John Rogers's Blog, page 4
November 19, 2012
LEVERAGE #508 "The Broken Wing Job" post-game
I could be working on my Savage Worlds campaign, but no. You people.
It's been a while since we did a Bottle Show. A "bottle show" for those of you new to the dance, is a television episode shot entirely on existing stages. Sometimes you throw in some easily built swing sets, but existing stages is the traditional meaning. This is done in order to save money which can then be allotted to bigger episodes. Go back to your favorite shows and take a look. A couple bottle shows in there, no matter the show.
Now, let's put aside the production issues for a bit. Scott Veach had the idea for a Rear Window episode -- in season 5, every show starts screwing around with perception. I think it's hardwired into the evolution of television shows.
We'd been kicking around the "Those dudes picked the wrong bar" idea for a bottle show for a while. Kirsch jumped in with the idea of melding the two, and the premise behind the sidekick character. Kirsch and Veach last year gave us "The Queen's Gambit Job", so this team-up made sense for us again.
I want to take a moment ot congratulate both of them. They both started as staff writers on Leverage -- Kirsch as our assistant, and Veach as a freelancer. They becamse invaluable voices on the show, and are now off working successfully on other shows. I'm very proud of how they've built their careers.
Frankly, Downey and I wish them success so they'll hire us when we're cranky, unemployable old showrunners.
Anyway, for a Bottle Job a solo effort is actually easier to structure, as finding something to keep five team members busy in two interconnected sets is difficult as hell. (Go back and look at "The Bottle Job". Eliot and Parker are super light, we just hid it well) That fit with the isolation of Rear Window. Who would be the worst person to be incapacitated? Parker of course. The idea had its own story gravity, dragging it toward its natural form.
That's the writing part of the background. Now the production part.
This thing was NUTS .
Creative fiddling aside, this episode was mandatory to construct as a one-hander -- it had to be shot simultaneously with episode #509 "The Frame-up Job" and episode #511 "The Low Low Price Job". Three episodes shot at the same time. This was necessary to carve out the budget for the summer blow-out.
If some other one-hour showrunner tells you his writing staff's gotten four scripts ahead in the middle of the season (because we also had to coordinate with #510 "The Rundown Job" also) and then lined up the SHOT AND SCENE ORDER FOR THREE EPISODES and then adjusted them for production, tell them to fuck right off, because they have not. It was like Game of Thrones all up in that production office. Paul Bernard, our Line Producer, was a frikkin' Spartan when it came to this situation.
While we shot Beth out in the HQ, Tim and Gina were on location at the mansion for #509, then on the other soundstage in the vault set for that episode. When that wrapped, we switched to shooting the parking lot scenes for "Low Low Price" (you'll understand when you see it) in the parking lot of our soundstages, with digital trickery turning our soundstage/warehouse into a Big Box Store. When Beth was available for the the last few days of that shoot, we swung her out to the warehouse which served as the interior of the Big Box Store -- which eagle-eyed fans may spot as both the interior of the Patent Warehouse of Misfit Inventions from #417.
Nicely enough we had old hands directing this madness, with John Harrison on the Rear Window homage. John had actually developed a TV movie adaptation of the original Cornell Woolrich short story, so he came in with some ideas on making sure the shots kept moving and the blocking stayed dynamic. He knew how hard it would be for Beth to carry the show alone, so he went out of his way to pre-shoot as much of the surveillance footage as possible to put on the screen so she wouldn't be trying to act opposite a blank wall covered with tracking dots.
We got very lucky with Aarti Mann. As is traditional we try to be color blind with casting whenever we can, and she just murdered the audition in LA. This led to some amusing clearance issues ("Change her name." "WE DON"T HAVE TIME TO CLEAR A NEW NAME"). She and Beth went to dinner a few times before they began shooting, which was invaluable. Our 7 day prep/7 day shoot often means guest cast are arriving just 24 hours before they step in front of the camera, and this was easily one of the most demanding guest roles we've ever had on the show. The extra time gave them the chance to build up some chemistry --
-- which, frankly, I thought was spectacular. I loved the two of them together, I loved the way Beth had Parker channeling Nate when she was being manipulative, but never losing Parker's voice, I loved watching the two of them have actual conversations, which was really a first for Parker. Even with Peggy, Parker's got some shields up. This is the first time, I think, you see that Parker could have more than one friend. I mean, she'll trick those friends into breaking the law, but still ...
I will admit one proud moment in our geek education of Downey, who does not really do any internet stuff ... ever. We were in editing. At the moment where Parker stumbled and winced, and Aarti catches her, Downey said "Hey, that's hurt/comfort."
"That's right!" I beamed. "You're learning."
"WHY AM I LEARNING THAT?!" he shuddered. But hey, it's the 21st Century. Gotta know your tropes if you're going to run a TV show. Hell, a half a bottle of Irish Whiskey later and I'd broken about six episodes of the "Parker and Amy fight crime and terrorists and aliens and hug a lot" show.
I really have to give a giant shout-out to Beth on this one. After -- and she freely admitted this on the podcast -- a freakout at the idea of carrying a whole episode, she worked tirelessly with John Harrison to pre-plan as many of the shots as they could and just prep the hell out of this thing. There's not a person on the crew who wouldn't take a bullet for that girl, and her fantastic work ethic is one of the reasons.
Right, let's deal with your giddy cheer and mournful disappointment:
@Sprite: Completly off topic, aside from the fact that you and your crew know and see all: Tell me that Hardison has one of these 3D printers and that we might see one used in an episode.
We were planning on getting one, but couldn't justify it in an episode. I'm putting one in my office though, if we need to punch our geek cred ticket.
@Anonymous: Less than half way thru and I'm going to go out on a limb and say we are NEVER going to get to see the full con the others were on, are we? How much fun did the 4 of them have showing a 'mystery' con?
Correct. We've thrown around several "cons you never see" like the pirate one, which we finally used in "The Cross My Heart Job" episode. Although the other four were all troopers, they were a bit rushed and cramped, as they all shot out their scenes in tiny, transforming two (sometimes one!) wall sets.
@Shayna j. Houp: ... I could be imagining it but it sure looked to me like Elliot recognized that monkey statue that Sohphie walked out with. Perhaps it has jade eyes, or a jade piece that has since been broken off/taken etc. ? Are we getting a glimpse of the infamous Jade Monkey that caused Elliot so much trouble in one of his pre-Leverage adventures? Can't wait to find out this and more in the next exciting installment. . .
Yes, but you will (probably) never find out more. But consider the mystery of the Jade Monkey closed.
@Gina: 1.) Just one thing -- I didn't quite buy that Nate & Co. would have left Parker to do all that on her own with a hurt leg. I know they were in Japan and all, but still, wish they could have found some way to send her some help.
2.) Are we ever going to find out how she hurt it in the first place? It's so unlike Parker to get injured!
1.) I saw that note a couple times. Parker is one of the most dangerous humans on the planet. I think the phone calls were more like, say, a friend needs to talk you into something they're fully confident you can do, rather than actual aide.
2.) Scaffolding collapse, 45th floor window washing rig. Only her supernatural agility (d12) allowed her to avoid more serious harm.
@Susy: What did Nate and Sophie burn ??!??
The writers always thought it was a pile of money. For Beth Riesgraf's very,very disturbing guess, check out the podcast.
@PurpleOps: The feel-good episode of the summer! Fun episode. Only one or two questions; the rest are comments.
1. Were "V" and "K" either Blade Runner references (Voight-Kampf), Dollhouse references (where everyone was a letter), or Veach and Kirsch? And who would "O" have been?
2. I WANNA SEE THE JAPAN STORY!
3. Not being a viewer of "Big Bang Theory", I had not seen Aarti Mann. Nice work from her!
4. "I'm gloating." Back to the series format from the episode that departs from the series format. Fun!
1.) Veach and Kirsch, I believe. Nice catch.2.) It's even better in your imagination.3.) Aarti has a job on any show I run from now on.4.) And the circle of life is complete.
@WWWeaves: OOOH. 1)How much did Nate know, and when did he know it?
2) How many of the patrons were Portland actors? cops? Romeo? Juliet? Doctor?
3) Will we see Amy again?
1.) A chunk of it, and put the rest together when he saw the bulletholes.2.) Everybody but Aarti and V, the very excellent David IMForeman: Did Hardison choose a Brewpub that was a stones throw from a Bank and a Jewelry store by accident? And how much does it say that Parker hadn't cased them yet?
Coincidence, and to tell the truth jewels aren't her thing, banks are. Alternate answer -- in the middle of three scripts, I just flat-out missed that beat. mea Culpa.
@Anonymous: 1. In Hitchcock, er, "homage", did anyone make a director/writer/producer cameo in the pub this ep?
2.) Was the sword Eliot had the same one that was his Christmas present from Nate and Sophie a couple seasons ago?
3.) Did you actually fully draft a con as unwritten backstory or just come up with random moments to show as a "con in Japan"?
4.) Someone above asked this, but what was the deal with Nate and Sophie burning something? Japanese tradition? Internal backstory?
1.) I do not believe so. 2.) It is now. CANON!3.) There was the rough sketch of a con, but then we just chose some cool moments to highlight. Nothing you could call a coherent story though.4.) See above.
@Philip Moyer: Was the zombie movie an actual zombie movie? If so, what was it?
Yep, the original "Night of the Living Dead" which has circuitously fallen from copyright and is therefore cheap for anyone to show on their cable crime show.
@eacole72: Were the crutches purchased from a medical supply, or were they made for the show? A someone who spends an inordinate amount of time with sprained ankles & knees, thus on crutches, they looked very functional.
Real crutches, but tricky to find. Nice job by props, we looked at a LOT of different types of crutches. We needed "serious injury" but not "so bulky you can;t move and act with them".
@Rebecca: 1) Since this is a Parker-heavy episode, does that mean there's an episode later on that's Parker-lite? I know that sometimes episodes' shooting schedules coincide making it necessary to split the cast.
2) If the answer to 1 is yes, will it involve seeing what the hell the rest of the team was doing in Japan? (If the answer to 1 is no, will we ever get to see what happened in Japan, or will it just a be a really big Noodle Incident Job?)
3) What did Parker name the teddy bear?
4) I LOVED getting to see a little into Parker's mind when she looked at the getaway van. Most of the time her thinking is so outside of the box that you can't follow it, so it was nice to get a look at what she thinks when she sees something.
5) The pills make her go all "wibbly-wobbly?" Doctor Who shoutout, or me reading too much into it?
6) Can Amy come back more? It's nice to see Parker making another friend, especially since Alice White was burned (or was she?).
7) It's nice to see how perceptive Parker has become since the beginning of the series. There is NO WAY that season1!Parker would have been able to show that kind of empathy to Dr. Chicken Parm (James?) the way that season5!Parker does.
1) Indeed, she is non-existent in #509 and light in #511.2.) Never see the Japan job.3.) "Bear". Her toy names are functional.4.) That is just one version of "Parker-vision" we've experimented with. I hope someday you get to see the others.5.) TOTAL Dr. Who shoutout.6.) Peggy is still pals with Alice White -- remember, she just thinks Alice is a spy. And if there's a Season 6, we'll do our best to bring Aarti back.7.) The eternal balance of TV. Growth, but not TOO MUCH growth. Real credit to Beth here for working hard on tuning the character every year.
@Bex: You guys definitely seem to be splitting the gang up more. Is this possibly getting us into preparation for the finale (that, from what I hear, will shatter us all) or is the second half of the season going to have more of them all working together like previous seasons? Not that I mind either way, I rally think the dynamic is rocking this season.
They're definitely split up a lot in mid-season to account for scheduling in the summer finales. It's team-a-riffic all through the back five.
@Susannah: What's with Eliot's facial hair? Why suddenly the full beard this week? Not that I'm complaining. At. All. What? These things are important. (I'm also dying to know about his hair cut in the previews, but I'm assuming you won't be explaining that until next week, so I'll just sit back and wait patiently.)
I think he was psyching himself up to cut his hair the next week, and so grew some extra to balance things out.
@ChelseaNH: I was a little concerned that Amy would be tipped that there's something up with the crew in the back, but she's been coopted now. Is this all part of Nate's grand scheme? (And it was a little bit of Hogwarts/Charles Xavier School for the Gifted with Parker "training" Amy in the ways of con-avenger fu.)
Not exactly part of the grand scheme. Not exactly.
@Anonymous: And another question: Any backlash from the cast about a script centering on one member? (You don’t have to answer that.)
Jesus no. Most of them got to read it before she did (she was shooting long hours the day it dropped) and kept going up to her and congratulating her ... and psyching her the fuck out. "Man, there is NO WAY I'd want to do all that work." "SO much responsibility ..." etc.
@oopyu: 1) If we don't see what happened in Japan, I'm going to be very upset. You're going to show us what happened in Japan, right?
2) How do the team not know they have a billionaire working as a waitress? If anyone was going to do exhaustive, civil liberty-violating background checks (or at the very least a Google search) before hiring people, it would be the Leverage team.
3) Cop-shooting nutcase had attempting a kidnapping with two witnesses, shot a cop in front of another witness, there was an armed cop searching his getaway van, more police were on the way and he was in a room with more surveillance equipment than Post-Olympics London... what possessed him to go after Parker instead of running for the hills and hoping he can get across some kind of international border? (amazing that he had the temerity to tell Parker that she was in over her head)
4) Parker will be back in time for the next big con, right? Hardison's grown more versatile lately, but I don't think he can cut it as a front-line thief.
1.) Enjoy your upset-edness.
2.) They tend to ignore the bar as Hardison's hobby horse. it's a bit of a blind spot for all of them.
3.) Criminals do not tend to have good anger-management skills.
4.) Parker is back in action, as you saw.
@Calla: 1.) Did Beth really hurt her knee? I vaguely remember her tweeting something about that a while back.
2.) Are you really filming inside the Bridgeport Brewpub? If not, why use an established business instead of just making one up?1.) She did tweak her knee while shooting, but quite a bit earlier than this.
2.) We're using the Bridgeport Brewery for the exterior shots and transitional interior stuff. We figured, rather than obscure the signage, why not throw some attention to a fine Portland-based business?
@mickeyinvegas: thank you so much for the Parker episode. Love Beth and the character so much.
Q1): Nate knew what was happening cause they were there a few days already and they knew who the daughter was so this was his way of grooming Parker to lead..right??
Q2):We all know Beth is a goofball and cracks up all the time during filming so did this spisode take much longer than usual to shoot cause of her laughing?? I'm really looking forward to this episodes gag reel
Q3): If this is the last season then you are brilliant cause you setting things up for great spin-offs...any time table on season 6 status??
Q4): Who's idea was the gloating bit? another hilarious moment.
1.) Hmm.
2.) Actually, there was less laughing, as its the other cast members who crack her up. Tim torments her.
3.) Thank you, but these aren't spin-offs, just ways of working around our budget. No word yet on S6.
4.) The writers typed it! They do that a lot.
@Pixie: In "Two Horse", Sophie mentions pulling off 'The Lost Heir' con. You've said Charlotte is another con identity, but it holds up rather well. Is Charlotte the result of Sophie succeeding all-too-well at the 'Lost Heir'?
Wow, deep cut. I'll say yes.
@Anonymous: 1) What happened to the snow monkey after the con was over?
2) Parker called Hardison and Nate when she needed help with something specific, but her phone call to Eliot seemed like a general call to a mentor figure. Was it a specific choice to take their dynamic in that direction after the Long Way Down Job, or was it something we can assume was always there that just never really made it to screen in the earlier seasons? And is it just me, or does it seem like Parker has 'graduated' from Sophie up to Eliot, in terms of mentorship? Like, Sophie handled basic human interaction, and now Parker's ready to move on to a teacher who can help her with specifics (since she and Eliot are more alike in some ways)?1.) Set free to roam with other snow monkeys in the ... er... wherever they live.
2.) I'd say yes, after "Long Way Down", their fundamental relationship changed. Eliot helps her be more comfortable with being her.
@Anonymous: ... I don't suppose you've got any wise words for me? Any advice? Maybe send Kane over to give me a version of the talk he had with Parker in "The French Connection Job"? Recommend a book I should read or a movie I should see? Anything? Obi-wan Rogers, you're my only hope.
Drop me a line at the kfmonkey@gmail.com account. My wife does some work in this regard, maybe I can help you out a bit.
@Karo: 1.) Was it a coincidence that the doctor stayed behind when the fire alarm rang even though everyone left? Or did he come back from outside because he heard the shots? (Why did the police officer let him and didn't come back again after he called for reinforcement on his phone?)
2.) I was surprised that Parker didn't know all the places with potential valuables in the whole area by heart.
3.) Trying to surprise the kidnappers in the dark seems extremely risky, wouldn't it have been easier to drop something on them, make them slip on the floor, or idk, something else? (I thought they could surprise them from above, but maybe there wasn't enough time to get into the harness.)
4.) Parker must have managed to hide anything suspicious before the cops came to take the bad guys away, but that's difficult in short time with one leg, so Amy probably helped her and saw a lot. Can't be helped, I suppose. I wonder how much she guesses about what her boss does, and I hope we'll see her again.1.) Nope. He was trailing to make sure everybody else got out okay.
2.) Like I said, banks are more her thing. But I'd be willing to say she knew the jewelry store was there, but hadn't thought out its sightline from the windows.
3.) Parker did indeed take out the first guy from above, just impossible to see in the damn dark! We tried to show it more in editing, and wound up taking it out.
4.) Amy knows a LOT of what goes on now, and I certainly hope we have the chance to showcase her again.
@Mockette: I got a "don't say anything" vibe from Eliot when they all walked in on Parker and Amy watching the movie and Nate said "you all know Amy.." Is Amy Eliot's girlfriend!
It was kind of a sideways "Don't say anything" to Parker, like "What's she doing in the Batcave?"
@Stephen Granada: I always wondered what would happen if "Rear Window" and the Buffy episode "The Zeppo" had a baby, and now I know! "Rear Window" seems like a clear touchstone for the episode; "The Zeppo", less so. Were those in y'all's minds as you broke the story, or am I imposing things on the show after the fact?
Although "The Zeppo" doesn't really map because of Parker's significance to the team, its structure was definitely something we took a look at while breaking this episode.
@SuzyQ: If the kidnapping was just a snatch and grab while Amy was taking the trash out, why did it take 4 kidnappers days to try it? And why did you need 4 kidnappers for a snatch and grab? Seems to me it could have been done in a day (or two).
And yet they couldn't. No, joking aside, that's about the right number based on research. Creepy, creepy research.
@Anonymous: What kind of relationship do you have with (the real) BridgePort? I was surprised that that 1) it exists (you've mentioned legal clearances many times) and 2) it's across the street and/or a block away from the fictional BridgePort Brewpub/Brewery. 3) What's actually in the building you've placed the fictional brewpub?
No, that's the actual Bridgeport Brewery, not the building across the street. Go there! They have delicious booze!
@Lilith: It was good to see Parker in action, I like Beth very much, but I’m missing Sophie/ Gina soooo much! Amy was nice but I fear she will be substituting one of the team in the near future. Please more Sophie scenes!!! She is my favorite!
Boy, do you get a lot of Sophie coming up ...
@Caravelle: ... I think we answered your question in the write-up.
@Ally: Parker is so sweet! Beth was fabulous, just saying. Questions:
1. What was the rest of the cast doing while Beth filmed this, aside from those handful of scenes.
2. We didn't get to see Eliot fight with samurai swords? REALLY????????
3. How exactly did Parker hurt herself? (Or did Beth actually injure herself?)
4. What happened in Tokyo? 4a. What happened between Nate and Sophie in Tokyo?
5. Why did Parker never call Sophie for help? She called everybody else, including Nate, but Sophie's usually the one she goes to for advice. Why no Sophie call?
6. May we have Amy again? Please?
7. Did anybody else think that the bear was bugged and that Amy was in on the thievery for a few minutes?
8. HARDY! Can we see more Hardy? Please...
9. Where was Bunny?
10. The kidnappers are pretty incompetent, if it took them DAYS to pull off a simple snatch/grab.
11. I trust there will be more Sophie in the finale? This episode was decidedly Sophie-light. My only complaint.
12. RENEWAL????????????????????1.) As mentioned in the write-up, busy shooting other episodes.
2.) You're nowhere near as pissed off as he was.
3.) See above. (Beth was fine)
4.) Cool stuff. 4a.) Sexy stuff.
5.) She called Sophie, and Sophie handed Nate the phone. She can be a bit selfish, you know.
6.) I'll do my best. Thank Kirsch and Veach for inventing her.
7.) Hmm.
8.) Okay, Hardy instead of Amy. Gotcha.
9.) Still in Parker's vault-like living quarters.
10.) You people's lack of respect for proper planning makes me think you are probably not cut out for professional crime. So my advice is -- do not be a criminal!
11.) "The Frame-Up Job" should have sated you.
12.) As soon as I know, I tell you.
@jamesfirecat: I recall hearing that before she had started working with the Team Parker had never been caught... so what was she doing talking about how good the food was a French Jail? I hate to nitpick, but yeah, I know how much work you guys put into this show so I was just wondering what the story is behind that line...
