory might come back?
Not only would we not want to bother those folks, it would have been touchy to base the whole ep on one case. It's an amalgam. Assume Cory is moving on to a very satisfying, non-Leverage life.
@Hardy: Did Parker sleeping in Hardisons van signify a growing comfort level/relationship or am I reading to much into it?
You know, we always kind of assumed she catnapped in weird places this whole time. It's a sign of trust, but nothing all that significant.
@Anonymous: Did a Nate/Sophie scene towards the end got cut? I saw a production still that made me believe we'd get a nice N/S scene at the end when Nate got out of the mine. Why are you deleting Nate/Sophie scenes lately? The same happened in The Three Card Monte Job. There are hardly any Nate/Sophie scenes as it is this season. You're making this fan very unhappy. Whhhhyyyyy?
That still was taken as the actors set up a shot, we never shot the cut scene. I don't remember what got cut in "Three Card ..." I think there's a lot of Nate/Sophie in this season, but much like I will never get enough Eliot/Mikel or Hardison/Chaos action for my personal taste, we can never make everybody happy.
@Linn25: You're not really trying this season with Nate and Sophie, are you? I mean, last season Sophie was gone but then we got that fabulous kiss. I was looking forward to see more of the sexual tension after THAT kiss, looked so promising. Okay, we got a couple of moments early in the season but now you've totally abandoned them, the romance between them. This season should've built on that kiss. Such a shame and a missed opportunity after the kiss. Almost too late but is there anything coming up for them at all?
You see, I never get this right. But I'd say the entire season is built off that kiss. It discharged the energy, like a spark, and reset the relationship. A lot of the Nate/Sophie stuff this season is them figuring out "well, what are we now?" Sophie's his partner and equal this season in ways she's never been up to now. That's going to change the relationship, but in my mind only make it more mature.
@OhShinyTomato: Please tell me that you'll work into another episode all of Parker's "notes" she has on each member of the team. That would be hilarious.
We may put them on the DVD.
@Beige: There were lit lanterns all over the mine in addition to the electric lights. It sure looked cosy, but am I right in suspecting that lanterns are TV shorthand for 'old and unsafe mine'?
Close enough. But were those "lamp" lamps or electric lamps? I'll have to go back and check. Frankly, you may have just caught us out.
@Tom Galloway: One minor hitch in the fun train; I got the impression that the miner came to the team, not them finding out about the problem and contacting him. So now random folk from small, usually socially isolated, backwoods towns 500 or so miles away known about the Leverage crew and how to contact 'em? These guys are almost as easy to find as the A-Team! : -)
This is funny, because I had lunch with the fabulously talented and amusing Matt Nix the other day, and as we genially gave each other shit about our shows, the clients finding the Leverage team was one of his bugaboos. However, he admired it: "'How did you find the team?' Who gives a shit? We're Leverage! 'Why do you trust these people?' WHO GIVES A SHIT?! WE'RE LEVERAGE!"
At the same time, if I had to write what he had to write every week, I'd put a gun in my mouth. "Michael, my Yoga instructor's second cousin's niece got involved with meth dealers. You have to help her."
We actually did, way back when, write an explanation of how Leverage found the clients. It was in "Homecoming", where Hardison explained how his new tech setup scoured legal aid websites, headlines, etc, for potential clients, then contacted them through proxies. Not sure if it ever made it on the air. To tell you the truth, Matt's right -- who gives a shit? Our job as pulp writers is to deliver you the most interesting moments from the case of the week. We dug in early that we'd never reveal the client process, for both that reason -- it's boring -- and for a larger philosophical reason. We always wanted the audience members to feel like, at any time, the Leverage team could swoop in and help them. Details in this case would accomplish nothing but disillusionment.
@Kevin: I didn't see it in the comments yet (sorry if blind), but I don't understand how the AG knew sophie was tricking her. One moment she's stunned that "sophie" is sleeping with her man and taking the pac money out (away from blackwell) and next she's telling sophie she's on to her and cancelling the transaction and threating to send her to jail.
She knew that (Sophie) had pretended to be a mine inspector as part of her con, and threatened to reveal it AS part fo her jealous retribution.
@Stacy: 1. Loved having Tim bring back the Gibson character. I would really love to have you bring back his Karl Lagerfeld impersonation, though I have no clue how you would fit that in. 2. I really appreciated how Parker has to equate grifting to be 'stealing souls' just to fit into her frame of reference. 3. Was really shocked that Eliot actually swung a killing blow in the mine fight scene. I don't think we've ever seen him actually try to kill anyone before. He usually just goes for the knockout. Kinda disturbing, but wholly sexy. I know, I'm sick.
1.) You ain't seeing that frilly fan again. 2.) We're working on another nice Sophie/Parker beat for S4 even as we speak. Sophie's finally figured out how to explain things to Parker in a way she understands. 3.) Yes you are sick, but that blow was meant to break the other pickaxe, not kill the guy. He's trying very hard not to kill people. Yet.
@Erin: Question 1) Obviously if Eliot really wanted the guy dead, he'd be dead - but would it be safe to say that at that moment he didn't *care* much if the guy took a terminal pickaxe to the skull? Or was it just a very cool-looking move with no particular deeper meaning? And 2) If the mine was basically a death trap, how could the team risk even that small explosion? Was "Section C" supposed to be a little more stable than the rest of the mine?
1.) Noted above. 2.) More stable, and they're very good at their jobs.
@Stacy: One last question (well, maybe the last). Has anyone ever addressed the question of why the seasons are split? I really dislike it and would like to know if there is actually some sort of logic behind it. KTHXBAI.
All the networks are struggling with ways to retain viewers in a very crowded marketplace. The theory that by spiking winter episodes you create a kind of, ah, "enthusiasm bridge" between seasons is a popular one, and actually makes a fair bit of sense. I'll be interested to see if Walking Dead holds its audience after a ten month break, for example.
@RevTrask: I have a question concerning the "group gloat"...isn't it smarter *not* to let the mark know who took him? If it's to protect the client by diverting attention, how difficult would it be for the villain to follow the paper trail? Does Hardison erase all records of the client's travel to Boston or phone records, etc? I know that it's a popular element of the show. It just seems kinda cocky and the sort of thing that could turn around and bite a grifter in the ass.
Dean has a formula for the show to be emotionally engaging, which we hew to and I do not disagree with: 1.) We must like the victim, no matter how small the role may seem. 2.) The villain must suffer. 3.) The team must deliver a moment where the villain knows it's not an accident, he has been brought down because of his bad actions. I assure you, they are in no position to chase down the Leverage team after the missions.
Most of them, anyway.
@Odie: Now for this week's: 1.) Why did the scene with Nate getting whacked on the head get shown twice? That would have potentially allowed time for the 'missing' scenes. 2.) Just how big is 'Lucille II'? 3.) We know that Hardison makes costumes and gadgets on his weekends, and Parker scouts out banks and other potential targets' alarm systems and security measures. So what do Nate, Sophie and Eliot do on their weekends?
1.) An old movie serial technique, just to reset. 2) Big enough. 3.) Nate reads and drinks, Sophie flies to fabulous locations and hangs with grifter friends, Eliot works for Miranda Zero.
@Tom Galloway: Different tack. Does Hardison have any friends? I could be misremembering, but we've seen Nate's ex-wife, former work buddy Sterling, old friend who became a priest, Parker's mentor, Sophie's whatever connection to Tara, and folk from Elliot's past. But I don't think we've seen anyone who Hardison knew pre-Leverage other than Chaos, who hardly counts in the same way. Still think he and Parker should be hanging out at MIT a lot.
You will see some people from Hardison's past coming up. But to a great degree, Hardison's friends are not people who he physically spends time with.
I'm certain you've heard this story before, but when Cory Doctorow was lecturing in LA, I invited he and his awesome wife Alice to Lucha Vavoom one night. (I actually knew Alice slightly better then Cory at the time) Waiting with the tickets, outside in the crowd. I realized I had to call Alice and find out what they were wearing -- because although we'd been trading e-mails and blog references for months I had no idea what they looked like as humans.
@Lydia: 1) Any significance to Eliot wearing a white shirt at the beginning of the episode? After watching Lost, you start noticing stuff like that...2) During the briefing, why Sophie is twisting/playing with the ring on her finger? Some kind of nervous habit? 3)When Blackwell is sitting in corner of the corner watching Nate and Sophie, there's a guy sitting next to the coffee machine with is back to the camera who looks a lot like Eliot, who is supposed to be down in the mine. Is it really Christian sitting there because no one can see his face, or just an extra?
1.) Nope. Just remember Nate's Apartment is Purgatory and the Bar is a parallel timeline, and you'll be fine. 2.) I think Gina was just fiddling. Actors and their hands. 3.) An extra.