All joking aside, we internally differentiate between her "thief life" and her "Parker" phase. She made a couple stumbles on the way to being who she was. That said, they never tumbled her identity and she escaped in a night, so she doesn't count that one in her head.
@Jayne: ... Hmm.
@Elliot Rivera: 1.) Truly loved this episode, but in the scene where Parker is looking and admiring Amy's art work brought up an interesting question in my mind: Does Parker know that she, too, is a talented artist? In "The Fairy Godparents Job", she draws a sketch from memory that's so good Hardison and Eliot both are taken by surprise. I don't think her latent talent has been addressed since that episode; are we going to see it again?
2.) Another question: The employees' love of Hardison as a boss struck me as very illuminating into Hardison's character. Has his experience running the BrewPub changed his view on actually working as an honest man?1.) Parker thinks that's just a skill -- remember, at the time she thought everyone can draw perfectly accurate sketches. She derived no pleasure from it and it took no effort, so it didn't register.
2.) I think Hardison has unintentionally created a decent citizen life, if he wanted it. More, though, I think he's just trying to pretend to be straight, and as a result is trying to be the man his Nana taught him to be. The cover story fo a decent guy, after a while, just becomes a decent guy.
@Allyone: As someone who's seen people lose their significant others of many years, I think that whole Chicken Parm thing would have seemed a lot less presumptuous if his wife hadn't been dead for only 27 days. Having seen people I know go through that . . . ugh, that scene just pissed me off on many many levels. It literally enrages me. It just rang wrong on a lot of different levels.
But, you know, Parker is the Leverage world's most awesome person now, apparently. Empathetic, super human abilities to steal and climb onto the undercarriage of moving cars, able to run a job with minimal assistance while maintaining a perfectly healthy relationship. So I guess it's no wonder that she can solve a perfect stranger's grief, too. :eyeroll:I'm using this one post for several others we got on this subject -- and Allyone is a longtime fan, so she knows I'm cool with the occasional crankiness as long as its directed at me rather than other commenters. Honestly, that timeline didn't strike me as odd. I lost a very dear friend a while ago, and his wife of over a decade adjusted by going back to work in two weeks, basically saying it was better than staying at home. I've had several other deaths in the family dealt with in this way, including a co-worker who lost his only son. Back at work in two weeks. And of course, the writers themselves have not led lives free of tragedy. They were drawing from personal experience.Parker wasn't CURING this guy of grief, she was just trying to connect with him on some basic level. Would she really find him a new favorite food? Of course not. Was it nice that she was using that as the excuse to punch a hole in his loneliness? Yeah. We all deal differently, both as the griever and the witnesses. I can think of a couple times I've wished I handled grieving friends differently. You can never fix anything. But a little kindness never hurt anybody. Salt to taste, as always.And as to your later comment about the team not being damaged and flawed anymore ... maybe. I totally get that, actually. But they couldn't stay that way, not through Season Five. And personally, I find shows where they retard a character's growth for the sake of extending the run kind of, lack of a better word, infantilizing that character. Shows I like a lot I wind up getting mad at for opposite reason than you -- I get sick of the bullshit roadblocks that get thrown up to set back personal development, so as to not screw with the chemistry (looking at you, Castle) Again, salt to taste.@Girl Saturday: ... Jesus Christ, I'm sorry to hear that. That one small character had quite the ripple effect. I'm a little flustered at the idea the beat had any relevance whatsoever. Thanks for contributing.@Sabine: I really missed the rest of the team, so here's my question - can you tell me
1. 3 things Eliot tried to learn but couldn't master
2. 3 subjects Nate does not understand
3. 3 types of people Sophie can't portray in a grift or at least the three most difficult for her
1.) Knitting, Lingala, Pokemon (to play with his nephew. Fucking impenetrable, that game)2.) Women. Atonal jazz. The appeal of French New Wave Cinema.3.) A tall man, a Scandinavian, and a woman who likes atonal jazz and French New Wave Cinema.
@Anonymous: 1) Please tell me Nate at least heard Parker out on the situation before pretending the connection was breaking up? Because if he didn't, Nate's secret training plots and general bastardry aside, leaving their injured teammate behind to deal with armed criminals all alone seems like an extremely dangerous thing for him to do. I was surprised Sophie wasn't more concerned too, and I can't imagine Hardison or Eliot would have approved if they'd known. Or do they know Parker can handle herself in a fight, even injured as she was?
2) I know we won't ever find out what happened in Japan, but at least tell us this; we saw the team struggle without a grifter (poor Hardison, kidnapped by Russians), so did they struggle off-screen without a thief? Parker's worries about the team not needing her made me feel so badly for her.
1.) Hmm, it's the crutches that threw you people off. Again, Parker is very dangerous. Probably the second most dangerous person on the team and Eliot would argue first most dangerous.2.) You'll note it took four of them to do a job Parker alone could have done.
@Anonymous: It was just weird that two cops just happened to pop up in the bar, and then act like inept Charley's Angels.@Anonymous: how much of that whole 'things go to pot' deal at the finale was planned?
Huh, obviously we could have been clearer about that. The cops were a setup by Parker, and we did NOT cut the distraction that let V take his shot well. In the original, K raises his hands a bit, exposing his weapon, she swings her gun to him, which allows V to fast draw and shoot her. In the final analysis, we did not cut that clearly -- not to blame our editor, I'm sure it's something I screwed with when we were going for performance or time. And yes, things were meant to go to pot in a "Parker did not catch all the angles" way.
@Kate: 1) Parker obviously doesn't handle impairment well. Considering it, I wonder which team member would be the most insufferable when sick. At first I though Nate, but impairment doesn't phase him much it seems. So I'm stumped. Parker, with her bottled frenetic energy? Sophie? (I picture her being waited on hand and foot because... she can, while at the same time burying her red nose under some pillows so people don't see) Maybe Hardison with his running narration of quippy complaints? Eliot... Well, I'm not sure I believe Eliot CAN get sick.2.) DOES Hardison have any brothers? Just between you and the legions of fangirls of course. Even some particularly fond foster-brothers with vaguely aligning interests will do for our rampant speculations.
3) Oh, forgot to mention, read Little Brother not long after you recommended it and LOVED it. Getting all my friends to read it. Ehem. Just like I addicted them to Leverage. They call me the Geek Pusher. Any more recommendations for excellent nerdy Lit? Have you picked up Ready Player One by chance?
1.) I would actually say Nate. He'd be very frustrated at losing a step.2.) Although we've never addressed it in the show, according to Aldis' personal backstory for the character, yes.3.) Did not dig Ready Player One, although I understand why others might. Loving Leviathan Wakes and rereading Charlie Stross's Halting State and Rule 34. If you dug LIttle Brother, definitely get Doctorow's For the Win.
@Anonymous When the team got back at the end, who noticed the bullet holes? Nate definitely seemed to, and I would assume Eliot would pick up on something like that. But what about Hardison and Sophie?
Hardison and Sophie eventually, but that night, Nate and Eliot, definitely.
@Unknown: In the beginning of the episode, when a bored Parker is channel surfing, is it Christian Kane's voice on the cooking show?
Nope, one of our editors, actually.
*********************************************************
As always, a pleasure to spend time with you. In just a few days we'll get 509 and 510 up, and you'll be caught up (with Season Five, anyway...)
It's been a while since we did a Bottle Show. A "bottle show" for those of you new to the dance, is a television episode shot entirely on existing stages. Sometimes you throw in some easily built swing sets, but existing stages is the traditional meaning. This is done in order to save money which can then be allotted to bigger episodes. Go back to your favorite shows and take a look. A couple bottle shows in there, no matter the show.
Now, let's put aside the production issues for a bit. Scott Veach had the idea for a Rear Window episode -- in season 5, every show starts screwing around with perception. I think it's hardwired into the evolution of television shows.
We'd been kicking around the "Those dudes picked the wrong bar" idea for a bottle show for a while. Kirsch jumped in with the idea of melding the two, and the premise behind the sidekick character. Kirsch and Veach last year gave us "The Queen's Gambit Job", so this team-up made sense for us again.
I want to take a moment ot congratulate both of them. They both started as staff writers on Leverage -- Kirsch as our assistant, and Veach as a freelancer. They becamse invaluable voices on the show, and are now off working successfully on other shows. I'm very proud of how they've built their careers.
Frankly, Downey and I wish them success so they'll hire us when we're cranky, unemployable old showrunners.
Anyway, for a Bottle Job a solo effort is actually easier to structure, as finding something to keep five team members busy in two interconnected sets is difficult as hell. (Go back and look at "The Bottle Job". Eliot and Parker are super light, we just hid it well) That fit with the isolation of Rear Window. Who would be the worst person to be incapacitated? Parker of course. The idea had its own story gravity, dragging it toward its natural form.
That's the writing part of the background. Now the production part.
This thing was NUTS .
Creative fiddling aside, this episode was mandatory to construct as a one-hander -- it had to be shot simultaneously with episode #509 "The Frame-up Job" and episode #511 "The Low Low Price Job". Three episodes shot at the same time. This was necessary to carve out the budget for the summer blow-out.
If some other one-hour showrunner tells you his writing staff's gotten four scripts ahead in the middle of the season (because we also had to coordinate with #510 "The Rundown Job" also) and then lined up the SHOT AND SCENE ORDER FOR THREE EPISODES and then adjusted them for production, tell them to fuck right off, because they have not. It was like Game of Thrones all up in that production office. Paul Bernard, our Line Producer, was a frikkin' Spartan when it came to this situation.
While we shot Beth out in the HQ, Tim and Gina were on location at the mansion for #509, then on the other soundstage in the vault set for that episode. When that wrapped, we switched to shooting the parking lot scenes for "Low Low Price" (you'll understand when you see it) in the parking lot of our soundstages, with digital trickery turning our soundstage/warehouse into a Big Box Store. When Beth was available for the the last few days of that shoot, we swung her out to the warehouse which served as the interior of the Big Box Store -- which eagle-eyed fans may spot as both the interior of the Patent Warehouse of Misfit Inventions from #417.
Nicely enough we had old hands directing this madness, with John Harrison on the Rear Window homage. John had actually developed a TV movie adaptation of the original Cornell Woolrich short story, so he came in with some ideas on making sure the shots kept moving and the blocking stayed dynamic. He knew how hard it would be for Beth to carry the show alone, so he went out of his way to pre-shoot as much of the surveillance footage as possible to put on the screen so she wouldn't be trying to act opposite a blank wall covered with tracking dots.
We got very lucky with Aarti Mann. As is traditional we try to be color blind with casting whenever we can, and she just murdered the audition in LA. This led to some amusing clearance issues ("Change her name." "WE DON"T HAVE TIME TO CLEAR A NEW NAME"). She and Beth went to dinner a few times before they began shooting, which was invaluable. Our 7 day prep/7 day shoot often means guest cast are arriving just 24 hours before they step in front of the camera, and this was easily one of the most demanding guest roles we've ever had on the show. The extra time gave them the chance to build up some chemistry --
-- which, frankly, I thought was spectacular. I loved the two of them together, I loved the way Beth had Parker channeling Nate when she was being manipulative, but never losing Parker's voice, I loved watching the two of them have actual conversations, which was really a first for Parker. Even with Peggy, Parker's got some shields up. This is the first time, I think, you see that Parker could have more than one friend. I mean, she'll trick those friends into breaking the law, but still ...
I will admit one proud moment in our geek education of Downey, who does not really do any internet stuff ... ever. We were in editing. At the moment where Parker stumbled and winced, and Aarti catches her, Downey said "Hey, that's hurt/comfort."
"That's right!" I beamed. "You're learning."
"WHY AM I LEARNING THAT?!" he shuddered. But hey, it's the 21st Century. Gotta know your tropes if you're going to run a TV show. Hell, a half a bottle of Irish Whiskey later and I'd broken about six episodes of the "Parker and Amy fight crime and terrorists and aliens and hug a lot" show.
I really have to give a giant shout-out to Beth on this one. After -- and she freely admitted this on the podcast -- a freakout at the idea of carrying a whole episode, she worked tirelessly with John Harrison to pre-plan as many of the shots as they could and just prep the hell out of this thing. There's not a person on the crew who wouldn't take a bullet for that girl, and her fantastic work ethic is one of the reasons.
Right, let's deal with your giddy cheer and mournful disappointment:
@Sprite: Completly off topic, aside from the fact that you and your crew know and see all: Tell me that Hardison has one of these 3D printers and that we might see one used in an episode.
We were planning on getting one, but couldn't justify it in an episode. I'm putting one in my office though, if we need to punch our geek cred ticket.
@Anonymous: Less than half way thru and I'm going to go out on a limb and say we are NEVER going to get to see the full con the others were on, are we? How much fun did the 4 of them have showing a 'mystery' con?
Correct. We've thrown around several "cons you never see" like the pirate one, which we finally used in "The Cross My Heart Job" episode. Although the other four were all troopers, they were a bit rushed and cramped, as they all shot out their scenes in tiny, transforming two (sometimes one!) wall sets.
@Shayna j. Houp: ... I could be imagining it but it sure looked to me like Elliot recognized that monkey statue that Sohphie walked out with. Perhaps it has jade eyes, or a jade piece that has since been broken off/taken etc. ? Are we getting a glimpse of the infamous Jade Monkey that caused Elliot so much trouble in one of his pre-Leverage adventures? Can't wait to find out this and more in the next exciting installment. . .
Yes, but you will (probably) never find out more. But consider the mystery of the Jade Monkey closed.
@Gina: 1.) Just one thing -- I didn't quite buy that Nate & Co. would have left Parker to do all that on her own with a hurt leg. I know they were in Japan and all, but still, wish they could have found some way to send her some help.
2.) Are we ever going to find out how she hurt it in the first place? It's so unlike Parker to get injured!
1.) I saw that note a couple times. Parker is one of the most dangerous humans on the planet. I think the phone calls were more like, say, a friend needs to talk you into something they're fully confident you can do, rather than actual aide.
2.) Scaffolding collapse, 45th floor window washing rig. Only her supernatural agility (d12) allowed her to avoid more serious harm.
@Susy: What did Nate and Sophie burn ??!??
The writers always thought it was a pile of money. For Beth Riesgraf's very,very disturbing guess, check out the podcast.
@PurpleOps: The feel-good episode of the summer! Fun episode. Only one or two questions; the rest are comments.
1. Were "V" and "K" either Blade Runner references (Voight-Kampf), Dollhouse references (where everyone was a letter), or Veach and Kirsch? And who would "O" have been?
2. I WANNA SEE THE JAPAN STORY!
3. Not being a viewer of "Big Bang Theory", I had not seen Aarti Mann. Nice work from her!
4. "I'm gloating." Back to the series format from the episode that departs from the series format. Fun!
1.) Veach and Kirsch, I believe. Nice catch.2.) It's even better in your imagination.3.) Aarti has a job on any show I run from now on.4.) And the circle of life is complete.
@WWWeaves: OOOH. 1)How much did Nate know, and when did he know it?
2) How many of the patrons were Portland actors? cops? Romeo? Juliet? Doctor?
3) Will we see Amy again?
1.) A chunk of it, and put the rest together when he saw the bulletholes.2.) Everybody but Aarti and V, the very excellent David IMForeman: Did Hardison choose a Brewpub that was a stones throw from a Bank and a Jewelry store by accident? And how much does it say that Parker hadn't cased them yet?
Coincidence, and to tell the truth jewels aren't her thing, banks are. Alternate answer -- in the middle of three scripts, I just flat-out missed that beat. mea Culpa.
@Anonymous: 1. In Hitchcock, er, "homage", did anyone make a director/writer/producer cameo in the pub this ep?
2.) Was the sword Eliot had the same one that was his Christmas present from Nate and Sophie a couple seasons ago?
3.) Did you actually fully draft a con as unwritten backstory or just come up with random moments to show as a "con in Japan"?
4.) Someone above asked this, but what was the deal with Nate and Sophie burning something? Japanese tradition? Internal backstory?
1.) I do not believe so. 2.) It is now. CANON!3.) There was the rough sketch of a con, but then we just chose some cool moments to highlight. Nothing you could call a coherent story though.4.) See above.
@Philip Moyer: Was the zombie movie an actual zombie movie? If so, what was it?
Yep, the original "Night of the Living Dead" which has circuitously fallen from copyright and is therefore cheap for anyone to show on their cable crime show.
@eacole72: Were the crutches purchased from a medical supply, or were they made for the show? A someone who spends an inordinate amount of time with sprained ankles & knees, thus on crutches, they looked very functional.
Real crutches, but tricky to find. Nice job by props, we looked at a LOT of different types of crutches. We needed "serious injury" but not "so bulky you can;t move and act with them".
@Rebecca: 1) Since this is a Parker-heavy episode, does that mean there's an episode later on that's Parker-lite? I know that sometimes episodes' shooting schedules coincide making it necessary to split the cast.
2) If the answer to 1 is yes, will it involve seeing what the hell the rest of the team was doing in Japan? (If the answer to 1 is no, will we ever get to see what happened in Japan, or will it just a be a really big Noodle Incident Job?)
3) What did Parker name the teddy bear?
4) I LOVED getting to see a little into Parker's mind when she looked at the getaway van. Most of the time her thinking is so outside of the box that you can't follow it, so it was nice to get a look at what she thinks when she sees something.
5) The pills make her go all "wibbly-wobbly?" Doctor Who shoutout, or me reading too much into it?
6) Can Amy come back more? It's nice to see Parker making another friend, especially since Alice White was burned (or was she?).
7) It's nice to see how perceptive Parker has become since the beginning of the series. There is NO WAY that season1!Parker would have been able to show that kind of empathy to Dr. Chicken Parm (James?) the way that season5!Parker does.
1) Indeed, she is non-existent in #509 and light in #511.2.) Never see the Japan job.3.) "Bear". Her toy names are functional.4.) That is just one version of "Parker-vision" we've experimented with. I hope someday you get to see the others.5.) TOTAL Dr. Who shoutout.6.) Peggy is still pals with Alice White -- remember, she just thinks Alice is a spy. And if there's a Season 6, we'll do our best to bring Aarti back.7.) The eternal balance of TV. Growth, but not TOO MUCH growth. Real credit to Beth here for working hard on tuning the character every year.
@Bex: You guys definitely seem to be splitting the gang up more. Is this possibly getting us into preparation for the finale (that, from what I hear, will shatter us all) or is the second half of the season going to have more of them all working together like previous seasons? Not that I mind either way, I rally think the dynamic is rocking this season.
They're definitely split up a lot in mid-season to account for scheduling in the summer finales. It's team-a-riffic all through the back five.
@Susannah: What's with Eliot's facial hair? Why suddenly the full beard this week? Not that I'm complaining. At. All. What? These things are important. (I'm also dying to know about his hair cut in the previews, but I'm assuming you won't be explaining that until next week, so I'll just sit back and wait patiently.)
I think he was psyching himself up to cut his hair the next week, and so grew some extra to balance things out.
@ChelseaNH: I was a little concerned that Amy would be tipped that there's something up with the crew in the back, but she's been coopted now. Is this all part of Nate's grand scheme? (And it was a little bit of Hogwarts/Charles Xavier School for the Gifted with Parker "training" Amy in the ways of con-avenger fu.)
Not exactly part of the grand scheme. Not exactly.
@Anonymous: And another question: Any backlash from the cast about a script centering on one member? (You don’t have to answer that.)
Jesus no. Most of them got to read it before she did (she was shooting long hours the day it dropped) and kept going up to her and congratulating her ... and psyching her the fuck out. "Man, there is NO WAY I'd want to do all that work." "SO much responsibility ..." etc.
@oopyu: 1) If we don't see what happened in Japan, I'm going to be very upset. You're going to show us what happened in Japan, right?
2) How do the team not know they have a billionaire working as a waitress? If anyone was going to do exhaustive, civil liberty-violating background checks (or at the very least a Google search) before hiring people, it would be the Leverage team.
3) Cop-shooting nutcase had attempting a kidnapping with two witnesses, shot a cop in front of another witness, there was an armed cop searching his getaway van, more police were on the way and he was in a room with more surveillance equipment than Post-Olympics London... what possessed him to go after Parker instead of running for the hills and hoping he can get across some kind of international border? (amazing that he had the temerity to tell Parker that she was in over her head)
4) Parker will be back in time for the next big con, right? Hardison's grown more versatile lately, but I don't think he can cut it as a front-line thief.
1.) Enjoy your upset-edness.
2.) They tend to ignore the bar as Hardison's hobby horse. it's a bit of a blind spot for all of them.
3.) Criminals do not tend to have good anger-management skills.
4.) Parker is back in action, as you saw.
@Calla: 1.) Did Beth really hurt her knee? I vaguely remember her tweeting something about that a while back.
2.) Are you really filming inside the Bridgeport Brewpub? If not, why use an established business instead of just making one up?1.) She did tweak her knee while shooting, but quite a bit earlier than this.
2.) We're using the Bridgeport Brewery for the exterior shots and transitional interior stuff. We figured, rather than obscure the signage, why not throw some attention to a fine Portland-based business?
@mickeyinvegas: thank you so much for the Parker episode. Love Beth and the character so much.
Q1): Nate knew what was happening cause they were there a few days already and they knew who the daughter was so this was his way of grooming Parker to lead..right??