@Sarah: 1) We have diamond mines and coal mines that resonate w/ Eliot. More background that we're supposed to connect or purely coincidental? 2) Hardison grew up in foster care w/ 'Nana' (will she ever be referenced again? She kind of fell off the planet after s1) and no mention of any kind of father figure. Looks like he finally got his dose of "walking in on his parents" that he may have missed... 3) Suppose ParHardikerson, SoParphiker and HarEldisoniot each took on the Mof's SherWatlockson in a dark alley, who would win? Or would FoSterdling swoop in and claim victory?
1.) Two different parts of his background. 2.) Nana will show up. 3) To be fair, everyone in those pairings would be making out so hard, you could never resolve the fight.
@WWWweaves: This episode was really good. I want to know where the exterior of the mine scenes were shot. AND were the big digs roaming around in the final scene actual mining equipment or just what was 'around'? (Big Digs is what my nephew called all large yellow self-propelled machinery. Is there a better name for it?)
Shot just outside of Portland, at a quarry. We built the mine entrance on a hillside, and the equipment was the equipment onsite.
@Tori Angel: 1.) What area did you find that looks so much like Appalachia? I felt like I was home again! 2.) What are your feelings about TNT airing "The Rashomon Job" in a different order than you intended? Does it work? 3.)Does Eliot's aversion to hugs come from a general sense of wanting to keep his personal space (as I've been assuming) or his military history (as a hug may be a decent time to put a knife between someone's ribs)? 4.) Was it Sophie or Nate who coached Parker in the accent? It may not have been an Appalachian accent, per se (Sophie's in "Two-Horse" was WAY further south than KY), but at least it was consistent, which is (to me) the most important thing (and more than you can say for the cast of True Blood in its first season).
1.) That's the Oregon Film Commission earning its keep right there. 2.) "Rashomon" stands alone pretty well. We'll discuss in its write-up. 3.) He's not a hugger. 4.) Sophie.
@AliKatKaniac: 1. We've now seen Parker and Eliot both have mentor moments with a younger person. And Hardison kinda did with the vic on Double Blind. Is this because they're growing as people or developing more of a heart?
2. Eliot has made a few comments over the series that imply that he's from a working class family to the point where now I wonder if his family wasn't victimized by these types of people. (defending the miners, making comments in the Jailbreak Job about honest people, etc) Am I off base? You're hinting we're going to get some background story on him but how far back will this go?
3. Was Nate a 'normal' guy before his son died? He's been chasing Sophie for years and referred to her as his compass in The Maltese Falcon but that would have been during his marriage. We know his dad's past affected him, - how 'broken' was he already when his son died for him to go from criminal's son to seminary school to insurance agent.
4. As much as I LOVE this show there are two things that seem far-fetched - Eliot's injuries never land him in the hospital (other than a mention of a CT in The Tap Out Job) and the fact that everyone seems capable of doing anything. As much as we love Eliot's toughness, he got hit by a car and didn't even get a band-aid (Or even sympathy from Parker which btw LOL). And eventually there is going to be something he or the others can't do - so far he's able to excel at Baseball despite never having played it professionally, a singer - which yes, Christian Kane is but Eliot was not prior to that episode that we knew of, etc. Hardison can literally hack anything. Parker can do almost anything. You get where I'm going. I don't want to see my favorite team fail at things either but once in awhile it'd be more realistic to have one of them not be able to do something.
1.) Growing as people, and also, you're just seeing those cases. There are a lot fo cases, both broadcast and not, where that never happens. 2.) You will not see Wolverine run into the wood sin his poncey nightshirt. By which I mean, you will never learn about Eliot's childhood. You will, hoever, learn some rather nasty stuff about his past. 3.) Nate was always a broken guy living as an honest man. I think part fo the fun of the show is how you viewers interpret his journey to thief. 4.) Eliot's been nursing his wounds for a while now, and you could go through and pick out, in the 44 eps, where they've failed (and we never aid Eliot could THROW...), but you can generally chalk it up to Nate's planning. They rarely do jobs they;re not good at, because why would you assign that job to the person who can't do it?
@Jason Taylor: Where was Parker's bunny when she went to catch some soul-stealing rest in Lucille 2.0?
The Bunny does not leave the Lair. Ever.
@Donna: My question: What did Hardison say to Eliot after the hug that caused Eliot to smile at him? I went back and played it over and over but couldn't suss it out.
"For morale", a callback to their bonding in "Gone Fishing Job". I believe Aldis improv-ed that, which is why Kane cracked.
@Anonymous: 1.) My first question is will we ever see good character development in Nate?
As an aspiring writer myself when I create characters I want to see them succeed. Rock bottom isn't the end of their character development, or story lines. I understand that Nate isn't a good person, and will definitely get worse before he gets better. Will he get better is the question I’m asking. 2.) Also, will there ever be a season finale that doesn't focus mostly on Nate? More specifically I mean a season finale that comes about because of one of the other characters actions or choices, past or present. Thank you for the time you take in answering our questions :)
1.) Nate will continue to evolve, but who says Theif Nate isn't the Best Nate? What's that Chandler quote from "Simple Art of Murder"?:
"In everything that can be called art there is a quality of redemption. It may be pure tragedy, if it is high tragedy, and it may be pity and irony, and it may be the raucous laughter of the strong man. But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid.
The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero; he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor -- by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world."
Maybe Nate's just the best man in his world?
2.) The S3 two-part finale focuses primarily on Eliot and Sophie.
@Kati: Did Maggie know anything about Sophie during their marriage? Even as simple as that's who Nate was chasing? And when exactly did Sam get sick enough to the point where Nate stopped working to be with him?
Maggie knew about Sophie, both through Nate and by rep. They'd actually met once or twice. Sam got too sick about two years before the show started. He died very quickly when that happened.
@Anonymous: I guess Nate and the audience won't get to know Sophie's real name this season since Nate has done nothing to deserve it, to win Sophie back. More like the opposite.
Heh. That would be incorrect.
@Blaze: Well, I have to say I'm finding this season really uneven. You guys are getting really sloppy. I realize our heroes are the best of the worst, but you still have to show some of the prep work and background "infrastructure" in these jobs. The hand waving of details is getting too broad in some episodes.
Sofie and Nate are the worst. Apparently the Power of the Grifter is so strong within them, that the marks will believe any horse crap thrown at them.
"We're from the Department of Bamboozlement. We'd like total access to your office/bank/mine."
"Uh...okey dokey."
"And we don't want you following us around. We want to privately muck with your computers."
"No problem...wait. I forgot to read the tag pinned to my suit. It sez 'don't forget to ask for ID and stuff.'"
And don't get me started on Hardistan's computer wizardry. It's a trap many different shows fall into. The computer hacker/genius can do ANYTHING from ANY computer he sits down at. People would scream in protest if Elliott blew a vault door off its hinges with one kick, but will nod along at Hardistan doing the equivalent superpowers with a keyboard.
I don't need to see extended scenes of handicraft time, making fake IDs. Or lengthy explanations of Hardistan's creation of fake computer backgrounds. But there needs to be an acknowledgement that this was done. If the villains are to have any sly and fiendish credibility, they have to make our heroes jump thru at least some basic hoops. I've been a keen fan of the show from the first episode, but this season...please pull up your socks.
I hate to be Captin Buzzkill, but the number of things we've shown Hardison do that you CAN'T do in real life is close to zero, particularly when he's using his own computer. When he's using other people's computers, he's running his own custom OS off a flash drive, which is what all the hackers are doing lately. We may well fall into the trap of making Sophie and Nate very effective at grifting, but then, again, it's probably because we're soaked in grifter research. We've had cases of dudes pretending to be federal agents. For MONTHS. Fooling the SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. We've found cases of people conned into going to fake courtrooms for fake trials.
All we do is take away the boring bits. Your mileage may vary on the boring bits. I'll admit, there's always a struggle between "what is infrastructure?" and "what is competence porn?"
@la_ma: 2.)Clearly, something major is a brewing with Eliot and you seem way too excited about it. Since it will probably have already aired by the time you answer this question: is/was the intent to simply significantly develop/reveal the history of the character or is/was it to change our view of Eliot? (Clearly, he is THE fan fave, as Nate was in season 1 (or at least part of it). You made us loathe him, and so everyone was forced to pick a new fave, making it a true ensemble cast rather than the Nate and his team show)If you want our view of Eliot to change, WHY? (Please don't answer: 'I think you know why' I hate it when you do that:) Question 3) Not a shipper and really, really hate the unnecessary merging of two names...that said, I really want Parker and Hardison to hook up. Can/will that be done without feeling the need to add in relationship drama? I mean, can they have feelings, have sex, enjoy each other, but the show still be about the cons, or will we have to sit through scenes of 'discussing emotions'? Question 4) Hardison has been established as an extremely competent hack who obviously has cashed in on that skill. At least one flashback had him as a geek teen, presumably from a reasonable family. And he seems to have a conscious--like the kind of guy who, with a glimpse or two at the effect of his thievery on (good/innocent) others would have redirected his skills. What am I missing?