Q2):We all know Beth is a goofball and cracks up all the time during filming so did this spisode take much longer than usual to shoot cause of her laughing?? I'm really looking forward to this episodes gag reel
Q3): If this is the last season then you are brilliant cause you setting things up for great spin-offs...any time table on season 6 status??
Q4): Who's idea was the gloating bit? another hilarious moment.
1.) Hmm.
2.) Actually, there was less laughing, as its the other cast members who crack her up. Tim torments her.
3.) Thank you, but these aren't spin-offs, just ways of working around our budget. No word yet on S6.
4.) The writers typed it! They do that a lot.
@Pixie: In "Two Horse", Sophie mentions pulling off 'The Lost Heir' con. You've said Charlotte is another con identity, but it holds up rather well. Is Charlotte the result of Sophie succeeding all-too-well at the 'Lost Heir'?
Wow, deep cut. I'll say yes.
@Anonymous: 1) What happened to the snow monkey after the con was over?
2) Parker called Hardison and Nate when she needed help with something specific, but her phone call to Eliot seemed like a general call to a mentor figure. Was it a specific choice to take their dynamic in that direction after the Long Way Down Job, or was it something we can assume was always there that just never really made it to screen in the earlier seasons? And is it just me, or does it seem like Parker has 'graduated' from Sophie up to Eliot, in terms of mentorship? Like, Sophie handled basic human interaction, and now Parker's ready to move on to a teacher who can help her with specifics (since she and Eliot are more alike in some ways)?1.) Set free to roam with other snow monkeys in the ... er... wherever they live.
2.) I'd say yes, after "Long Way Down", their fundamental relationship changed. Eliot helps her be more comfortable with being her.
@Anonymous: ... I don't suppose you've got any wise words for me? Any advice? Maybe send Kane over to give me a version of the talk he had with Parker in "The French Connection Job"? Recommend a book I should read or a movie I should see? Anything? Obi-wan Rogers, you're my only hope.
Drop me a line at the kfmonkey@gmail.com account. My wife does some work in this regard, maybe I can help you out a bit.
@Karo: 1.) Was it a coincidence that the doctor stayed behind when the fire alarm rang even though everyone left? Or did he come back from outside because he heard the shots? (Why did the police officer let him and didn't come back again after he called for reinforcement on his phone?)
2.) I was surprised that Parker didn't know all the places with potential valuables in the whole area by heart.
3.) Trying to surprise the kidnappers in the dark seems extremely risky, wouldn't it have been easier to drop something on them, make them slip on the floor, or idk, something else? (I thought they could surprise them from above, but maybe there wasn't enough time to get into the harness.)
4.) Parker must have managed to hide anything suspicious before the cops came to take the bad guys away, but that's difficult in short time with one leg, so Amy probably helped her and saw a lot. Can't be helped, I suppose. I wonder how much she guesses about what her boss does, and I hope we'll see her again.1.) Nope. He was trailing to make sure everybody else got out okay.
2.) Like I said, banks are more her thing. But I'd be willing to say she knew the jewelry store was there, but hadn't thought out its sightline from the windows.
3.) Parker did indeed take out the first guy from above, just impossible to see in the damn dark! We tried to show it more in editing, and wound up taking it out.
4.) Amy knows a LOT of what goes on now, and I certainly hope we have the chance to showcase her again.
@Mockette: I got a "don't say anything" vibe from Eliot when they all walked in on Parker and Amy watching the movie and Nate said "you all know Amy.." Is Amy Eliot's girlfriend!
It was kind of a sideways "Don't say anything" to Parker, like "What's she doing in the Batcave?"
@Stephen Granada: I always wondered what would happen if "Rear Window" and the Buffy episode "The Zeppo" had a baby, and now I know! "Rear Window" seems like a clear touchstone for the episode; "The Zeppo", less so. Were those in y'all's minds as you broke the story, or am I imposing things on the show after the fact?
Although "The Zeppo" doesn't really map because of Parker's significance to the team, its structure was definitely something we took a look at while breaking this episode.
@SuzyQ: If the kidnapping was just a snatch and grab while Amy was taking the trash out, why did it take 4 kidnappers days to try it? And why did you need 4 kidnappers for a snatch and grab? Seems to me it could have been done in a day (or two).
And yet they couldn't. No, joking aside, that's about the right number based on research. Creepy, creepy research.
@Anonymous: What kind of relationship do you have with (the real) BridgePort? I was surprised that that 1) it exists (you've mentioned legal clearances many times) and 2) it's across the street and/or a block away from the fictional BridgePort Brewpub/Brewery. 3) What's actually in the building you've placed the fictional brewpub?
No, that's the actual Bridgeport Brewery, not the building across the street. Go there! They have delicious booze!
@Lilith: It was good to see Parker in action, I like Beth very much, but I’m missing Sophie/ Gina soooo much! Amy was nice but I fear she will be substituting one of the team in the near future. Please more Sophie scenes!!! She is my favorite!
Boy, do you get a lot of Sophie coming up ...
@Caravelle: ... I think we answered your question in the write-up.
@Ally: Parker is so sweet! Beth was fabulous, just saying. Questions:
1. What was the rest of the cast doing while Beth filmed this, aside from those handful of scenes.
2. We didn't get to see Eliot fight with samurai swords? REALLY????????
3. How exactly did Parker hurt herself? (Or did Beth actually injure herself?)
4. What happened in Tokyo? 4a. What happened between Nate and Sophie in Tokyo?
5. Why did Parker never call Sophie for help? She called everybody else, including Nate, but Sophie's usually the one she goes to for advice. Why no Sophie call?
6. May we have Amy again? Please?
7. Did anybody else think that the bear was bugged and that Amy was in on the thievery for a few minutes?
8. HARDY! Can we see more Hardy? Please...
9. Where was Bunny?
10. The kidnappers are pretty incompetent, if it took them DAYS to pull off a simple snatch/grab.
11. I trust there will be more Sophie in the finale? This episode was decidedly Sophie-light. My only complaint.
12. RENEWAL????????????????????1.) As mentioned in the write-up, busy shooting other episodes.
2.) You're nowhere near as pissed off as he was.
3.) See above. (Beth was fine)
4.) Cool stuff. 4a.) Sexy stuff.
5.) She called Sophie, and Sophie handed Nate the phone. She can be a bit selfish, you know.
6.) I'll do my best. Thank Kirsch and Veach for inventing her.
7.) Hmm.
8.) Okay, Hardy instead of Amy. Gotcha.
9.) Still in Parker's vault-like living quarters.
10.) You people's lack of respect for proper planning makes me think you are probably not cut out for professional crime. So my advice is -- do not be a criminal!
11.) "The Frame-Up Job" should have sated you.
12.) As soon as I know, I tell you.
@jamesfirecat: I recall hearing that before she had started working with the Team Parker had never been caught... so what was she doing talking about how good the food was a French Jail? I hate to nitpick, but yeah, I know how much work you guys put into this show so I was just wondering what the story is behind that line...
All joking aside, we internally differentiate between her "thief life" and her "Parker" phase. She made a couple stumbles on the way to being who she was. That said, they never tumbled her identity and she escaped in a night, so she doesn't count that one in her head.
@Jayne: ... Hmm.
@Elliot Rivera: 1.) Truly loved this episode, but in the scene where Parker is looking and admiring Amy's art work brought up an interesting question in my mind: Does Parker know that she, too, is a talented artist? In "The Fairy Godparents Job", she draws a sketch from memory that's so good Hardison and Eliot both are taken by surprise. I don't think her latent talent has been addressed since that episode; are we going to see it again?
2.) Another question: The employees' love of Hardison as a boss struck me as very illuminating into Hardison's character. Has his experience running the BrewPub changed his view on actually working as an honest man?1.) Parker thinks that's just a skill -- remember, at the time she thought everyone can draw perfectly accurate sketches. She derived no pleasure from it and it took no effort, so it didn't register.
2.) I think Hardison has unintentionally created a decent citizen life, if he wanted it. More, though, I think he's just trying to pretend to be straight, and as a result is trying to be the man his Nana taught him to be. The cover story fo a decent guy, after a while, just becomes a decent guy.
@Allyone: As someone who's seen people lose their significant others of many years, I think that whole Chicken Parm thing would have seemed a lot less presumptuous if his wife hadn't been dead for only 27 days. Having seen people I know go through that . . . ugh, that scene just pissed me off on many many levels. It literally enrages me. It just rang wrong on a lot of different levels.
But, you know, Parker is the Leverage world's most awesome person now, apparently. Empathetic, super human abilities to steal and climb onto the undercarriage of moving cars, able to run a job with minimal assistance while maintaining a perfectly healthy relationship. So I guess it's no wonder that she can solve a perfect stranger's grief, too. :eyeroll:I'm using this one post for several others we got on this subject -- and Allyone is a longtime fan, so she knows I'm cool with the occasional crankiness as long as its directed at me rather than other commenters. Honestly, that timeline didn't strike me as odd. I lost a very dear friend a while ago, and his wife of over a decade adjusted by going back to work in two weeks, basically saying it was better than staying at home. I've had several other deaths in the family dealt with in this way, including a co-worker who lost his only son. Back at work in two weeks. And of course, the writers themselves have not led lives free of tragedy. They were drawing from personal experience.Parker wasn't CURING this guy of grief, she was just trying to connect with him on some basic level. Would she really find him a new favorite food? Of course not. Was it nice that she was using that as the excuse to punch a hole in his loneliness? Yeah. We all deal differently, both as the griever and the witnesses. I can think of a couple times I've wished I handled grieving friends differently. You can never fix anything. But a little kindness never hurt anybody. Salt to taste, as always.And as to your later comment about the team not being damaged and flawed anymore ... maybe. I totally get that, actually. But they couldn't stay that way, not through Season Five. And personally, I find shows where they retard a character's growth for the sake of extending the run kind of, lack of a better word, infantilizing that character. Shows I like a lot I wind up getting mad at for opposite reason than you -- I get sick of the bullshit roadblocks that get thrown up to set back personal development, so as to not screw with the chemistry (looking at you, Castle) Again, salt to taste.@Girl Saturday: ... Jesus Christ, I'm sorry to hear that. That one small character had quite the ripple effect. I'm a little flustered at the idea the beat had any relevance whatsoever. Thanks for contributing.@Sabine: I really missed the rest of the team, so here's my question - can you tell me
1. 3 things Eliot tried to learn but couldn't master
2. 3 subjects Nate does not understand
3. 3 types of people Sophie can't portray in a grift or at least the three most difficult for her
1.) Knitting, Lingala, Pokemon (to play with his nephew. Fucking impenetrable, that game)2.) Women. Atonal jazz. The appeal of French New Wave Cinema.3.) A tall man, a Scandinavian, and a woman who likes atonal jazz and French New Wave Cinema.
@Anonymous: 1) Please tell me Nate at least heard Parker out on the situation before pretending the connection was breaking up? Because if he didn't, Nate's secret training plots and general bastardry aside, leaving their injured teammate behind to deal with armed criminals all alone seems like an extremely dangerous thing for him to do. I was surprised Sophie wasn't more concerned too, and I can't imagine Hardison or Eliot would have approved if they'd known. Or do they know Parker can handle herself in a fight, even injured as she was?
2) I know we won't ever find out what happened in Japan, but at least tell us this; we saw the team struggle without a grifter (poor Hardison, kidnapped by Russians), so did they struggle off-screen without a thief? Parker's worries about the team not needing her made me feel so badly for her.
1.) Hmm, it's the crutches that threw you people off. Again, Parker is very dangerous. Probably the second most dangerous person on the team and Eliot would argue first most dangerous.2.) You'll note it took four of them to do a job Parker alone could have done.
@Anonymous: It was just weird that two cops just happened to pop up in the bar, and then act like inept Charley's Angels.@Anonymous: how much of that whole 'things go to pot' deal at the finale was planned?
Huh, obviously we could have been clearer about that. The cops were a setup by Parker, and we did NOT cut the distraction that let V take his shot well. In the original, K raises his hands a bit, exposing his weapon, she swings her gun to him, which allows V to fast draw and shoot her. In the final analysis, we did not cut that clearly -- not to blame our editor, I'm sure it's something I screwed with when we were going for performance or time. And yes, things were meant to go to pot in a "Parker did not catch all the angles" way.
@Kate: 1) Parker obviously doesn't handle impairment well. Considering it, I wonder which team member would be the most insufferable when sick. At first I though Nate, but impairment doesn't phase him much it seems. So I'm stumped. Parker, with her bottled frenetic energy? Sophie? (I picture her being waited on hand and foot because... she can, while at the same time burying her red nose under some pillows so people don't see) Maybe Hardison with his running narration of quippy complaints? Eliot... Well, I'm not sure I believe Eliot CAN get sick.2.) DOES Hardison have any brothers? Just between you and the legions of fangirls of course. Even some particularly fond foster-brothers with vaguely aligning interests will do for our rampant speculations.
3) Oh, forgot to mention, read Little Brother not long after you recommended it and LOVED it. Getting all my friends to read it. Ehem. Just like I addicted them to Leverage. They call me the Geek Pusher. Any more recommendations for excellent nerdy Lit? Have you picked up Ready Player One by chance?
1.) I would actually say Nate. He'd be very frustrated at losing a step.2.) Although we've never addressed it in the show, according to Aldis' personal backstory for the character, yes.3.) Did not dig Ready Player One, although I understand why others might. Loving Leviathan Wakes and rereading Charlie Stross's Halting State and Rule 34. If you dug LIttle Brother, definitely get Doctorow's For the Win.
@Anonymous When the team got back at the end, who noticed the bullet holes? Nate definitely seemed to, and I would assume Eliot would pick up on something like that. But what about Hardison and Sophie?
Hardison and Sophie eventually, but that night, Nate and Eliot, definitely.
@Unknown: In the beginning of the episode, when a bored Parker is channel surfing, is it Christian Kane's voice on the cooking show?
Nope, one of our editors, actually.
*********************************************************
As always, a pleasure to spend time with you. In just a few days we'll get 509 and 510 up, and you'll be caught up (with Season Five, anyway...)
November 18, 2012
LEVERAGE #507 "The Real Fake Car Job" Post-game
Hey, you nominated us for a People's Choice Award. I suppose the least I can do is get off my ass and wrap up these post-games.
The trick, of course, is that hiatus is when all the things you promise you'll do when the show is no longer eating your life come due. This year those promises wound up being four (gak) pilots on various timelines, a brand new company under my banner, an animated movie ready for concept art and digging in on Thrillbent. Oh, and some RPG stuff -- I wrote a setting for Robin Laws' great new story-style DramaSystem game called Hillfolk, and I'm working on a companion for a ... fate-ful system.
Better problems to have than not. But I hate to think you loyal Grifters are paying the price for the inevitable between-seasons shiver of "Finally fucking DONE" which afflicts every showrunner on the season wrap.
Checking my notes, Josh came into the writer's room first week with this story. We'd discussed using antique cars in the room after we shot "The Boost Job" at the Portland International Raceway. While we were scouting that episode the nice folks at the raceway told us about how the weekends at the joint were jammed with privately-owned classic cars being taken out for a spin by their owners. We managed to get those cars for our episode in almost the exact same way Hardison scores them for the con in-story -- we asked. And they showed up. As they do.
The episode changed very little over its evolution but for a slight tweaking of the emotional arc. The Mob originally showed up much earlier, where the Mob Boss was obsessed with the car. In the end The Boss reveals he was chasing the car, not the guy, as his family was persecuted by Mussolini, and he'd believed he tore the damn thing apart ten years ago. It was more about fathers and heritage, and tied in nicely with Nate's sketchy background and his desire to build something better in his life. It was also a much better story for the Mob Boss than it was for the rest fo the Leverage team. FWIW this is one of the challenges of Leverage -- the villain balance.
I was really fascinated by the first season of Justified, when often Raylon would just drop out of the episode and we'd follow the misadventures of the villains. That's particular approach is very true to the Elmore Leonard novel structure from which the show sprang.
Now, flip around to most police procedurals, like Castle or most other procedurals. The villain is unknown. When the protagonists are interacting with the guest cast, they're usually in a power-positive position and the motives of the characters they encounter are hidden -- and without an understandable objective (scene OR story), it's almost impossible to emotionally connect with a character. (re: the three questions of drama: 1.) "Who wants what?" 2.) "Why can't they have it." 3.) "Why do I give a shit?") The entire emotional and motivational freight of the story is on the protagonists who are acting, to a great degree, into a vacuum. This is one of the reason serial killer stories work so well, BTW, which is a post for another time. Another thing to think about is that one show which broke this paradigm quite handily was Law & Order, but only in its second half. In most episodes of L&O by the second half the villain is revealed and the show becomes move/countermove. This probably extended its life span, as I believe there's a natural limit on how long you can stretch out the journey of relatively static heroes.
Con shows don't work unless you have a good sense of the villain, because a good con is tailored to that villain's weakness (or strength). You can try to solve a murder in a vacuum, but you can't con an unknown Mark. This means Leverage has to balance 5 regular cast members and the Mark. Oy. You can then actually go back through five season of Leverage and notice that when the villain is more generic, that's often because the challenge has become the system out guys are dealing with or some internal character issue. Emotional real estate in 50 pages is very valuable.
The best Leverage episodes -- and I am more than willing to admit that over 77 there are some ones we're very proud of, and ones where we think "Okay, wish we'd had a little more time on THAT" -- is when the villain, world and team emotional plotlines balance perfectly.
Often that doesn't happen at script stage, or at least it's something we can't anticipate until we're filming or even editing. "The Grave Danger Job" is my favorite example of this. The villainous funeral director was an interesting character, but we couldn't imagine her being a real threat to our guys, so we brought in the Escalating Threat of the Mexican Identity Thieves.
All this to say "The Real Fake Car Job" is one of those boilerplate, "we got it right" episodes. Josh swung the emotional focus of the show around from the Mob Boss to the Mark, and how his dilemma could be used as a mirror for the team. I've written before how a show can't help but reflect the emotional issues of the people making it, and the question "What comes next?" is uppermost in the minds of any production staff in season 5. Once you're past Season 4 in serial television, each year becomes statistically more likely to be your last, and that curve rises exponentially. That may vary a bit according to the marketplace, but not much.
Lillard was great, as was
And that is, indeed, Matthew Lillard diving out of the damn way of the damn car Tim is driving, might I add. Kane's infectious. Probably showing off as he knoew that warehosue was the same one we filmed the big Season Three Kane shootout.
In one of those weird "Good research makes you look psychic" moments, shortly after we wrapped production on the episode, a man reputedly bought a Hitler fleet car on the internet.
Okay, I'm sure you got lots of questions about the character beats, so I'll skip discussing those and get to the good stuff ...
@Aaron Button: Just one observation: a banana peel in the garbage? The Mark's been in Portland for ten months and he wasn't given one of those little compost bins from the city?
He got one, but he threw it out. That's JUST HOW EVIL HE IS.
@PartyGirl: Thank you for the funniest episode since like the Rashomon Job :)One question though: How did the phone get into the bag with the money? Last we see it, it is lying next to the bag on the floor of the warehouse when Erickson stumbles over the bag as the mob guys show up. When Parker, Hardison and Nate run past, the phone is nowhere to be seen, so it wasn't one of them who put it in there (which could have been explained by a missing flashback)
Nate drops it in -- indeed, missing flashback. We were just so stacked with flashbacks, we dropped it in the cut.
@Calla: I really enjoyed Eliot & Sophie playing a very obvious "Mr & Mrs Smith." We so rarely get Eliot & Sophie working together, just the two of them ...
1.) Why is Sophie taking such an interest in Eliot this season? Is it because she needs something - a hobby, a mystery, a challenge, a Rubix Cube - to fill the void that Parker left when she started dating Hardison and Nate is no longer such a train wreck?
2.) Also, why does Eliot feel that he has to keep the brewery from going under (at the sacrifice of his own dream to own his own resturant)? It's not like the brewery failing will bankrupt Hardison; and why wouldn't Eliot think it's just a temporary hobby for Hardison before they relocate again?
1.) To a great degree, if you're going to talk about aftermaths, pairing up the two members of the team who've actually come to regret their actions is the natural conversation. Nate, Hardison and Parker are in their primary transformation over the course of the show. Eliot quit killing people not long before the show started, and Sophie's testing life as a citizen when we meet her in the pilot. They're also a lovely contrast in how people process their lives and work around self-image. Just felt like a nice combination.
To be honest, some of it is just actor availability. It's hard to convey just how much tighter our budget is than most other cable TV Dramas, and how much more we try to do with it. As a result, episodes often block shoot and overlap to save money for the big adventure blowouts, which menas actors are running between scenes of different episodes on the same day. In this case we wound up with Christian and Gina pairing up the best in small scenes, and that reinforced our development of that storyline.
2.) I don't think Eliot's giving up his dream of running his own restaurant. But now that he's doing it with Hardison, well ... He's not the type to admit it, but listen to the phrasing on that plan he has. He's backing into a situation where he does the thing he loves with the people he's come to love. He's just too emotionally shut down to admit he'd love doing it.
@LindaS: I have a general question. Is there a reason we haven't seen the portrait of Old Nate all season? I know you've said it made the trip to Portland. Just wondering.
You know, I went on set and checked after the first time this question was asked, because I wasn't sure -- it's in Nate's cubbyhole, but on the wall opposite Hardison's workstation. That's just a weird place to point the camera, as there's nothing else over in that area. I believe you get a good look at it in #508.
@Anonymous: Does Sophie really think she'd cope with retirement better than the others? If so, what makes her think that?
I believe Sophie is confident that she can handle anything. However, I think I'd look at that conversation as Sophie talking herself into it. If I were a betting man, I'd wager on Eliot's assessments of his team members over their own.
@KAae: 1.)Nate hasn't learned to slip cuffs yet? Or wear lock pick cuff links? I love to see an opportunity for Parker to breeze through a lock, but I would have thought a problem as common as handcuffs would be in his arsenal by now.
2.) Loved all the guest stars in this one. Especially when Eliot and Sophie were freaking out the Marshall. Is it just me or does everyone kind of relish pretending to be an inept or obvious criminal? So long as it's not in their own Role. We know Parker hates having to get caught stealing things.
1.) Nope, and neither can Hardison or Eliot. There are reasons within the fiction why not, but I also like to make sure there's a decent bit of "niche protection" in the show. FWIW I picked up that phrase from the RPG Mutants & Masterminds ...
2.) The actors' joy in playing those particular parts bleeds over to enthusiasm for the characters, and I think that's okay. Our characters are manipulative power-trippers, after all, and tricking people that way is a nice fix for that jones.
@Anonymous: What do you have to say to people who download your show illegally? Every week there's a torrent on the pirate bay with thousands of leechers and seeders. That's thousands of potential consumers not watching advertisements thus risking the security of your program. Does that piss you off or are you more zen about it like Nine Inch Nails?
I would PREFER you buy the show legally. However, I am one of those capitalists who doesn't blame the market for my failings. The market is the market. The market does not give a shit what's fair. Torrenting is to a great degree a mismatch of delivery systems to audience. When we get better at digital delivery, piracy will decrease. It'll never go away, but being angry at piracy is like being angry at the weather -- in a digital economy, you're gonna have to live with some rain, and if you've built your house correctly it won't wash you away.
@Anonymous: Why did Sophie and Eliot feel the need to run from the cops? They didn't do anything illegal except for maybe digging that hole on public property.
Marshall Rose fed the cops a story, and frankly if you've ben tumbled and the cops are coming with the lights on, you don't want to stand around and see how well your cover ID holds up.
@Izzie: So your answer to Sophie's question: Who would cope the best living a normal life without going crazy? Is it Eliot? What were his reasons for saying himself?
It is indeed Eliot. Eliot has very little intentional subtext.
@oppyu: 1: Did you have a mafia guy as a non-villain character who gets away free from law enforcement? That seems... counter-intuitive. Supposedly noble stated intentions aside, the mafia are generally believed to be involved with things like violent crime.
2: Can we have a Hardison/Parker spin-off? They won't be able to run cons anymore, but together they can steal just about anything.
3: Also, can we have an Eliot spin-off as well? Less with the stealing, more with the punching, kicking and hurting. Like the 'Human Target' show that was on Fox a couple of years ago.
4: Aaaaaaand we may as well have a Sophie/Nate spin-off while we're at it. Make this one more of a DomCom, just for the hell of it.
1.) Organized crime fits a very specific spot in the Leverage CrimeWorld -- it's environmental in context. (Huh, see piracy, above.) Anyway, the original sin is Lillard's, and so that's who we punish. Trying to rope in an institutional bad guy liket he Mob Boss seemed like egg on egg.2.-4.) But spin-offs would mean the show wasn't on any more. Don't you want Leverage? Okay, fine, we'll cancel the show. But when it happens, I hope everyone knows to blame you and your insatiable desire for spin-offs.
@Susy: 1:Will we only be getting another Nate/Sophie kiss in The Frame-Up Job or not even in that one ??
2:When will we know if Leverage is renewed for a sixth season?
1.) Multiple kisses and physical and emotional intimacy! You Nophie fans will CHOKE on the bounty we deliver this year!2.) Not until quite late, for various contractual and netwrok scheduling reasons. Do not take the delay as indicative of the chances of renewal one way or another.
@jamesfirecat: what exactly is a “Parking Lot” Scam if I had to guess it involved charging people money to park in a lot that is actually free to park in but I just want to be sure that's correct. Also how did our mark's version of it work, were people really foolish enough not to be able to tell a wifi network that was not password protected from one that was?
Yes, that's exactly what the Parking Lot Scam is. There's a famous urban legend version of the true scam detailed here. As to the second question -- your faith in people's technical know-how is touching. And remember, of there is one damn useful thing you can take away from this show: People are wired to obey authority.
@OOna: Hee! I'm still giggling about this episode! LOVED the marshal going all crazy on Nate twice. LOVED Christian Kane's line read on "No, it's me." (JR NOTE: Me too. One of my top five Kane acting moments in the season.) LOVED Aldis Hodge's on the rant in the warehouse and the quick "OK, I'm in!" And I especially loved Tim Hutton's line read on the "get here as soon as you possibly can" and really, the chair was a genius idea. The sliding forward and then back when the gun came out, the crossing of the legs while he was stalling like he was having an ordinary conversation. Too funny ...
QUESTION 1: Who's idea was the rolling chair and how much of that was scripted?
QUESTION 2: I'm guessing that Nate, once he's made up his mind and decided to do it, will adapt to reitrement much better than Sophie - am I right?
QUESTION 3: What's your take on the deal with the mobster at the end?
QUESTION 4: When did Lillard injure himself?
1.) The rolling chair was one of several choices provided by production design, and as soon as they saw it Josh and director John Harrison began tweaking the scene to incorporate it. Then once Tim sat down, he took over and used it at his discretion. The leg cross was an on-set idea by Josh, actually.2.) You know what? I'm not sure about that. He'll always need something to occupy that mind of his, and crosswords ain't gonna do it.3.) Noted above. 4.) He actually hurt himself out at dinner with Kane. Got a phone call, stepped out of the restaurant to take the call -- and BAMMED into a sliding glass door.
@PurpleOps: You sure fooled me on this episode! I'd been thinking it was very much a "By The Numbers" show (con somewhat like the Very Big Bird job, etc.)... and then that flip with the Marshal which I should have seen coming, but didn't. Nice work!1. How did they drive the car out of a building at the moment that was "surrounded" by the police and not get stopped?? (All I can think of is the line from the Spike Jones song "Wild Bill Hiccup", with the Marshal talking to his somewhat wide girlfriend: "I'll sneak in and you surround the house!")
2. When Sophie said, "They'll always throw out the cake but they keep the tray", who is the "they" she's talking about? Marshals? Recipients of housewarming gifts? Seems an odd generality.
3. The mobster at the end refers to Nate as "Mr. Ford". So much for lying low in Portland! How can Nate continue to use his real name?
4. It almost seemed as though SOPHIE doesn't want to commit to the relationship with Nate, given her "With me or without me" line. It wound up turning around nicely, but it seemed unusual coming from her. Nate's look after that line was priceless, though. And then the turnaround later - thanks!
5. I was hard on Aldis last week, but this week he really shone as the Artiste (or "Mad Artist", as someone else called him). Beautifully subtle but wonderfully funny. Great work!
6. Sophie's Italian answering machine riff - che bella!
7. You need to add another star to the opening credits list - ORANGE SODA! "It's not just for Hardison anymore!"
And I have completely used up my quote of exclamation points.
1.) The geography of the warehouse actually works quite well for that. The real-world warehouse has a fenced-in front area and several loading bays out the back. The cops came in the front, the mob came in the side, and our guys all escaped out the back, as the mob guys also got out through one of the side doors.
Two problems we ran into. a.) The warehouse is a working warehouse, and we could never get a the clear high-and-wide around all the materials inside to establish the geography. b.) Not only was the geography hard to establish from outside without revealing the warehouses' relatively rural real-world location, it was raining like a SONOVABITCH that day. So most of the outside establishers went away.
2.) People in general. And she's right -- perceived value, if the tray is nice enough.3.) Nate in this case has to trade on his CrimeWorld rep to get the deal he wants, so he has to use his name. Don't worry, Nate's fully aware there's a timer running on how long they can stay anonymous inPortland, as you see in #509.4.) No, Sophie was being emotionally mature. She WANTS for them to wind up together, but she cares for Nate enough that she'll settle for him being in a good place even if that means being without her. This is giant growth on Sophie's part, and we slid it right under most people's radar.5.) Aldis is always great.6.) Niche protection -- always nice to show off Sophie's language skills. 7.) At the very least, we should be selling branded Orange Soda by now ...
@antisocialbutterflie: 1) How difficult was it to track down all those vintage cars for the shoot or did you put up a Craig's list ad for real? 2) In the past you have indicated that Eliot has a "don't s**t where you eat" mentality when it comes to relationships. From that view it seems counterintuitive for him to be helping the romantic relationships, first in the Lonely Hearts Job with the flowers and now with the Hardison/Parker retirement conversation. Has his desire for his teammates to be happy outweighed this personal philosophy?
1.) As noted, ridiculously easy. Most of our scams are pretty close to do-able, to tell the truth, as most of them come from research on real-world crimes.2.) Eliot has his framework, but he doesn't expect other people to live by it. Hell, Batman doesn't tell Superman how to live his life. Usually.
@Moberemk: 1) The mob boss from a whole different part of the country actually seemed somewhat scared of Nate. Just how legendary is the team by this point anyways?2) How many weapons are hidden throughout the bar anyways? Or was that just a bluff on Sophie's part?
1.) I think the team's transitioned to legendary status, while before everyone in the team was considered the best at what they do.2.) As I said on the podcast, I think six. Based on how many we stowed in various bars I worked in during my kick-around days.
@SueN: I also admit that I'm feeling far less worried about where Nate's taking the team. Please don't say anything to ruin that. Let me enjoy my happiness until you shatter it in the finale. (JR note: I apologize in advance)
1) Just how often do the others go to Eliot for "relationship advice"? Is it just Hardison and Parker, or does Sophie also bend his ear when Nate's being … Nate?
2) Eliot and retirement … As you've said, Eliot made his "big change" pre-team, when he decided to leave wet work and go into retrievals. And from his talk with Sophie (wanting to start a restaurant), it seems obvious he's given some thought to what comes next. So … is retirement really something he considers a possibility, or is it just a wistful pipedream? That moment had a nice "gunfighter pondering hanging up his guns" vibe, and, well, I've watched enough Westerns in my life to know that rarely goes as planned. Does our resident "gunfighter" really believe he can just walk away? And just how ready to do that is he?
1.) The Sophie/Eliot relationship is one we never get to as much as I like -- we were starting to explore it in Season Two, with "Tap Out", but Gina's pregnancy kind of reset a lot of our plans. After that we wound up following the Eliot/Hardison and Eliot/Parker arcs much more closely. I know a lot fo showrunners have their show worked out in their head and the actors are there to execute it, but on Leverage we often find ourselves following the emotional flow the actors fall into. You'll see some lovely beats of the that relationship this season, though.2.) Eliot thinks he'd do well at retirement, but is honest enough to know he probably won't get the chance. For one reason or another.
@allyone: Programming question. How did this one end up over the Labor Day weekend? When you're setting the order of episodes, is that ever anything that enters the thought process, like 'We know this one is going to be a tough night, so we're either going to put a really great episode out and hope for the best or or we're going to burn an episode that's good but maybe not great'? Or do you just order them the way that makes sense for the narrative and then let the network decide from there? I thought this was one of the best of the season so far, def. one of my two favorites so far, but it seems like a lot of people STILL haven't seen it on Tuesday, esp. with iTunes not updating.
It's pretty much up to our production cycle and the network. Some scripts take longer to develop, some need to be shot in certain spots due to physical limitations or actor availabilities, some take longer in post-production. It's usually a coincidence what night a particular episode falls on.
@Sabine: 1.) Is it me or do we see less of Eliot fighting this season? If you say it's me, I might not believe you. If you say it's not me, why is there less?
2. I'm wishy-washy on whether I think Eliot might like to retire from retrieval because I'm not clear on what he's getting out of it. Other than paid, I mean. If he's doing it out of guilt, well, you said he's not looking for redemption because he knows it's hopeless. So then there's no end in sight other than death in the sense of feeling like he's paid for what he's done and can move on. If he's doing it for altruism or thrills or camaraderie, I guess I hadn't until this episode's talk with Sophie ever thought he was tired of those things, but if you say so, I can believe he would want something else or more out of life. But which is it? Can you explain exactly (exactly, in this sentence, means please use small words and simple emotional concepts; pretend I'm Parker) why Eliot still works in retrieval? And why Nate's team specifically? What does he get out of being on Nate's team that he can't get by going on exciting massively secret military jobs with his army bffs?
1.) Not sure there's less fighting. Big fight in 501, 502, small in 503, BIG in 504, none in 505, none in 506 (special case), and a tiny bit in 507 ... I think it's just the last few are light.2.) Eliot's regret is an accumulation of small and large sins.He finds an accumulation of small virtues more satisfying than the big slam-bang hero stuff, particularly as he is painfully aware there's often some nasty shit going on behind those jobs. Also, he's seeing his value as part of a family, which he didn't have before. He did not see himself as valuable in that way.
@Suzy Q: Will we be seeing the mob boss again?
Maybe. I thought local actor @ChelseaNH: Is this the first time Hardison hasn't oversold the con?
I think he came veeerrrrry close. But yeah, pulled this one off.
@Hollie Meyer: Question: Who painted the old-Nate painting that hangs in their office (no matter their office is)?Question: When Leverage is over (which I hope will not be for a long time), will you or a member of the cast or crew get the painting?
I believe our first season Production Designer Lauren Crasco painted it. As to who gets the painting when the show eventually wraps ... I think that one goes to Dean or Tim. I've got the French roadsign from "The Van Gogh Job" and one of the Davids from "The First/Second David Job", and I'm not one for stuff.
@ChelseaNH: [...] So, the theory: Nate doesn't want to just avenge the wronged, he wants to help preventwrong. Not quite sure how he'd do that, but I can see it being a problem he'd want to tackle.
Hmm, about half-right. I think his issues and scale are a bit more personal. And, to tell the truth, he's still a mean SOB.
@Anonymous: 1.) Why did Erikson take money to meet Ford? That was the money to buy the car, so shouldn't he have left it with Parker? 2.) When Hardison was estimating how much money is in the duffel, wouldn't that be heavily dependent on the denominations inside? There was $150,000 in 5's, which was about what Hardison guessed. But if Erikson had used 20's, Erikson would have been at $600,000, Eliot's guess, and if he'd used hundred dollar bills, Erikson would have been carting around three million.
3.) At the end, the crew took the car (and, presumably, the hidden money in the Caymens), so what was there left to incriminate Erikson? The agent took his duffel of money, but it looked like it was the wifi money (it was 5's in the scene at the end), which didn't come from Erikson's accounts. Was it just that he had a gun?
1.) He was acting as her agent, and she was supposed to show up in a bit to lock down the sale. Dialogue cut for time.2.) Exact argument in dialogue, cut for time. That three-way edit was a bear.3.) Erikson violated his deal with the Feds, and committed crimes while he was in the protection program. Not to mention the awkward questions about his marshall. All that happened was that his original plea bargain deal was revoked.
@Anonymous: In season 1, Eliot mentioned a nephew, (S1E4) which would mean at least one brother or sister, who have never been mentioned since. Any plans?
Nope. As you'll see in the winter episodes, Eliot has a complicated relationship with his family. I will say that although the shows are canonically fictional in each others universes, in my mind Shawn Spencer from Psych is Eliot's cousin.
@Antaeus Feldspar: Just one question: Sophie called attention to the fact that the marshal dumped the fruitcake and kept the tray; I expected we'd find out the tray was bugged or something similar, but if they revealed any purpose to the tray, I missed it! What was the reason? Was it something that got cut in editing?
Oh it is bugged, you can see the bug on the push-in. It's intentionally made to blend with the tray,t hough, so it's super-easy to miss.
@ljmckay: How does the team think about the time before the pilot? "Pre-crew"? "Pre-Leverage"? "Pre-Nate"? Just curious. :)"Pre-Leverage" which is the same as pre-crew. All of them knew Nate from before the team formed.
@PsychoKitty: Nate has been having his crisis about only ever tearing things down but never creating anything. Does that tie into how focused and determined he is not to just steal a car show but to create his own? In the scene when he decides that they need to make a car show, he seems to have some of the same desperation about him that he has when he is lamenting his constant destruction. I was just wondering if any of this is related at all.
I wouldn't say that's the reason for that scene, but it's a very insightful look at what's going on in Nate's head right now. Besides the tumor, of course. Oh, wait, have you goys seen that episode -- never mind.
@allyone: General question for you - I see that there was this interesting little survey that appeared to be put out by TNT going around, asking stuff about which characters you wanted to see more of, which characters were featured too much, etc. etc. etc. Now, I know you've always said that TNT doesn't pressure you guys on what to write. That survey made me wonder if that might be changing at all, assuming there's a Season 6? What do networks do with that nonsense if not try to use it to influence the direction of the show's storylines?
Never saw that survey, but a lot of time they bank that info for development. "Our audience wants to see more female characters, etc" whether they're drawing the correct inferences form their data, well, that's the art of it, eh? But honestly we couldn't have more supportive, less interfering network partners.
@Anonymous: So Nate appears to be prepping the team for... whatever secret stuff he has planned. Testing them, making sure they can work alone (or have the confidence to work without him)... everyone except Sophie. Did I miss something/will there be something in future episodes or is Sophie the only team member that doesn't need that from him? I may be wrong about what he's doing with the team but I do notice he's pushing them in a way he's not pushing Sophie. Will that be explained or are we to assume she's more on his level?
Heh ..
****************************
As always, a pleasure to hear from the Grifters. Check back later this week as the #508 post goes up. At the very least, you'll be caught up on Seaosn Five before the winter episodes start. Take care!
The trick, of course, is that hiatus is when all the things you promise you'll do when the show is no longer eating your life come due. This year those promises wound up being four (gak) pilots on various timelines, a brand new company under my banner, an animated movie ready for concept art and digging in on Thrillbent. Oh, and some RPG stuff -- I wrote a setting for Robin Laws' great new story-style DramaSystem game called Hillfolk, and I'm working on a companion for a ... fate-ful system.
Better problems to have than not. But I hate to think you loyal Grifters are paying the price for the inevitable between-seasons shiver of "Finally fucking DONE" which afflicts every showrunner on the season wrap.
Checking my notes, Josh came into the writer's room first week with this story. We'd discussed using antique cars in the room after we shot "The Boost Job" at the Portland International Raceway. While we were scouting that episode the nice folks at the raceway told us about how the weekends at the joint were jammed with privately-owned classic cars being taken out for a spin by their owners. We managed to get those cars for our episode in almost the exact same way Hardison scores them for the con in-story -- we asked. And they showed up. As they do.
The episode changed very little over its evolution but for a slight tweaking of the emotional arc. The Mob originally showed up much earlier, where the Mob Boss was obsessed with the car. In the end The Boss reveals he was chasing the car, not the guy, as his family was persecuted by Mussolini, and he'd believed he tore the damn thing apart ten years ago. It was more about fathers and heritage, and tied in nicely with Nate's sketchy background and his desire to build something better in his life. It was also a much better story for the Mob Boss than it was for the rest fo the Leverage team. FWIW this is one of the challenges of Leverage -- the villain balance.
I was really fascinated by the first season of Justified, when often Raylon would just drop out of the episode and we'd follow the misadventures of the villains. That's particular approach is very true to the Elmore Leonard novel structure from which the show sprang.
Now, flip around to most police procedurals, like Castle or most other procedurals. The villain is unknown. When the protagonists are interacting with the guest cast, they're usually in a power-positive position and the motives of the characters they encounter are hidden -- and without an understandable objective (scene OR story), it's almost impossible to emotionally connect with a character. (re: the three questions of drama: 1.) "Who wants what?" 2.) "Why can't they have it." 3.) "Why do I give a shit?") The entire emotional and motivational freight of the story is on the protagonists who are acting, to a great degree, into a vacuum. This is one of the reason serial killer stories work so well, BTW, which is a post for another time. Another thing to think about is that one show which broke this paradigm quite handily was Law & Order, but only in its second half. In most episodes of L&O by the second half the villain is revealed and the show becomes move/countermove. This probably extended its life span, as I believe there's a natural limit on how long you can stretch out the journey of relatively static heroes.
Con shows don't work unless you have a good sense of the villain, because a good con is tailored to that villain's weakness (or strength). You can try to solve a murder in a vacuum, but you can't con an unknown Mark. This means Leverage has to balance 5 regular cast members and the Mark. Oy. You can then actually go back through five season of Leverage and notice that when the villain is more generic, that's often because the challenge has become the system out guys are dealing with or some internal character issue. Emotional real estate in 50 pages is very valuable.
The best Leverage episodes -- and I am more than willing to admit that over 77 there are some ones we're very proud of, and ones where we think "Okay, wish we'd had a little more time on THAT" -- is when the villain, world and team emotional plotlines balance perfectly.