1.) cut for clarity, moving on to 2.) It was to showcase another reason why somebody might choose the redemption arc. Nate is, to a great degree, fueled by vengeance. That is a very destructive, non-growth motivation. We've never really explained why Eliot is still with these people, and this will help. I didn't think we were making people loathe Nate, though. Just acknowledge he puts the "anti" in "antihero". 3.) God, I hope so. But trust me, there will never be "The First Date Job." 4.) Hardison comes from a different moral framework. People With Power hurt the people around him. But there's a reason he chose the most legitimately "victimless" crime field.
@briddie: Isn't Parker exceeding her dresses-per-season quota? Or am I confusing that with Eliot's suits-per-season rule?
Suits per season. And we only count evening gowns. The S1 finale dress really sets the bar on that one.
@Piratecat: From a friend, via Facebook - "Please explain to me, from this week's ep, why blowing up his mine would aid the owner with his plan to harvest the coltan? Made no sense to us." To that I'll add that the owner slugging Nate didn't make any sense. I could see him killing him to save air, but knocking him out seemed a bit odd. I' too, was surprised by their lack of hard hats. Thanks, John!
1.) He needed to harvest the coltan under another corporate identity, and needed the worker's payrolls to close the deal with Nate. It was an insurance scam, not related to the coltan. We could have made that clearer. 2.) He was actually about to kill him when Eliot intervened. Again, we could have cut that different. Looking back at it, that's very unclear.
@Kris: I don't mean anything really specific like "did Eliot have X or Y experience." I mean, rather, is he starting to feel anything like a prodigal son? Does he feel like his enlistment (or whatever) was somehow immature? Not in a general "joining the Army for adventure is silly" kind of way, but for him personally, as if maybe instead of liberating Croatia he should've found a way to fix problems closer to home.
Objectively speaking, I'd guess that for whatever reasons with which we're not familiar, if he'd stayed home he would not have in fact been in a position to exert the sort of power he can now. But that wouldn't necessarily make him feel better about "running away" (if that was indeed any part of his emotional motivation for taking up his line of work).
I guess what I'm trying to ask, in a really rambling way, is, would it be a stretch to suppose that the "thawing" of Eliot Spencer can be traced all the way back to Two-Horse? Despite the fact that being interrogated about the whereabouts of a monkey was a pretty legit reason not to have been in contact with Aimee, has he been wondering this whole time if her anger was not merely understandable but right in ways even she might not have known?
Well, somebody's been paying attention.
@T.J.: Lots of questions on this one - I'll separate them into chunks....
A)Purchase your own politician-
This is another case where buying an politician is better than doing the actual work so I wanted to know if you could fill me in on the
Attorney General vs Congressman comparison
Which is...
....cheaper?
....more effective? (bang for your buck)
....more wrong/evil?
....more useful
....more likely to make Hardison throw up a little in his mouth?
B)Parker: Baby Grifter
Will Parker ever be the head of a con?
C) Scary Sophie
How do the marks miss the "You are digusting" tones i.e. Sophie's "You're going to make a lot of bucks" I know it's T.V. but she gave me chills. Do marks not have a sense of self-presevation?
D)Eliot the Miner
Why is it always Eliot who gets lost in the con (baseball, singing, coal mining?) Do you chose him on purpose or does it just happen organically?
A.) Senators, actually, are the best value for your dollar. Disproportionate influence in a a fundamentally undemocratic institution. Lacking that, you really want to jump down into the AG and judges of your state.
B.) That ... is literally the most important question in the show.
C.) They are blinded by greed. And her hotness.
D.) Although Eliot really doesn't go more whole hog than Hardison, you just tend to remember those moments. You could argue t's because, when grifting, he actually relaxes and has a little fun.
Whew. Okay, I'm going to crash, and MAYBE I catch up before the Christmas episode. We start shooting the new pilot Wed, and I make no promises. As always, thanks for watching and reading.