Often that doesn't happen at script stage, or at least it's something we can't anticipate until we're filming or even editing. "The Grave Danger Job" is my favorite example of this. The villainous funeral director was an interesting character, but we couldn't imagine her being a real threat to our guys, so we brought in the Escalating Threat of the Mexican Identity Thieves.
All this to say "The Real Fake Car Job" is one of those boilerplate, "we got it right" episodes. Josh swung the emotional focus of the show around from the Mob Boss to the Mark, and how his dilemma could be used as a mirror for the team. I've written before how a show can't help but reflect the emotional issues of the people making it, and the question "What comes next?" is uppermost in the minds of any production staff in season 5. Once you're past Season 4 in serial television, each year becomes statistically more likely to be your last, and that curve rises exponentially. That may vary a bit according to the marketplace, but not much.
Lillard was great, as was
And that is, indeed, Matthew Lillard diving out of the damn way of the damn car Tim is driving, might I add. Kane's infectious. Probably showing off as he knoew that warehosue was the same one we filmed the big Season Three Kane shootout.
In one of those weird "Good research makes you look psychic" moments, shortly after we wrapped production on the episode, a man reputedly bought a Hitler fleet car on the internet.
Okay, I'm sure you got lots of questions about the character beats, so I'll skip discussing those and get to the good stuff ...
@Aaron Button: Just one observation: a banana peel in the garbage? The Mark's been in Portland for ten months and he wasn't given one of those little compost bins from the city?
He got one, but he threw it out. That's JUST HOW EVIL HE IS.
@PartyGirl: Thank you for the funniest episode since like the Rashomon Job :)One question though: How did the phone get into the bag with the money? Last we see it, it is lying next to the bag on the floor of the warehouse when Erickson stumbles over the bag as the mob guys show up. When Parker, Hardison and Nate run past, the phone is nowhere to be seen, so it wasn't one of them who put it in there (which could have been explained by a missing flashback)
Nate drops it in -- indeed, missing flashback. We were just so stacked with flashbacks, we dropped it in the cut.
@Calla: I really enjoyed Eliot & Sophie playing a very obvious "Mr & Mrs Smith." We so rarely get Eliot & Sophie working together, just the two of them ...
1.) Why is Sophie taking such an interest in Eliot this season? Is it because she needs something - a hobby, a mystery, a challenge, a Rubix Cube - to fill the void that Parker left when she started dating Hardison and Nate is no longer such a train wreck?
2.) Also, why does Eliot feel that he has to keep the brewery from going under (at the sacrifice of his own dream to own his own resturant)? It's not like the brewery failing will bankrupt Hardison; and why wouldn't Eliot think it's just a temporary hobby for Hardison before they relocate again?
1.) To a great degree, if you're going to talk about aftermaths, pairing up the two members of the team who've actually come to regret their actions is the natural conversation. Nate, Hardison and Parker are in their primary transformation over the course of the show. Eliot quit killing people not long before the show started, and Sophie's testing life as a citizen when we meet her in the pilot. They're also a lovely contrast in how people process their lives and work around self-image. Just felt like a nice combination.
To be honest, some of it is just actor availability. It's hard to convey just how much tighter our budget is than most other cable TV Dramas, and how much more we try to do with it. As a result, episodes often block shoot and overlap to save money for the big adventure blowouts, which menas actors are running between scenes of different episodes on the same day. In this case we wound up with Christian and Gina pairing up the best in small scenes, and that reinforced our development of that storyline.
2.) I don't think Eliot's giving up his dream of running his own restaurant. But now that he's doing it with Hardison, well ... He's not the type to admit it, but listen to the phrasing on that plan he has. He's backing into a situation where he does the thing he loves with the people he's come to love. He's just too emotionally shut down to admit he'd love doing it.
@LindaS: I have a general question. Is there a reason we haven't seen the portrait of Old Nate all season? I know you've said it made the trip to Portland. Just wondering.
You know, I went on set and checked after the first time this question was asked, because I wasn't sure -- it's in Nate's cubbyhole, but on the wall opposite Hardison's workstation. That's just a weird place to point the camera, as there's nothing else over in that area. I believe you get a good look at it in #508.
@Anonymous: Does Sophie really think she'd cope with retirement better than the others? If so, what makes her think that?
I believe Sophie is confident that she can handle anything. However, I think I'd look at that conversation as Sophie talking herself into it. If I were a betting man, I'd wager on Eliot's assessments of his team members over their own.
@KAae: 1.)Nate hasn't learned to slip cuffs yet? Or wear lock pick cuff links? I love to see an opportunity for Parker to breeze through a lock, but I would have thought a problem as common as handcuffs would be in his arsenal by now.
2.) Loved all the guest stars in this one. Especially when Eliot and Sophie were freaking out the Marshall. Is it just me or does everyone kind of relish pretending to be an inept or obvious criminal? So long as it's not in their own Role. We know Parker hates having to get caught stealing things.
1.) Nope, and neither can Hardison or Eliot. There are reasons within the fiction why not, but I also like to make sure there's a decent bit of "niche protection" in the show. FWIW I picked up that phrase from the RPG Mutants & Masterminds ...
2.) The actors' joy in playing those particular parts bleeds over to enthusiasm for the characters, and I think that's okay. Our characters are manipulative power-trippers, after all, and tricking people that way is a nice fix for that jones.
@Anonymous: What do you have to say to people who download your show illegally? Every week there's a torrent on the pirate bay with thousands of leechers and seeders. That's thousands of potential consumers not watching advertisements thus risking the security of your program. Does that piss you off or are you more zen about it like Nine Inch Nails?
I would PREFER you buy the show legally. However, I am one of those capitalists who doesn't blame the market for my failings. The market is the market. The market does not give a shit what's fair. Torrenting is to a great degree a mismatch of delivery systems to audience. When we get better at digital delivery, piracy will decrease. It'll never go away, but being angry at piracy is like being angry at the weather -- in a digital economy, you're gonna have to live with some rain, and if you've built your house correctly it won't wash you away.
@Anonymous: Why did Sophie and Eliot feel the need to run from the cops? They didn't do anything illegal except for maybe digging that hole on public property.
Marshall Rose fed the cops a story, and frankly if you've ben tumbled and the cops are coming with the lights on, you don't want to stand around and see how well your cover ID holds up.
@Izzie: So your answer to Sophie's question: Who would cope the best living a normal life without going crazy? Is it Eliot? What were his reasons for saying himself?
It is indeed Eliot. Eliot has very little intentional subtext.
@oppyu: 1: Did you have a mafia guy as a non-villain character who gets away free from law enforcement? That seems... counter-intuitive. Supposedly noble stated intentions aside, the mafia are generally believed to be involved with things like violent crime.
2: Can we have a Hardison/Parker spin-off? They won't be able to run cons anymore, but together they can steal just about anything.
3: Also, can we have an Eliot spin-off as well? Less with the stealing, more with the punching, kicking and hurting. Like the 'Human Target' show that was on Fox a couple of years ago.
4: Aaaaaaand we may as well have a Sophie/Nate spin-off while we're at it. Make this one more of a DomCom, just for the hell of it.
1.) Organized crime fits a very specific spot in the Leverage CrimeWorld -- it's environmental in context. (Huh, see piracy, above.) Anyway, the original sin is Lillard's, and so that's who we punish. Trying to rope in an institutional bad guy liket he Mob Boss seemed like egg on egg.2.-4.) But spin-offs would mean the show wasn't on any more. Don't you want Leverage? Okay, fine, we'll cancel the show. But when it happens, I hope everyone knows to blame you and your insatiable desire for spin-offs.
@Susy: 1:Will we only be getting another Nate/Sophie kiss in The Frame-Up Job or not even in that one ??
2:When will we know if Leverage is renewed for a sixth season?
1.) Multiple kisses and physical and emotional intimacy! You Nophie fans will CHOKE on the bounty we deliver this year!2.) Not until quite late, for various contractual and netwrok scheduling reasons. Do not take the delay as indicative of the chances of renewal one way or another.
@jamesfirecat: what exactly is a “Parking Lot” Scam if I had to guess it involved charging people money to park in a lot that is actually free to park in but I just want to be sure that's correct. Also how did our mark's version of it work, were people really foolish enough not to be able to tell a wifi network that was not password protected from one that was?
Yes, that's exactly what the Parking Lot Scam is. There's a famous urban legend version of the true scam detailed here. As to the second question -- your faith in people's technical know-how is touching. And remember, of there is one damn useful thing you can take away from this show: People are wired to obey authority.
@OOna: Hee! I'm still giggling about this episode! LOVED the marshal going all crazy on Nate twice. LOVED Christian Kane's line read on "No, it's me." (JR NOTE: Me too. One of my top five Kane acting moments in the season.) LOVED Aldis Hodge's on the rant in the warehouse and the quick "OK, I'm in!" And I especially loved Tim Hutton's line read on the "get here as soon as you possibly can" and really, the chair was a genius idea. The sliding forward and then back when the gun came out, the crossing of the legs while he was stalling like he was having an ordinary conversation. Too funny ...
QUESTION 1: Who's idea was the rolling chair and how much of that was scripted?
QUESTION 2: I'm guessing that Nate, once he's made up his mind and decided to do it, will adapt to reitrement much better than Sophie - am I right?
QUESTION 3: What's your take on the deal with the mobster at the end?
QUESTION 4: When did Lillard injure himself?
1.) The rolling chair was one of several choices provided by production design, and as soon as they saw it Josh and director John Harrison began tweaking the scene to incorporate it. Then once Tim sat down, he took over and used it at his discretion. The leg cross was an on-set idea by Josh, actually.2.) You know what? I'm not sure about that. He'll always need something to occupy that mind of his, and crosswords ain't gonna do it.3.) Noted above. 4.) He actually hurt himself out at dinner with Kane. Got a phone call, stepped out of the restaurant to take the call -- and BAMMED into a sliding glass door.
@PurpleOps: You sure fooled me on this episode! I'd been thinking it was very much a "By The Numbers" show (con somewhat like the Very Big Bird job, etc.)... and then that flip with the Marshal which I should have seen coming, but didn't. Nice work!1. How did they drive the car out of a building at the moment that was "surrounded" by the police and not get stopped?? (All I can think of is the line from the Spike Jones song "Wild Bill Hiccup", with the Marshal talking to his somewhat wide girlfriend: "I'll sneak in and you surround the house!")
2. When Sophie said, "They'll always throw out the cake but they keep the tray", who is the "they" she's talking about? Marshals? Recipients of housewarming gifts? Seems an odd generality.
3. The mobster at the end refers to Nate as "Mr. Ford". So much for lying low in Portland! How can Nate continue to use his real name?
4. It almost seemed as though SOPHIE doesn't want to commit to the relationship with Nate, given her "With me or without me" line. It wound up turning around nicely, but it seemed unusual coming from her. Nate's look after that line was priceless, though. And then the turnaround later - thanks!
5. I was hard on Aldis last week, but this week he really shone as the Artiste (or "Mad Artist", as someone else called him). Beautifully subtle but wonderfully funny. Great work!
6. Sophie's Italian answering machine riff - che bella!
7. You need to add another star to the opening credits list - ORANGE SODA! "It's not just for Hardison anymore!"
And I have completely used up my quote of exclamation points.
1.) The geography of the warehouse actually works quite well for that. The real-world warehouse has a fenced-in front area and several loading bays out the back. The cops came in the front, the mob came in the side, and our guys all escaped out the back, as the mob guys also got out through one of the side doors.
Two problems we ran into. a.) The warehouse is a working warehouse, and we could never get a the clear high-and-wide around all the materials inside to establish the geography. b.) Not only was the geography hard to establish from outside without revealing the warehouses' relatively rural real-world location, it was raining like a SONOVABITCH that day. So most of the outside establishers went away.
2.) People in general. And she's right -- perceived value, if the tray is nice enough.3.) Nate in this case has to trade on his CrimeWorld rep to get the deal he wants, so he has to use his name. Don't worry, Nate's fully aware there's a timer running on how long they can stay anonymous inPortland, as you see in #509.4.) No, Sophie was being emotionally mature. She WANTS for them to wind up together, but she cares for Nate enough that she'll settle for him being in a good place even if that means being without her. This is giant growth on Sophie's part, and we slid it right under most people's radar.5.) Aldis is always great.6.) Niche protection -- always nice to show off Sophie's language skills. 7.) At the very least, we should be selling branded Orange Soda by now ...
@antisocialbutterflie: 1) How difficult was it to track down all those vintage cars for the shoot or did you put up a Craig's list ad for real? 2) In the past you have indicated that Eliot has a "don't s**t where you eat" mentality when it comes to relationships. From that view it seems counterintuitive for him to be helping the romantic relationships, first in the Lonely Hearts Job with the flowers and now with the Hardison/Parker retirement conversation. Has his desire for his teammates to be happy outweighed this personal philosophy?
1.) As noted, ridiculously easy. Most of our scams are pretty close to do-able, to tell the truth, as most of them come from research on real-world crimes.2.) Eliot has his framework, but he doesn't expect other people to live by it. Hell, Batman doesn't tell Superman how to live his life. Usually.
@Moberemk: 1) The mob boss from a whole different part of the country actually seemed somewhat scared of Nate. Just how legendary is the team by this point anyways?2) How many weapons are hidden throughout the bar anyways? Or was that just a bluff on Sophie's part?
1.) I think the team's transitioned to legendary status, while before everyone in the team was considered the best at what they do.2.) As I said on the podcast, I think six. Based on how many we stowed in various bars I worked in during my kick-around days.
@SueN: I also admit that I'm feeling far less worried about where Nate's taking the team. Please don't say anything to ruin that. Let me enjoy my happiness until you shatter it in the finale. (JR note: I apologize in advance)
1) Just how often do the others go to Eliot for "relationship advice"? Is it just Hardison and Parker, or does Sophie also bend his ear when Nate's being … Nate?
2) Eliot and retirement … As you've said, Eliot made his "big change" pre-team, when he decided to leave wet work and go into retrievals. And from his talk with Sophie (wanting to start a restaurant), it seems obvious he's given some thought to what comes next. So … is retirement really something he considers a possibility, or is it just a wistful pipedream? That moment had a nice "gunfighter pondering hanging up his guns" vibe, and, well, I've watched enough Westerns in my life to know that rarely goes as planned. Does our resident "gunfighter" really believe he can just walk away? And just how ready to do that is he?
1.) The Sophie/Eliot relationship is one we never get to as much as I like -- we were starting to explore it in Season Two, with "Tap Out", but Gina's pregnancy kind of reset a lot of our plans. After that we wound up following the Eliot/Hardison and Eliot/Parker arcs much more closely. I know a lot fo showrunners have their show worked out in their head and the actors are there to execute it, but on Leverage we often find ourselves following the emotional flow the actors fall into. You'll see some lovely beats of the that relationship this season, though.2.) Eliot thinks he'd do well at retirement, but is honest enough to know he probably won't get the chance. For one reason or another.
@allyone: Programming question. How did this one end up over the Labor Day weekend? When you're setting the order of episodes, is that ever anything that enters the thought process, like 'We know this one is going to be a tough night, so we're either going to put a really great episode out and hope for the best or or we're going to burn an episode that's good but maybe not great'? Or do you just order them the way that makes sense for the narrative and then let the network decide from there? I thought this was one of the best of the season so far, def. one of my two favorites so far, but it seems like a lot of people STILL haven't seen it on Tuesday, esp. with iTunes not updating.
It's pretty much up to our production cycle and the network. Some scripts take longer to develop, some need to be shot in certain spots due to physical limitations or actor availabilities, some take longer in post-production. It's usually a coincidence what night a particular episode falls on.
@Sabine: 1.) Is it me or do we see less of Eliot fighting this season? If you say it's me, I might not believe you. If you say it's not me, why is there less?
2. I'm wishy-washy on whether I think Eliot might like to retire from retrieval because I'm not clear on what he's getting out of it. Other than paid, I mean. If he's doing it out of guilt, well, you said he's not looking for redemption because he knows it's hopeless. So then there's no end in sight other than death in the sense of feeling like he's paid for what he's done and can move on. If he's doing it for altruism or thrills or camaraderie, I guess I hadn't until this episode's talk with Sophie ever thought he was tired of those things, but if you say so, I can believe he would want something else or more out of life. But which is it? Can you explain exactly (exactly, in this sentence, means please use small words and simple emotional concepts; pretend I'm Parker) why Eliot still works in retrieval? And why Nate's team specifically? What does he get out of being on Nate's team that he can't get by going on exciting massively secret military jobs with his army bffs?
1.) Not sure there's less fighting. Big fight in 501, 502, small in 503, BIG in 504, none in 505, none in 506 (special case), and a tiny bit in 507 ... I think it's just the last few are light.2.) Eliot's regret is an accumulation of small and large sins.He finds an accumulation of small virtues more satisfying than the big slam-bang hero stuff, particularly as he is painfully aware there's often some nasty shit going on behind those jobs. Also, he's seeing his value as part of a family, which he didn't have before. He did not see himself as valuable in that way.
@Suzy Q: Will we be seeing the mob boss again?
Maybe. I thought local actor @ChelseaNH: Is this the first time Hardison hasn't oversold the con?
I think he came veeerrrrry close. But yeah, pulled this one off.
@Hollie Meyer: Question: Who painted the old-Nate painting that hangs in their office (no matter their office is)?Question: When Leverage is over (which I hope will not be for a long time), will you or a member of the cast or crew get the painting?
I believe our first season Production Designer Lauren Crasco painted it. As to who gets the painting when the show eventually wraps ... I think that one goes to Dean or Tim. I've got the French roadsign from "The Van Gogh Job" and one of the Davids from "The First/Second David Job", and I'm not one for stuff.
@ChelseaNH: [...] So, the theory: Nate doesn't want to just avenge the wronged, he wants to help preventwrong. Not quite sure how he'd do that, but I can see it being a problem he'd want to tackle.
Hmm, about half-right. I think his issues and scale are a bit more personal. And, to tell the truth, he's still a mean SOB.
@Anonymous: 1.) Why did Erikson take money to meet Ford? That was the money to buy the car, so shouldn't he have left it with Parker? 2.) When Hardison was estimating how much money is in the duffel, wouldn't that be heavily dependent on the denominations inside? There was $150,000 in 5's, which was about what Hardison guessed. But if Erikson had used 20's, Erikson would have been at $600,000, Eliot's guess, and if he'd used hundred dollar bills, Erikson would have been carting around three million.
3.) At the end, the crew took the car (and, presumably, the hidden money in the Caymens), so what was there left to incriminate Erikson? The agent took his duffel of money, but it looked like it was the wifi money (it was 5's in the scene at the end), which didn't come from Erikson's accounts. Was it just that he had a gun?
1.) He was acting as her agent, and she was supposed to show up in a bit to lock down the sale. Dialogue cut for time.2.) Exact argument in dialogue, cut for time. That three-way edit was a bear.3.) Erikson violated his deal with the Feds, and committed crimes while he was in the protection program. Not to mention the awkward questions about his marshall. All that happened was that his original plea bargain deal was revoked.
@Anonymous: In season 1, Eliot mentioned a nephew, (S1E4) which would mean at least one brother or sister, who have never been mentioned since. Any plans?
Nope. As you'll see in the winter episodes, Eliot has a complicated relationship with his family. I will say that although the shows are canonically fictional in each others universes, in my mind Shawn Spencer from Psych is Eliot's cousin.
@Antaeus Feldspar: Just one question: Sophie called attention to the fact that the marshal dumped the fruitcake and kept the tray; I expected we'd find out the tray was bugged or something similar, but if they revealed any purpose to the tray, I missed it! What was the reason? Was it something that got cut in editing?
Oh it is bugged, you can see the bug on the push-in. It's intentionally made to blend with the tray,t hough, so it's super-easy to miss.
@ljmckay: How does the team think about the time before the pilot? "Pre-crew"? "Pre-Leverage"? "Pre-Nate"? Just curious. :)"Pre-Leverage" which is the same as pre-crew. All of them knew Nate from before the team formed.
@PsychoKitty: Nate has been having his crisis about only ever tearing things down but never creating anything. Does that tie into how focused and determined he is not to just steal a car show but to create his own? In the scene when he decides that they need to make a car show, he seems to have some of the same desperation about him that he has when he is lamenting his constant destruction. I was just wondering if any of this is related at all.
I wouldn't say that's the reason for that scene, but it's a very insightful look at what's going on in Nate's head right now. Besides the tumor, of course. Oh, wait, have you goys seen that episode -- never mind.
@allyone: General question for you - I see that there was this interesting little survey that appeared to be put out by TNT going around, asking stuff about which characters you wanted to see more of, which characters were featured too much, etc. etc. etc. Now, I know you've always said that TNT doesn't pressure you guys on what to write. That survey made me wonder if that might be changing at all, assuming there's a Season 6? What do networks do with that nonsense if not try to use it to influence the direction of the show's storylines?
Never saw that survey, but a lot of time they bank that info for development. "Our audience wants to see more female characters, etc" whether they're drawing the correct inferences form their data, well, that's the art of it, eh? But honestly we couldn't have more supportive, less interfering network partners.
@Anonymous: So Nate appears to be prepping the team for... whatever secret stuff he has planned. Testing them, making sure they can work alone (or have the confidence to work without him)... everyone except Sophie. Did I miss something/will there be something in future episodes or is Sophie the only team member that doesn't need that from him? I may be wrong about what he's doing with the team but I do notice he's pushing them in a way he's not pushing Sophie. Will that be explained or are we to assume she's more on his level?
Heh ..
****************************
As always, a pleasure to hear from the Grifters. Check back later this week as the #508 post goes up. At the very least, you'll be caught up on Seaosn Five before the winter episodes start. Take care!
October 6, 2012
LEVERAGE #506 "The D.B. Cooper Job" Post-Game
This was an episode born of Kane's hair.
After the enormous fun and satisfaction we'd all had doing the flashback episode last year, Downey wanted to try another one for fifth season. We toyed around with a 60's spy thriller for a while, but that fell apart. Eventually the discussion revolved around finding a period where Christian Kane's hair wouldn't be an anachronism. That led us to the 60's and 70's. When Downey began researching big crime happenings in the Northwest in the 70's -- after all, we'd embraced Portland, we should try to do the same in our flashback episode -- the D.B. Cooper case came roaring out at him.
The story originally had Parker as the recipient of the confession, but that seemed a bit too much like "Van Gogh", and tying Nate to the tale allowed a nice anchor between the plot and story. The idea of a life destroyed by an obsession -- and not letting your loved ones suffer the same fate -- was resonant enough with our arc for Nate, but the idea of a man with an obsession equal Nate's who managed to not lose his faith in humanity was a lovely second level.
Much like Van Gogh this episode was written well in advance to allow our stellar production and wardrobe crew to prep for the challenge. As noted in the Leverage10 Podcast, our quest to find the plan led us to the amazing Evergreen Aviation Museum. While Downey inspected the front half of a vintage 737 fuselage the museum owned -- as one does -- Dean discovered the Spruce Goose was at the museum. And so the fine folks at Evergreen gave us not one but two very big episodes for Season 5.
While the season opener was actually partially filmed at the museum, we had the fuselage for ep 506 towed down to the soundstages at Clackamas (or Clackywood, as its affectionately known). Originally, director Marc Roskin was going to adjust the D.B. Cooper story and have Cooper parachute out of the side door, which was the one door we had extant. It was, after all, only the front half of a plane.
At which point our Production Designer Randall Groves said "No, I'll build the rest of it. And put it on a platform so you can really do the jump. " Which is how Kane wound up jumping backwards out of a fake plane 20 feet above a concrete floor with a fistful of grips YANKING him sideways to mimic the wind whipping him away.
I honestly don't even try to stop him anymore. Don't even get me started on the goddam hood-slide. Yes that's him, and yes that's Hutton driving.
We were lucky enough to continue our run of stellar casting this year with Ronnie Cox and Fred Ward as the flashback agents. Each of those actors brought a real gravitas to the episode. And we finally got to give Gerald Downey a little room to stretch his considerable acting chops. Seriously, somebody smarten up and make him the lead in something.
Before we jump to the questions, I have to note our costume designer Nadine Haders found photographs of the flight attendants from that flight, and from that handmade uniforms that matched. Yep, those white boots are real.
And as a wrap gift, Riesgraf gave me one.
I don't know how to feel about that.
The commitment to an authentic look extended form the cream of The Streets of San Francisco style clothing to the excellent make-up job. Those moustaches were a treat. I think I've never seen Hutton and Kane as sad as the day make-up reclaimed that facial hair. Downey used the word "bereft", and I don't disagree.
All of this energy and direction on this episode comes from our director Marc Roskin, of course. Marc really dug in on stretching the production value of the episode as far as he could, and made a real point of mimicking the camera-look of the 70's cop shows. The oddly-wide two-shot, the snap-zoom -- the episode really is a directing tour de force. Please, show me another cable show that's pulled off not just one but two period-piece episode of this quality -- and all this is thanks to our dedicated crew and actors.
Right, to your questions:
@ChelseaNH: Nate wants to build something? Please say you're going Hogwarts/Charles Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters and giving us the Jimmy Ford Memorial Academy and the next generation of conman avengers.
With Eliot on-staff as your Wolverine stand-in. Done.
@PurpleOps: Just one question though: Could you please explain that ending? Were we supposed to know who Oliver Schmidt was or what he was about? And what is it that Nate wants to "build"? (Yes, I know that's three questions. But they're all tied up in the first one. And I'm pretty sure we'll at least find out the answer to the third one eventually, but the first two might need answering from you in this forum!)
Nope, Oliver Schmidt was just the background con. We're mentioning those a little more often this year to remind the audience that there are (and have been) plenty of cons you'll never see. As to what Nate wants to build, well ...
@Lily: What a fantastic episode! 1.) I didn't know anything about DB Cooper before - was most of it ledger or did you guys have to research the hell out of this one too? 2.) The Sophie/Nate interactions are lovely but leave me with a little bit of a pit in my stomach about what's coming up down the line. Can you at least reassure me that they will be ok? (ha!) 3.) Also, the car stunt was great - that has to have been a stuntie, right?
1.) Most of it was orange box, right down to the theories people had about the suspects. Much like Van Gogh, Downey researched the hell out of it.
2.) No.
3.) Shit no. Not even a stuntie driving.
@Oona: I'm just gonna say now we're getting a season 6. 1.) So with that in mind, you're not planning to introduce cousin Oliver, the cute, con artist new kid on the block are you? Or since you're a Cosby vet, another little Olivia?
2.) Also - BRILLIANT to pair Kane and Riesgraf up in this ep, since Eliot Parker have such a following. It gives the fanbase something they're dying for but doesn't disrupt the present narrative of the show. Nice. Was that all Downey's decision?
1.) You forget I didn't work on The Cosby Show, which made everybody rich and famous, but Cosby which ended lives and careers. So no Olivia. That said, Doug E. Doug did Emmy caliber work on that show.
2.) Yep, all Downey. I think, like all of us who've been here since first season, he was looking for a change of pace. Also, Beth and Kane are very good friends and never really get to do that sort of scene.
@Lucia: Question: were FBI agents allowed to have moustaches???
As far as I know the ban on facial hair had ended by then, but even now there are cultural issues.
@DBChen: Shhhhh.
@IMForeman: Was there any trepidation about dealing with the D.B. Cooper story? Was there any concern that it may touch on the real D.B. Cooper story, or be proven wrong at some point? It seems implausible that he could have bought a farm with the money since none of the bills ever turned up in circulation.
The D.B. Cooper story has been plumbed for fiction so often already that we felt comfortable in putting our own spin on it. If we were proved wrong that would mean something else was somehow proved right. if the D.B. Cooper mystery were solved because of our episode, I would take that as a win.
@Bex: 1.) How much fun did all of the cast have in getting to try out these different roles? Did any of them go into research mode to make sure their speech and actions were appropriate to the time period?
2.) And somewhat off-topic - being born in the late 80's, were moustaches really that gigantic back then? Wow.
1.) The boys had enormous amounts of fun, and spent a lot of time watching period crime dramas to ge the rhythms right. I believe Beth had slightly less fun, as she had to cram into that uniform.2.) They were, indeed, huge. It was a dark time in America.
@Anonymous: 1.) have you gotten any feedback from FBI personnel about this episode? wonder how they feel about your take on the case...2.) and is it remotely possible that your version of the story is actually true? did you research the stewardess who spoke to Cooper?
1.) We occasionally get feedback from law-enforcement friends about the scripts -- I had a particularly gratifying note from an acquaintance about the MacGuffin in the season finale being "Classifed and real. Nice guess." We have been in the past asked to change the details of certain cons so as to not make them quite as accurate. In this case, though, nothing.
2.) I suppose there is an alternate universe where D.B. Cooper served as an FBI agent for 30 years,but I'm betting not. Downey did not interview the stewardess in question, but there was plenty of material about her testimony available. The confusion over what name he used, for example, is a real issue.
@lindaS: Question: Has McSweeten finally given up his crush on Parker? Or was he just distracted by his father's illness?
Nope, he understands she's seeing somebody else. Although he may have pressed it if not for his father's illness. Assume that Parker and Hardison have helped out Taggart and McSweeten a couple extra times off-screen.
@Anonymous: who's pet theory was this? Your's, the whole writers room's, or just one pulled from the pool?
It's Downey's, working backwards from the need to have some sort of satisfying thematic ending. In particular, he was working from the idea that McSweeten Sr. had brought Cooper to justice in his own way.
@Calla: 1.) Is it going to be a problem now that McSweeten knows where the Teams offices are? If he continues to believe in the best in everyone, he won't over think it. But what would prevent him from going back there and stumbling upon them in the middle of a con?
2.) I would like to know how much of the DB story was factual, how much was extrapolated from facts, and how much was just plain made up by a bunch of tired, drunken writers just hopping a ride on the fun train?
3.) Did Kane cut his hair for this episode (it looked pretty short) or was that a wig in some scenes?
4.) Final question. Which did Kane spend more time practicing: sliding over that car hood or kissing Beth?
1.) Nope. He's based in D.C.2.) 80% factual, with the identity and plan of the real criminal fictionalized. But the details aboutt he crime, the plane, the flight, etc are all accurate.3.) Nope, not cut for that episode.4.) He did both very well on the first try.
@Redwulf25: 1:) Can I assume that like most versions that paint him in a heroic light the bomb was fake?
2:) 90% certain Mcsweeten's father knew. But when did he know?
3:) When she read the note was it intentional that she wound up covering the i and j with her fingers so the note read "You are being hacked" instead of "You are being hijacked"?
1.) Yes.2.) I'm not sure he knew. I think that one's up for Most Interesting Interpretation for You.3.) Nope, accident.
@Anonymous: On a more positive note, Parker and McSweeten - I so want to see them working together more often. How many seasons could we get of McSweeten not knowing that Parker isn't really FBI?
About one ...
@bluehex: 1) - the photos. First one is clearly a composite, with Gerald Downey's face pasted in - but who is the other guy? Looks vaguely like (again, a paste-in) the guy from the other photo - the stewardess and her husband. Was the second photo (of the married couple) one of the real stewardesses involved in the case? If yes, cool, and was legal clearance a problem? If not, why go through so much Photoshop trouble, rather than having a Hutton/Kane and Riesgraf/Kane photos, since they were already established as the alter egos?
2) - a culture question (foreigner here): I know that tally-ho is a hunting/flying term which means that - respectively - a fox or aircraft was spotted. But is the accompanying gesture something that is generally related to the tally-ho or just father-son code?
1.) Nope, those were not the actual people. And we actually didn't use Kane and Beth for the same reason we didn't use Beth in the photo of her alter-ego from WW2 in "The Van Gogh Job". That it would so PLAINLY be Beth, it would suspend disbelief. (that's actually her stand-in in the Van Gogh, ep, BTW). It made sense to use Downey as he was subbing for someone related to him, but not the others. If that follows.2.) That little circle is the movement the master of the hunt makes to summon the other riders to the chase.
@Sarah W: Loved seeing this side of McSweeten. Interesting that he didn't blink (or seem to blink) at Parker's unorthodox ways of getting the files--there are hidden depths to him. One wonders if he knows the team isn't kosher, but also knows they're on the side of the angels (mostly)--like father, like son?
I think he's beginning to suspect that they may be None Such Agency rather than FBI. But I don't believe he's got the imagination to put them totally outside of the government. Most people are hard-wired for authority, after all.
@Oona: QUESTION 1: Amazing scene with Nate and Sophie at the end. Sophie said that she saw Nate as Odysseus -the hero. Was that flattery or a true insight into how Sophie sees Nate?
Assuming Sophie was being honest, what a great way to weave in some insight into the two of them. We know he sees himself in the worst possible light, but its interesting that she sees him in the most favorable light. It certainly helps explain why Sophie would stay with Nate despite his issues (cause sometimes love alone just isn't enough).
QUESTION 2: How do you view Sophie's tendency to romanticize? Character flaw or character saving grace?
QUESTION 3: Did anyone consider trying to find an actual pay phone for the background in the scene with little Todd and Daddy Pete? (Todd must have called Pete from somewhere.) Probably not an easy task these days.
QUESTION 4: How hard was it to re-create the inside of an airplane from the 70s?
QUESTION 5: What was the process for getting Fred Ward and Ronnie Cox?
QUESTION 6: You could have introduced the team to the mystery in a lot of different ways, but it added a nice emotional element for this to be the dad of someone we know. How did you/Chris/writers decide to use McSweeten in this one?
1.) I think that an important quality in the person you love is that they see you a little better than you see yourself. When you need it, anyway.2.) Flaw that is sometimes a saving grace. But other writers may differ. I also very much like commenter MZ's take on this:
"I'm not part of the Leverage crew so I can't answer directly but Sophie's answer was actually pretty perfect from my interpretation and if you're familiar with the Odyssey her statement is really not flattering. The concept of "hero" in literature, and especially Greek lit, is less about modern ideas of heroism and is closer to just meaning he was the main character. He also is a very Nate-like character. Both are excessively clever in both good ways and bad and are jealous and wrathful when provoked. Their love of their son sparks both of their tales and is one of the major sources of their problems. Most importantly, though, and one of the reasons the comparison is not flattering for Nate, Odysseus is nearly synonymous with hubris. Nate's self-identification with the sirens seems to be an interesting point for the season arc but it seemed pretty clear to me that the writers knew how spot-on the Odysseus comparison is."3.) God no. They're all gone, and we didn't want to build one.4.) As noted above, we actually went and found one.5.) We called their agents. Tim knew Ronnie Cox from Taps, of course, and suggested him. Fred Ward has been a dream casting chance for ages, we're all fans. Honestly, it's stunning how many great actors are kind of just hanging out.6.) Downey always had a soft spot for Taggart & McSweeten, seeing as he created them in "The Wedding Job." Also, we didn't want a cold in for a historical, and he's one of the few recurring characters we haven't tagged lately, or even that we're that fond of (by which I mean the team).
@Jocelyn: My question is how awkward or weird was it for Christian and Beth to do the kissing scene? I know they are professional but still it had a to be a little strange, no?
They are pros, but there definitely was a weird energy on the set. It's a bit like if I had to kiss Downey. Again.
@Suzy Q 1.) What happened to Sophie? She was all fangirl about DB Cooper in the beginning, and is nowhere to be seen when they finally figure out who he is.2.) Looks like Nate is trying to arrange it for his team to be on their own (by the end of the season). Is he retiring or dying?
1.) We had a nice beat about that,we cut it to make room for the Ulysses beat instead.2.) That is a mighty wet cough he's developed.
@SueN: 1) Any particular reason so little Sophie? Eliot I can understand, because Kane spent so much time as Steve. Just wondering about Sophie.2) D.B. Cooper. Why this storyline, and what in the ep was orange box and ledger?
3) Todd. Now that we have seen him as a fully fledged human being, how does this change any future use of him as one half of the bumbling duo of Taggert-McSweeten?
4) Whose crossbow was that in the van?
5) Oh, the car slide. THE CAR SLIDE. Were you on set that day? How crazy did it make you?
1.) To tell the truth, it was just a mix of editing and the fact we shot her out on an other episode during the overlap. nothing to be read into there.2.) As above.3.) It may. S6.4.) You'll see who's crossbow that is in the season finale ...5.) He ages me. Every year.
@Anonymous: Hardison is probably my favorite character in the show, but it seems like he has been out of focus for a lot of this season, and to me it seems like the writers are trying to avoid having him in the spotlight, to be comic relief at the moment, and like some have said about his relationship with Parker, we really haven't had any interaction between them this season. Is it because of the secret that Hardison is keeping with Nate? It feels like he is trying to distract himself the times he has been in Season 5 so far. When can we expect some more Hardison moments?
1.) Hmm, it's always tricky with these questions, as we perceive page and scene weight differently from you guys. The bit about his relationship with Parker is indeed intentional -- we always want it to be a background thing, more a status than a plotline. As to anything else, I think you may be able to argue he's had two big seasons in a row, and we're focusing on wrapping up some other arcs as we head into the back of the show's run . But Aldis is still one of our favorite actors to write to, and I beileve we may just be dealing with some episode order issues.
@zeyneb: Q1: Why 4 parachutes? Was that real? Did he take all four when he jumped?Q2: Tell me you didn't let CK run on the roof - car slide ok roof top not!
Q3: If Nate doesn't believe in redemption does that mean he still sees his team as thieves? What of Eliot, still sees him as a killer who can't be redeemed?
Q4: How was the stunt set up for Eliot's jump of the plane? Did he just jump back? It looked liked the wind carried him side ways.
Q5: Hasn't Leverage thought us that when you look a person in the eye you are lying? Or is it only grifters who notice the difference?
Q6: Nate tells Sophie at the end "do you remember when I said ..." if I remember correctly he said that at the hospital after they were blown up, Sophie had not yet joined them. Not sure were the question in this one is, just pointing it out.
1.) Yes, D.B. Cooper did ask for four. Nobody knows why.2.) Yep, him on the roof too.3.) Nate's dealing very much with his own sense of redemption.4.) Elevated set, jumped backward, then a handful of grips YANKED him sideways on a pull line. First time he missed the goddam mat, too.5.) Depends. It's more the pause than the look.6.) We checked, he said it again in a later episode during the first season. I don't have the reference, but I remember on the day we did check.
@TJ: 1A)For some reason, as soon as he said his wife was on the plane, I thought, "He's D.B. Cooper. They were in on it together." I was half right. And there was a sort of Firefly twang in the music when Reynolds entered (Yes, I see Firefly everywhere including the fact that he was named Reynolds although I know that was probably a coincidence) ...was that from the D.B. Cooper theme song later in the episode when McSweeten, Sr. returns to Portland? B) Did the crew write that song for this episode because I can't seem to find it anywhere?
2) Is this an entire meta episode dedicated to explaining why McSweeten Jr. hasn't caught on to the team? Did that factor into what you wrote in the script, his "lost dog" characterization?
3)Same thing other people noticed with Sophie (I read the other questions ahead of time, aren't you so proud) It seems like being such a fangirl, she'd want to meet D.B Cooper. Is there a Sophie heavy episode coming up in the future that she had to shoot? There was also very little Hardison as well, what made it work out that way?
4)Please don't tell me that "Saying goodbye to the people you care about always is [tough] is a foreshadowing reference. Is that the theme of the season?
5) I didn't pick it up the first time but there were huge clues about Stephanie and Steve, as in her not having Reynolds as a last name, indicating they met after the hijacking. And "all of our information came from her" that one I did catch.
6)Did Nate!McSweeten actually notice Parker!Stephanie looking down at the magazine or was that just him looking down at the drawing, I ask because he had a little puppy head cock that indicated he might have noticed something was up.
7)If McSweeten Sr. didn't know about Steve Reynolds why'd he offer him the job at the FBI?
Same question for if he did know.
8)Was the not cutting his hair just a joke for Eliot or McSweeten trying to cover up for Reynolds/Cooper?
9) I know you probably not going to answer, but I have to ask. Did McSweeten Sr. ever figure it out and if so when?
10) Did Reynolds' wife really have nightmares about the hijacking or was that just a show he put on for the FBI? It seems like she could have really been traumatized even though it ended well for her, like dreaming Steve died, etc.
11) Why did Eliot!Reynolds encourage Nate!McSweeten to keep looking for D.B. instead of quietly steering him elsewhere?
12)Was Eliot!Reynolds hair styled/curled so that it look like it grew and shortened? I know possibilities of a wig were mentioned earlier.
13) Unfortunately, the face was obscured, did Eliot!Reynolds actually do his stunt jump into the boxes? I could tell he did the car slide, nice shout out to Dukes of Hazzard/Starsky and Hutch.
14) Did McSweeten Sr. know about Daniel Cooper (the real one) before Nate told him?
15) On a meta note, were there any of our earlier villains that could have been redeemed? They seem pretty cold hearted other than the Carnival Job guy and Hurley.
16) Did Eliot!Reynolds tamper with Novak's memory, say implying features that weren't right, etc etc? Whatever happened to that sketch that Novak made?
17) So far, Nate flat-out told Hardison what is going on, implied it to Eliot, and told Sophie, how exactly does he intend to broach this subject with Parker, who could be stated as the one who needs the team the most, being the least apt to deal with society and in someways the most childlike (someways the most nuts) and trusting of Nate. She is the first one to jump on a crazy plan bandwagon.
18) Can Nate both build and destroy at the same time?
1A.) Yes. B.) Joe LoDuca wrote that tune. He is amazing.2.) Nope, although if it makes us look smarter to you, then "yes."3.) As above, a scheduling thing. We were doubling up like mad to get the money set aside for the summer season finale.4.) Ahme.5.) Yep, we played fair.6.) I think only Nate-Nate noticed.7.) McSweeten serve din combat, and knew what post-Vietnam life was like for Steve. Regardless of whether he figured things out later, I think that's the relevant factor.8.) Our way of not cutting Kane's hair for a period piece.9.) Not answering that.10.) I think it was a mix -- some nightmares, but that was Steve masking his anger at anyone making fun of his best friend and redeemer.11.) Because McSweeten would never have given up short learning the truth.12.) Nope. Just different looks.13.) All stunts were Kane.14.) Nope, he missed that one.15.) Nate has not been in the redemption business. Although you'll see later this season that he's considering taking a run at it ...16.) Lost to editing, Steve fouled the description. It was a nice scene, too, based on a similar scene in Body Heat.17.) Don't assume he's told Hardison everything.18.) Ask Oppenheimer.
@Carol: Okay, so there was a British cop show in the 70's called McSweeney, which inspired much of the style and feel of Life on Mars. Now I know 'McSweeten' was a name created ages ago, but did someone in the writers room make a McSweeney/McSweeten reference and that's how the idea was born? I'm probably reaching, but with the whole 70's thing I can't help but think maybe I'm on to something.
The show you're thinking of was The Sweeney, actually. Which influenced the far superior British Life on Mars, which was itself the primary influence on this episode. And also allows me to post my favorite Life on Mars promo:
@TJ: P.S. Was it really "sleeps 90 minutes a day", "grows his own food" "crawled through a billion length tunnel in Yemen (?)" Eliot, who said that that jump couldn't have possible been survived? Seriously?
Not survivable by other men.
@Caravelle: what was up with the gun at the end ? It was all the more strange that we're supposed to sympathize with the guy, and there he is making off like he considered shooting Nate or something.
I don't think he would have shot Nate, he just wanted the room to run.
@allyone: 1)That "it's not cocaine, it's cyanid" bit seemed odd. Was that just a straight riff on 70's cop show dialog or was there a scene missing?
2) Was that a local kid playing little Todd? Did Hutton spend a lot of time with him on set? They seemed pretty natural together.
3) How did Roskin shoot/block that Nate/Parker scene? It looked fantastic.
4) Parker seemed almost worried in that scene with Nate. Was she worried they were gonna get off-the-rails Nate again? He did seem almost in Jimmy-revenge mode there.
1.) Nope, just 70's cop show melodrama.2.) A fine young local actor. Tim has a nice touch with kids, generally, to tell the truth. 3.) Ever since we put the glass in that HQ, we've been wanting to do a scene like that. This was just the first time we had a shot, and Roskin made sure he had the time.4.) She was concerned, until he made the turn. Obsession/vengeance is his drug of choice, after all.
@Matthew: 1. Shall we, in this Season, finally see members of the Team, to SHOW that they care about Eliot, fear for him, and worry?
Huh, I think we see that a lot. But most of the attitude that's hitting you comes from the fact that Eliot doesn't WANT that relationship with the others, and the others respect his wishes. That said, you get some nice Hardison/Eliot stuff coming up in the winter season opener.
@Sabine: So Hardison knows what Nate is doing but maybe not why, Sophie knows why but maybe not what, Eliot knows something but not much, and Parker knows nothing. Why the patchwork secrecy? Just Nate's sicko need to control people, or is there another reason Nate is letting out these squirts of information?
Hardison knows what he needs to know, Eliot's suspicions are his own, and Sophie's just getting hints of an attitude change. None of them know what's coming, really. Yet.
@Anonymous... you know, you can always watch Breaking Bad. That is a very good show.
@oppyu: 1: Awwwwwwwww, poor McSweetums. Is there a way you could give the actor a hug from me?
2: Is there a way you could have moustache!Eliot and moustache!Nate in future episodes? Both men were sporting epic facial hair, although Hardison wasn't too bad either.
3: Did Oliver Schmidt have a moustache?
4: Did Daddy McSweetums know about the whole 'DB Cooper is his partner' thing?
1.) I hug Gerald whenever I see him. For precisely one second too long to be comfortable.2.) I do not think we could survive the awesome of that much moustache again.3.) No.4.) Up to you. I vote no, actually.
@Amelia: What was it like for Tim Hutton and Ronny Cox to be working together again after thirty years? I love "Taps" and I about lost it when Nate went in to interview Peter McSweeten for the first time. :D
They had a lovely time. Mr. Cox was great to have on set. Much like Danny Glover, he shot giant bits of script with very little prep time and killed it.
@Anonymous: I wasnt going to post but after reading other comments i have to ask u Rogers - did u expect a lot of parker/hardison/eliot posts? Afterall, i remember u saying in reference to the 12-step job that it was the hug that lit up the message boards. did u pair eliot & parker partially to tease and/or see the reactions?
Oh hell yeah. At this point it's very much out of our control. I think part of being a modern showrunner is understanding that you write the show you write, but the text is just going to be torn apart by the fans, and just to lay back and enjoy the energy.
@talea: OK, this season's theme is redemption.Season 4's was "consequences." What were the themes of Seasons 1, 2 and 3?
1.) Trust 2.) Family 3.) Patience 4.) Consequences 5.) Redemption
@Kate: Have you guys ever run the Leverage RPG in the Writer's room?
No, but we have screwed around with the excellent villain generator in the game.
@Anonymous: Personally, I think this whole Eliot/Parker/Hardison thing should be resolved just like that: get all three of 'em together, and thus kill the ship wars. ;)
I'll let you guys and Livejournal handle that for me. Thanks!
@Glenn Hauman: Why was Parker dressed up like Magnus Robot Fighter?
Dammit, go watch the DVD extras for the secret subplot where past-Parker FIGHTS ROBOTS! Thanks for ruining it, Glenn.
***********************************
Go ahead and argue OT3 to your hearts' content, kids, I'll check out at this point. Coming soon -- Matthew Lillard insight! Into Matthew Lillard. INSIDE LILLARD! Fear it!
After the enormous fun and satisfaction we'd all had doing the flashback episode last year, Downey wanted to try another one for fifth season. We toyed around with a 60's spy thriller for a while, but that fell apart. Eventually the discussion revolved around finding a period where Christian Kane's hair wouldn't be an anachronism. That led us to the 60's and 70's. When Downey began researching big crime happenings in the Northwest in the 70's -- after all, we'd embraced Portland, we should try to do the same in our flashback episode -- the D.B. Cooper case came roaring out at him.
The story originally had Parker as the recipient of the confession, but that seemed a bit too much like "Van Gogh", and tying Nate to the tale allowed a nice anchor between the plot and story. The idea of a life destroyed by an obsession -- and not letting your loved ones suffer the same fate -- was resonant enough with our arc for Nate, but the idea of a man with an obsession equal Nate's who managed to not lose his faith in humanity was a lovely second level.
Much like Van Gogh this episode was written well in advance to allow our stellar production and wardrobe crew to prep for the challenge. As noted in the Leverage10 Podcast, our quest to find the plan led us to the amazing Evergreen Aviation Museum. While Downey inspected the front half of a vintage 737 fuselage the museum owned -- as one does -- Dean discovered the Spruce Goose was at the museum. And so the fine folks at Evergreen gave us not one but two very big episodes for Season 5.
While the season opener was actually partially filmed at the museum, we had the fuselage for ep 506 towed down to the soundstages at Clackamas (or Clackywood, as its affectionately known). Originally, director Marc Roskin was going to adjust the D.B. Cooper story and have Cooper parachute out of the side door, which was the one door we had extant. It was, after all, only the front half of a plane.
At which point our Production Designer Randall Groves said "No, I'll build the rest of it. And put it on a platform so you can really do the jump. " Which is how Kane wound up jumping backwards out of a fake plane 20 feet above a concrete floor with a fistful of grips YANKING him sideways to mimic the wind whipping him away.
I honestly don't even try to stop him anymore. Don't even get me started on the goddam hood-slide. Yes that's him, and yes that's Hutton driving.
We were lucky enough to continue our run of stellar casting this year with Ronnie Cox and Fred Ward as the flashback agents. Each of those actors brought a real gravitas to the episode. And we finally got to give Gerald Downey a little room to stretch his considerable acting chops. Seriously, somebody smarten up and make him the lead in something.
Before we jump to the questions, I have to note our costume designer Nadine Haders found photographs of the flight attendants from that flight, and from that handmade uniforms that matched. Yep, those white boots are real.
And as a wrap gift, Riesgraf gave me one.
I don't know how to feel about that.
The commitment to an authentic look extended form the cream of The Streets of San Francisco style clothing to the excellent make-up job. Those moustaches were a treat. I think I've never seen Hutton and Kane as sad as the day make-up reclaimed that facial hair. Downey used the word "bereft", and I don't disagree.
All of this energy and direction on this episode comes from our director Marc Roskin, of course. Marc really dug in on stretching the production value of the episode as far as he could, and made a real point of mimicking the camera-look of the 70's cop shows. The oddly-wide two-shot, the snap-zoom -- the episode really is a directing tour de force. Please, show me another cable show that's pulled off not just one but two period-piece episode of this quality -- and all this is thanks to our dedicated crew and actors.
Right, to your questions:
@ChelseaNH: Nate wants to build something? Please say you're going Hogwarts/Charles Xavier School for Gifted Youngsters and giving us the Jimmy Ford Memorial Academy and the next generation of conman avengers.
With Eliot on-staff as your Wolverine stand-in. Done.
@PurpleOps: Just one question though: Could you please explain that ending? Were we supposed to know who Oliver Schmidt was or what he was about? And what is it that Nate wants to "build"? (Yes, I know that's three questions. But they're all tied up in the first one. And I'm pretty sure we'll at least find out the answer to the third one eventually, but the first two might need answering from you in this forum!)
Nope, Oliver Schmidt was just the background con. We're mentioning those a little more often this year to remind the audience that there are (and have been) plenty of cons you'll never see. As to what Nate wants to build, well ...
@Lily: What a fantastic episode! 1.) I didn't know anything about DB Cooper before - was most of it ledger or did you guys have to research the hell out of this one too? 2.) The Sophie/Nate interactions are lovely but leave me with a little bit of a pit in my stomach about what's coming up down the line. Can you at least reassure me that they will be ok? (ha!) 3.) Also, the car stunt was great - that has to have been a stuntie, right?
1.) Most of it was orange box, right down to the theories people had about the suspects. Much like Van Gogh, Downey researched the hell out of it.
2.) No.
3.) Shit no. Not even a stuntie driving.
@Oona: I'm just gonna say now we're getting a season 6. 1.) So with that in mind, you're not planning to introduce cousin Oliver, the cute, con artist new kid on the block are you? Or since you're a Cosby vet, another little Olivia?
2.) Also - BRILLIANT to pair Kane and Riesgraf up in this ep, since Eliot Parker have such a following. It gives the fanbase something they're dying for but doesn't disrupt the present narrative of the show. Nice. Was that all Downey's decision?
1.) You forget I didn't work on The Cosby Show, which made everybody rich and famous, but Cosby which ended lives and careers. So no Olivia. That said, Doug E. Doug did Emmy caliber work on that show.
2.) Yep, all Downey. I think, like all of us who've been here since first season, he was looking for a change of pace. Also, Beth and Kane are very good friends and never really get to do that sort of scene.
@Lucia: Question: were FBI agents allowed to have moustaches???
As far as I know the ban on facial hair had ended by then, but even now there are cultural issues.
@DBChen: Shhhhh.
@IMForeman: Was there any trepidation about dealing with the D.B. Cooper story? Was there any concern that it may touch on the real D.B. Cooper story, or be proven wrong at some point? It seems implausible that he could have bought a farm with the money since none of the bills ever turned up in circulation.
The D.B. Cooper story has been plumbed for fiction so often already that we felt comfortable in putting our own spin on it. If we were proved wrong that would mean something else was somehow proved right. if the D.B. Cooper mystery were solved because of our episode, I would take that as a win.
@Bex: 1.) How much fun did all of the cast have in getting to try out these different roles? Did any of them go into research mode to make sure their speech and actions were appropriate to the time period?
2.) And somewhat off-topic - being born in the late 80's, were moustaches really that gigantic back then? Wow.
1.) The boys had enormous amounts of fun, and spent a lot of time watching period crime dramas to ge the rhythms right. I believe Beth had slightly less fun, as she had to cram into that uniform.2.) They were, indeed, huge. It was a dark time in America.
@Anonymous: 1.) have you gotten any feedback from FBI personnel about this episode? wonder how they feel about your take on the case...2.) and is it remotely possible that your version of the story is actually true? did you research the stewardess who spoke to Cooper?
1.) We occasionally get feedback from law-enforcement friends about the scripts -- I had a particularly gratifying note from an acquaintance about the MacGuffin in the season finale being "Classifed and real. Nice guess." We have been in the past asked to change the details of certain cons so as to not make them quite as accurate. In this case, though, nothing.
2.) I suppose there is an alternate universe where D.B. Cooper served as an FBI agent for 30 years,but I'm betting not. Downey did not interview the stewardess in question, but there was plenty of material about her testimony available. The confusion over what name he used, for example, is a real issue.
@lindaS: Question: Has McSweeten finally given up his crush on Parker? Or was he just distracted by his father's illness?
Nope, he understands she's seeing somebody else. Although he may have pressed it if not for his father's illness. Assume that Parker and Hardison have helped out Taggart and McSweeten a couple extra times off-screen.
@Anonymous: who's pet theory was this? Your's, the whole writers room's, or just one pulled from the pool?
It's Downey's, working backwards from the need to have some sort of satisfying thematic ending. In particular, he was working from the idea that McSweeten Sr. had brought Cooper to justice in his own way.
@Calla: 1.) Is it going to be a problem now that McSweeten knows where the Teams offices are? If he continues to believe in the best in everyone, he won't over think it. But what would prevent him from going back there and stumbling upon them in the middle of a con?
2.) I would like to know how much of the DB story was factual, how much was extrapolated from facts, and how much was just plain made up by a bunch of tired, drunken writers just hopping a ride on the fun train?
3.) Did Kane cut his hair for this episode (it looked pretty short) or was that a wig in some scenes?
4.) Final question. Which did Kane spend more time practicing: sliding over that car hood or kissing Beth?
1.) Nope. He's based in D.C.2.) 80% factual, with the identity and plan of the real criminal fictionalized. But the details aboutt he crime, the plane, the flight, etc are all accurate.3.) Nope, not cut for that episode.4.) He did both very well on the first try.
@Redwulf25: 1:) Can I assume that like most versions that paint him in a heroic light the bomb was fake?
2:) 90% certain Mcsweeten's father knew. But when did he know?
3:) When she read the note was it intentional that she wound up covering the i and j with her fingers so the note read "You are being hacked" instead of "You are being hijacked"?
1.) Yes.2.) I'm not sure he knew. I think that one's up for Most Interesting Interpretation for You.3.) Nope, accident.
@Anonymous: On a more positive note, Parker and McSweeten - I so want to see them working together more often. How many seasons could we get of McSweeten not knowing that Parker isn't really FBI?
About one ...
@bluehex: 1) - the photos. First one is clearly a composite, with Gerald Downey's face pasted in - but who is the other guy? Looks vaguely like (again, a paste-in) the guy from the other photo - the stewardess and her husband. Was the second photo (of the married couple) one of the real stewardesses involved in the case? If yes, cool, and was legal clearance a problem? If not, why go through so much Photoshop trouble, rather than having a Hutton/Kane and Riesgraf/Kane photos, since they were already established as the alter egos?
2) - a culture question (foreigner here): I know that tally-ho is a hunting/flying term which means that - respectively - a fox or aircraft was spotted. But is the accompanying gesture something that is generally related to the tally-ho or just father-son code?
1.) Nope, those were not the actual people. And we actually didn't use Kane and Beth for the same reason we didn't use Beth in the photo of her alter-ego from WW2 in "The Van Gogh Job". That it would so PLAINLY be Beth, it would suspend disbelief. (that's actually her stand-in in the Van Gogh, ep, BTW). It made sense to use Downey as he was subbing for someone related to him, but not the others. If that follows.2.) That little circle is the movement the master of the hunt makes to summon the other riders to the chase.
@Sarah W: Loved seeing this side of McSweeten. Interesting that he didn't blink (or seem to blink) at Parker's unorthodox ways of getting the files--there are hidden depths to him. One wonders if he knows the team isn't kosher, but also knows they're on the side of the angels (mostly)--like father, like son?
I think he's beginning to suspect that they may be None Such Agency rather than FBI. But I don't believe he's got the imagination to put them totally outside of the government. Most people are hard-wired for authority, after all.
@Oona: QUESTION 1: Amazing scene with Nate and Sophie at the end. Sophie said that she saw Nate as Odysseus -the hero. Was that flattery or a true insight into how Sophie sees Nate?
Assuming Sophie was being honest, what a great way to weave in some insight into the two of them. We know he sees himself in the worst possible light, but its interesting that she sees him in the most favorable light. It certainly helps explain why Sophie would stay with Nate despite his issues (cause sometimes love alone just isn't enough).
QUESTION 2: How do you view Sophie's tendency to romanticize? Character flaw or character saving grace?
QUESTION 3: Did anyone consider trying to find an actual pay phone for the background in the scene with little Todd and Daddy Pete? (Todd must have called Pete from somewhere.) Probably not an easy task these days.
QUESTION 4: How hard was it to re-create the inside of an airplane from the 70s?
QUESTION 5: What was the process for getting Fred Ward and Ronnie Cox?
QUESTION 6: You could have introduced the team to the mystery in a lot of different ways, but it added a nice emotional element for this to be the dad of someone we know. How did you/Chris/writers decide to use McSweeten in this one?
1.) I think that an important quality in the person you love is that they see you a little better than you see yourself. When you need it, anyway.2.) Flaw that is sometimes a saving grace. But other writers may differ. I also very much like commenter MZ's take on this:
"I'm not part of the Leverage crew so I can't answer directly but Sophie's answer was actually pretty perfect from my interpretation and if you're familiar with the Odyssey her statement is really not flattering. The concept of "hero" in literature, and especially Greek lit, is less about modern ideas of heroism and is closer to just meaning he was the main character. He also is a very Nate-like character. Both are excessively clever in both good ways and bad and are jealous and wrathful when provoked. Their love of their son sparks both of their tales and is one of the major sources of their problems. Most importantly, though, and one of the reasons the comparison is not flattering for Nate, Odysseus is nearly synonymous with hubris. Nate's self-identification with the sirens seems to be an interesting point for the season arc but it seemed pretty clear to me that the writers knew how spot-on the Odysseus comparison is."3.) God no. They're all gone, and we didn't want to build one.4.) As noted above, we actually went and found one.5.) We called their agents. Tim knew Ronnie Cox from Taps, of course, and suggested him. Fred Ward has been a dream casting chance for ages, we're all fans. Honestly, it's stunning how many great actors are kind of just hanging out.6.) Downey always had a soft spot for Taggart & McSweeten, seeing as he created them in "The Wedding Job." Also, we didn't want a cold in for a historical, and he's one of the few recurring characters we haven't tagged lately, or even that we're that fond of (by which I mean the team).
@Jocelyn: My question is how awkward or weird was it for Christian and Beth to do the kissing scene? I know they are professional but still it had a to be a little strange, no?
They are pros, but there definitely was a weird energy on the set. It's a bit like if I had to kiss Downey. Again.
@Suzy Q 1.) What happened to Sophie? She was all fangirl about DB Cooper in the beginning, and is nowhere to be seen when they finally figure out who he is.2.) Looks like Nate is trying to arrange it for his team to be on their own (by the end of the season). Is he retiring or dying?
1.) We had a nice beat about that,we cut it to make room for the Ulysses beat instead.2.) That is a mighty wet cough he's developed.
@SueN: 1) Any particular reason so little Sophie? Eliot I can understand, because Kane spent so much time as Steve. Just wondering about Sophie.2) D.B. Cooper. Why this storyline, and what in the ep was orange box and ledger?
3) Todd. Now that we have seen him as a fully fledged human being, how does this change any future use of him as one half of the bumbling duo of Taggert-McSweeten?
4) Whose crossbow was that in the van?
5) Oh, the car slide. THE CAR SLIDE. Were you on set that day? How crazy did it make you?
1.) To tell the truth, it was just a mix of editing and the fact we shot her out on an other episode during the overlap. nothing to be read into there.2.) As above.3.) It may. S6.4.) You'll see who's crossbow that is in the season finale ...5.) He ages me. Every year.
@Anonymous: Hardison is probably my favorite character in the show, but it seems like he has been out of focus for a lot of this season, and to me it seems like the writers are trying to avoid having him in the spotlight, to be comic relief at the moment, and like some have said about his relationship with Parker, we really haven't had any interaction between them this season. Is it because of the secret that Hardison is keeping with Nate? It feels like he is trying to distract himself the times he has been in Season 5 so far. When can we expect some more Hardison moments?
1.) Hmm, it's always tricky with these questions, as we perceive page and scene weight differently from you guys. The bit about his relationship with Parker is indeed intentional -- we always want it to be a background thing, more a status than a plotline. As to anything else, I think you may be able to argue he's had two big seasons in a row, and we're focusing on wrapping up some other arcs as we head into the back of the show's run . But Aldis is still one of our favorite actors to write to, and I beileve we may just be dealing with some episode order issues.
@zeyneb: Q1: Why 4 parachutes? Was that real? Did he take all four when he jumped?Q2: Tell me you didn't let CK run on the roof - car slide ok roof top not!
Q3: If Nate doesn't believe in redemption does that mean he still sees his team as thieves? What of Eliot, still sees him as a killer who can't be redeemed?
Q4: How was the stunt set up for Eliot's jump of the plane? Did he just jump back? It looked liked the wind carried him side ways.
Q5: Hasn't Leverage thought us that when you look a person in the eye you are lying? Or is it only grifters who notice the difference?
Q6: Nate tells Sophie at the end "do you remember when I said ..." if I remember correctly he said that at the hospital after they were blown up, Sophie had not yet joined them. Not sure were the question in this one is, just pointing it out.
1.) Yes, D.B. Cooper did ask for four. Nobody knows why.2.) Yep, him on the roof too.3.) Nate's dealing very much with his own sense of redemption.4.) Elevated set, jumped backward, then a handful of grips YANKED him sideways on a pull line. First time he missed the goddam mat, too.5.) Depends. It's more the pause than the look.6.) We checked, he said it again in a later episode during the first season. I don't have the reference, but I remember on the day we did check.
@TJ: 1A)For some reason, as soon as he said his wife was on the plane, I thought, "He's D.B. Cooper. They were in on it together." I was half right. And there was a sort of Firefly twang in the music when Reynolds entered (Yes, I see Firefly everywhere including the fact that he was named Reynolds although I know that was probably a coincidence) ...was that from the D.B. Cooper theme song later in the episode when McSweeten, Sr. returns to Portland? B) Did the crew write that song for this episode because I can't seem to find it anywhere?
2) Is this an entire meta episode dedicated to explaining why McSweeten Jr. hasn't caught on to the team? Did that factor into what you wrote in the script, his "lost dog" characterization?
3)Same thing other people noticed with Sophie (I read the other questions ahead of time, aren't you so proud) It seems like being such a fangirl, she'd want to meet D.B Cooper. Is there a Sophie heavy episode coming up in the future that she had to shoot? There was also very little Hardison as well, what made it work out that way?
4)Please don't tell me that "Saying goodbye to the people you care about always is [tough] is a foreshadowing reference. Is that the theme of the season?
5) I didn't pick it up the first time but there were huge clues about Stephanie and Steve, as in her not having Reynolds as a last name, indicating they met after the hijacking. And "all of our information came from her" that one I did catch.
6)Did Nate!McSweeten actually notice Parker!Stephanie looking down at the magazine or was that just him looking down at the drawing, I ask because he had a little puppy head cock that indicated he might have noticed something was up.
7)If McSweeten Sr. didn't know about Steve Reynolds why'd he offer him the job at the FBI?
Same question for if he did know.
8)Was the not cutting his hair just a joke for Eliot or McSweeten trying to cover up for Reynolds/Cooper?
9) I know you probably not going to answer, but I have to ask. Did McSweeten Sr. ever figure it out and if so when?
10) Did Reynolds' wife really have nightmares about the hijacking or was that just a show he put on for the FBI? It seems like she could have really been traumatized even though it ended well for her, like dreaming Steve died, etc.
11) Why did Eliot!Reynolds encourage Nate!McSweeten to keep looking for D.B. instead of quietly steering him elsewhere?
12)Was Eliot!Reynolds hair styled/curled so that it look like it grew and shortened? I know possibilities of a wig were mentioned earlier.
13) Unfortunately, the face was obscured, did Eliot!Reynolds actually do his stunt jump into the boxes? I could tell he did the car slide, nice shout out to Dukes of Hazzard/Starsky and Hutch.
14) Did McSweeten Sr. know about Daniel Cooper (the real one) before Nate told him?
15) On a meta note, were there any of our earlier villains that could have been redeemed? They seem pretty cold hearted other than the Carnival Job guy and Hurley.
16) Did Eliot!Reynolds tamper with Novak's memory, say implying features that weren't right, etc etc? Whatever happened to that sketch that Novak made?
17) So far, Nate flat-out told Hardison what is going on, implied it to Eliot, and told Sophie, how exactly does he intend to broach this subject with Parker, who could be stated as the one who needs the team the most, being the least apt to deal with society and in someways the most childlike (someways the most nuts) and trusting of Nate. She is the first one to jump on a crazy plan bandwagon.
18) Can Nate both build and destroy at the same time?
1A.) Yes. B.) Joe LoDuca wrote that tune. He is amazing.2.) Nope, although if it makes us look smarter to you, then "yes."3.) As above, a scheduling thing. We were doubling up like mad to get the money set aside for the summer season finale.4.) Ahme.5.) Yep, we played fair.6.) I think only Nate-Nate noticed.7.) McSweeten serve din combat, and knew what post-Vietnam life was like for Steve. Regardless of whether he figured things out later, I think that's the relevant factor.8.) Our way of not cutting Kane's hair for a period piece.9.) Not answering that.10.) I think it was a mix -- some nightmares, but that was Steve masking his anger at anyone making fun of his best friend and redeemer.11.) Because McSweeten would never have given up short learning the truth.12.) Nope. Just different looks.13.) All stunts were Kane.14.) Nope, he missed that one.15.) Nate has not been in the redemption business. Although you'll see later this season that he's considering taking a run at it ...16.) Lost to editing, Steve fouled the description. It was a nice scene, too, based on a similar scene in Body Heat.17.) Don't assume he's told Hardison everything.18.) Ask Oppenheimer.
@Carol: Okay, so there was a British cop show in the 70's called McSweeney, which inspired much of the style and feel of Life on Mars. Now I know 'McSweeten' was a name created ages ago, but did someone in the writers room make a McSweeney/McSweeten reference and that's how the idea was born? I'm probably reaching, but with the whole 70's thing I can't help but think maybe I'm on to something.
The show you're thinking of was The Sweeney, actually. Which influenced the far superior British Life on Mars, which was itself the primary influence on this episode. And also allows me to post my favorite Life on Mars promo:
@TJ: P.S. Was it really "sleeps 90 minutes a day", "grows his own food" "crawled through a billion length tunnel in Yemen (?)" Eliot, who said that that jump couldn't have possible been survived? Seriously?
Not survivable by other men.
@Caravelle: what was up with the gun at the end ? It was all the more strange that we're supposed to sympathize with the guy, and there he is making off like he considered shooting Nate or something.
I don't think he would have shot Nate, he just wanted the room to run.
@allyone: 1)That "it's not cocaine, it's cyanid" bit seemed odd. Was that just a straight riff on 70's cop show dialog or was there a scene missing?
2) Was that a local kid playing little Todd? Did Hutton spend a lot of time with him on set? They seemed pretty natural together.
3) How did Roskin shoot/block that Nate/Parker scene? It looked fantastic.
4) Parker seemed almost worried in that scene with Nate. Was she worried they were gonna get off-the-rails Nate again? He did seem almost in Jimmy-revenge mode there.
1.) Nope, just 70's cop show melodrama.2.) A fine young local actor. Tim has a nice touch with kids, generally, to tell the truth. 3.) Ever since we put the glass in that HQ, we've been wanting to do a scene like that. This was just the first time we had a shot, and Roskin made sure he had the time.4.) She was concerned, until he made the turn. Obsession/vengeance is his drug of choice, after all.
@Matthew: 1. Shall we, in this Season, finally see members of the Team, to SHOW that they care about Eliot, fear for him, and worry?
Huh, I think we see that a lot. But most of the attitude that's hitting you comes from the fact that Eliot doesn't WANT that relationship with the others, and the others respect his wishes. That said, you get some nice Hardison/Eliot stuff coming up in the winter season opener.
@Sabine: So Hardison knows what Nate is doing but maybe not why, Sophie knows why but maybe not what, Eliot knows something but not much, and Parker knows nothing. Why the patchwork secrecy? Just Nate's sicko need to control people, or is there another reason Nate is letting out these squirts of information?
Hardison knows what he needs to know, Eliot's suspicions are his own, and Sophie's just getting hints of an attitude change. None of them know what's coming, really. Yet.
@Anonymous... you know, you can always watch Breaking Bad. That is a very good show.
@oppyu: 1: Awwwwwwwww, poor McSweetums. Is there a way you could give the actor a hug from me?
2: Is there a way you could have moustache!Eliot and moustache!Nate in future episodes? Both men were sporting epic facial hair, although Hardison wasn't too bad either.
3: Did Oliver Schmidt have a moustache?
4: Did Daddy McSweetums know about the whole 'DB Cooper is his partner' thing?
1.) I hug Gerald whenever I see him. For precisely one second too long to be comfortable.2.) I do not think we could survive the awesome of that much moustache again.3.) No.4.) Up to you. I vote no, actually.
@Amelia: What was it like for Tim Hutton and Ronny Cox to be working together again after thirty years? I love "Taps" and I about lost it when Nate went in to interview Peter McSweeten for the first time. :D
They had a lovely time. Mr. Cox was great to have on set. Much like Danny Glover, he shot giant bits of script with very little prep time and killed it.
@Anonymous: I wasnt going to post but after reading other comments i have to ask u Rogers - did u expect a lot of parker/hardison/eliot posts? Afterall, i remember u saying in reference to the 12-step job that it was the hug that lit up the message boards. did u pair eliot & parker partially to tease and/or see the reactions?
Oh hell yeah. At this point it's very much out of our control. I think part of being a modern showrunner is understanding that you write the show you write, but the text is just going to be torn apart by the fans, and just to lay back and enjoy the energy.
@talea: OK, this season's theme is redemption.Season 4's was "consequences." What were the themes of Seasons 1, 2 and 3?
1.) Trust 2.) Family 3.) Patience 4.) Consequences 5.) Redemption
@Kate: Have you guys ever run the Leverage RPG in the Writer's room?
No, but we have screwed around with the excellent villain generator in the game.
@Anonymous: Personally, I think this whole Eliot/Parker/Hardison thing should be resolved just like that: get all three of 'em together, and thus kill the ship wars. ;)
I'll let you guys and Livejournal handle that for me. Thanks!
@Glenn Hauman: Why was Parker dressed up like Magnus Robot Fighter?
Dammit, go watch the DVD extras for the secret subplot where past-Parker FIGHTS ROBOTS! Thanks for ruining it, Glenn.
***********************************
Go ahead and argue OT3 to your hearts' content, kids, I'll check out at this point. Coming soon -- Matthew Lillard insight! Into Matthew Lillard. INSIDE LILLARD! Fear it!
September 16, 2012
LEVERAGE #509/#510 "The Rundown Job" / "The Frame-Up Job" Question post
Just do your best to tag the Comments and questions for each ep, and I'll do my best to answer your queries. Happy watching!
September 15, 2012
LEVERAGE #505 "The 'Gimme a K' Street Job" Post-Game
* (As always, I would urge you to download the accompanying Leverage10 podcast to hear deeper discussion with the actual writer of this episode.)*
Every year the writers come in with three or four ideas for episodes. Jeremy Bernstein (@fajitas) led with two crime-y ones, and then said "Also, cheerleading."
We'd joked about it before. The auditorium we scouted for another episode was hosting a cheerleading competition at the time, and of course all the guys said "Cheerleading episode!!" Har-de-har. So at first I thought he was joking.
Then he laid out the stats, and all I kept saying was "Jesus Murphy." And then he laid out the reason for the stats, and Downey and I said "That is ... actual villainy." To be fair, I'll admit I was still a little dubious about whether we could make the episode work, so we had Jer present the info to the writer's room.
It was the angriest I've seen the room since Season Two.
Going much further into backstory will take us the closest to "actionable" we've come in a while, so let's just say there are several companies which indeed practice the business model -- by which I mean wide-scale, boggling efficient grift -- we detail in the episode. A hundred-something national championships. Force you to buy insurance that's never paid out. Fighting efforts to increase safety standards, because better safety standards would interfere with their ability to license and profit off cheerleading camps, etc, etc. Pretty girls in wheelchairs because of some assholes in suits. Using the real world model, we went to work.
We've mentioned before, but every con we do could in theory be used to pull apart the real-world equivalent of the mark. This is one of the reason we have consultants like Apollo Robbins, or sometimes talk to high-level campaign finance experts or US Attorneys. Fiction, where you can bend and twist the rules, is made enormously easier when you force yourself to play by the rules as you break the story. This is a personal issue I have with some con and heist shows. Two lifts and a fake name don't make a con show, they make a particularly aggressive Rockford Files. Of course, this is probably more about my obsession with systems than it is about the bare minimum requirement for audience entertainment.
There was one truly odd moment, after three days of trying to break this thing, where I said: "Jesus, we've pulled corrupt money-laundering apart, international cyber-cons, kleptocratic hustles -- and we cannot break this fucking cheerleading scam. The real version of it is just too ironclad."
Downey: "This web of companies looks like a mob breakdown on The Sopranos."
Me: "Okay, so how do you bring down the mob?"
Downey (who, you will remember, is a former white collar defense attorney): "RICO Act. It's ridiculously broad."
That's how a cut-down version of the RICO Act wound up on the writer's room wall. The key, of course, being that you need to commit TWO acts of racketeering activity. So while half the room banged various combos of offenses off the walls ("Kidnapping and criminal copyright infringement?"), we tackled the other big problem --
-- we can't write a cheerleading episode.
By which I mean, it obeys none of the structural parameters which allow us to make Leverage on a weekly basis. There aren't really enough "hats" for the characters in cheerleading. Coach, cheerleader, maybe judge ... there's no inherent threat of violence or prosecution or meddling law enforcement. What's the real-time (used to be fourth) fifth Act sequence as we tempo up heading into the back of the show?
Again, back tot he research. Jeremy had talked to several groups who were trying to change the cheerleading rules, primarily by trying to get it declared as a sport, where Title IX safety rules would kick in. These groups' primary frustration was in the politics of the situation -- which for once fell on both sides of the aisle. Generalizing roughly, Conservatives didn't want to establish that sort of excess regulation, Liberals didn't want Title IX money being diverted to cheerleading from other women's sports. Few friends on either side.
Well, there you go. Despite assumptions by some of our viewers, we try to stay very even-handed on the political spectrum on the few times we venture into politics. My policy is alway that the primary split in politics is along the money/power axis, and there are plenty of R's and D's chasing both. We'd never done a Congressional episode, and Congress is a lovely, complicated, antiquated ramshackle system all based in a one big, swinging doors-French farce worthy building. Aces. We came up with some prototypical Congresspeople, assigned unlikely humans to deal with them, and turned loose the Fun Train.
I will note that Parker wound up with the cheerleaders for three main reasons. 1.) We didn't want everyone on the grift. 2.) "LASER GRID" 3.) The interrogation scene. The noir interrogation scene of the cheerleader was originally a longer bit, and we laughed ourselves silly at the prospect. Sometimes, it really is the simple things in life ...
Okay, let's see what you maniacs have for us this week:
@Miranda: When the folks in the audience held up the "Badgers" sign, was that to support the cheer squad from Larry Duberman's alma mater or a different school with the same mascot?
Same school! Small world, eh?
@PurpleOps: 1. How did Hardison introduce HR505 in the first place? Was he already working in the Congresswoman's office?
2. It seemed pretty obvious that the team, at least Nate and Eliot, was "made" in the hearing scene, yet they were more interested in Bisutti's facial expression than that fact. Was the audience supposed to be ahead of the team, was it intentional misdirection, or... something else?
3. Nate thinks he has "no weaknesses"? SERIOUSLY?? Even after the episode in a previous season where he had to con someone as if he were conning himself? I'd thought his self-awareness was improving, but that seems a dangerous gap for him to have.
4. In one of the scenes between Nate and Eliot in Congress, Kane had a hair sticking out on his right side. Was there a point to it? (Pun intended!)
5. Parker's "All AAH" and Eliot's wink to Hardison - hilarious!
6. Nice tip of the fedora to Indiana Jones - "Corn subsidies! Why did it have to be corn subsidies?"
7. Loved "War & Peace with math", the "Ready... ready... let's go" duality, and "Fort Devereaux".
8. "Bring it on!" Seriously? Or did you feel it was expected and you HAD to use it? :)
9. I'm gonna keep on praising LoDuca until (and after) you put out another Leverage soundtrack album. STELLAR work on the "casing lasers" scene and the "Let's grift" walk, among others (the Middle Eastern bit was another good one).
1.) It was already introduced and hearings being held -- the first hearing we see.2.) No, they weren't "made", Bisutti was distracted -- she may have seen them but not registered them. The moment was there for Nate to make the connection that her mood and intention didn't seem to match.3.) Oh God, no, that was two guys bluffing each other out. Think of it as "Well, I've never had trouble in bed..." and you'll get it. Nate and Eliot are yanking each others chains a bit.4.) Nope.... 8.) Kind of mandatory, no? By the way, Bring It On is a tightly plotted little movie.9.) We will never be able to thank Joe LoDuca enough. Let me talk to Dean about another soundtrack, if only a downloadable one.
@Anonymous: PEP HQ was the Boston federal courthouse, right? You had lots of DC exterior shots -- if I'm right about the HQ, why a Boston shot for that one? .
It seemed the mst super-villainous out fo the shots we pulled from stock. Location had nothing to do with that one.
@ChelseaNH: How much of this was "must. suppress. gag. reflex" and how much of this was "bloviating is fun!"? Did you make all the writers give stump speeches? I was particularly impressed with the "as someone who once did something vaguely related, I'm going to pretend that I am now an expert on this subject" trope
Bloviating is FUN! Basically, we did look at some political speeches. After marvelling at their vagueness, we cut and pasted.
@Susannah: 1. Was any of the Pep stuff inspired by/based on CrossFit? 2. By any chance was Sophie's assistant "Ginger" a shoutout to The West Wing?
1.) Nope, all based on the actual cheerleading world. Although it does seem like the fitness world is rife with grift.2.) Considering @fajitas's love of West Wing, I'd say that's a definite yes.
@Vanessa: Is it my imagination, or has the act-break structure changed? It seems like the acts are shorter & there's 6 instead of 5.
Nope, we're at six, ever since Season 4. Six. Gah. We all hate it. Every showrunner who works in it hates it. But that's episodic TV for you right now.
@LindaS: Need to know, John: was the cheer team named the Wolves as an homage to the "Eliot signal" from the end of season four ("either a wolf or a knife")?
Nope, but that is cool.
@Ruben: Loving the entire season so far and thank you for setting it in Portland. I have but two quick questions.
1. I'm starting a Leverage RPG set in Portland (hometown is easy). Just so I can line my game up with show cannon, can I assume that the team eventually leaves Portland with some marks?
2. Please tell me that you've partnered with Bridgeport to make Thief Juice.
1.) You can assume ... Portland is not permanent.2.) Sadly, no. But feel free to brew it yourself!
@Calla: 1.) Since everything seems to be going so well for Parker & Hardison (not perfect, but honestly not bad at all), would Eliot ever play a joke on Hardison and let Hardison believe there was something going on between Parker & Eliot? If, say, Hardison misunderstood something saw or over-heard and, instead of clearing things up, Eliot just let Hardison's imagination run amok for a bit. Just to tease him, because Eliot does need to get Hardison back for eating his special hand-crafted sandwich last season.
2.) this was another ep directed by Frakes. How many did he get to direct this season?
1.) Nope. He's not that kind of guy.2.) I think he has four this year.
@thebacardiqueen: Fantastic episode - loved it as per usual! My question...that look Eliot gave the retreating Nate at the very end...Eliot has guessed something's up, right? Do we see more of that during the rest of the season and if so, does it impact the relationship between the two of them...we know he'd do anything for Nate but is there a line, even for him?
Eliot is taking a "wait and see" attitude. But don't assume that some of the events of this season you DON'T see won't be revealed in the season finale.
@john:The stats given at the beginning, something like 3% of all female sports participants are in cheer, but 65% of the injuries are in cheer - are those accurate?? Crazy if that's real.
Jeremy steps you through the numbers in the podcast, but yeah, pretty much.
@oppyu: 1) Is there an in-universe reason that Leverage Inc. doesn't keep a few more people around? Parker's grown as a grifter over the years, but the crew would still run more smoothly if they had Tara around as a part-time secondary grifter, or if they hired that Apollo guy from the Two Live Crew job to back up as a thief when Parker's out of position. Hardison is also growing more versatile, but a thief he ain't (the Truffle and Potato jobs come to mind).
2) This season seems a lot like it's setting up as a finale... please reassure me that this is not the case :(
3) Does Nate REALLY believe he has no weaknesses? It seems like an inordinate amount of time in this series has been devoted to meticulously identifying and describing the many ways Nate Ford is... not the most healthy man.
4) Did Hardison get a cheerleading company classified as a haberdashery? If so, how?
1.) Crews tend to be very insular, and most conmen are very averse to working one con or town for any length of time. Assume those folks are on call. Hell, I'd love to see more of them if the actual humans attached to those characters weren't so damned busy.2.) We write every season so if it's the last one, you are satisfied if not happy. That said, We are ramping up to a much more definite "Well, this COULD be it" finale.3.) Addressed above.4.) Part of the cheerleading company's business is providing all the official uniforms (and you MUST wear the official uniforms to compete) for the industry. This is based on a real element of the real-world grift.
@Jugglernaut: I enjoyed this ep a lot but thought Parking going all after-school special was a bit much. Too mainstream. New Parker is not as interesting as Classic Parker.
In retrospect, I might have taken about 20% empathy off the top of that speech in writing. It's a combo deal. First, you can't play 1st Year Parker in Year 5. That is static and boring, although falls more in line wiht how TV shows are structured. Second, Beth Riesgraf herself is an incredibly sweet, empathetic person. Whenever we swing by that character beat, it can't help but bubble up a bit.
@Zmiles: I see that Bob Jenkins managed to survive the Castleman take down in Season 1. Or was it another congressman with the same name?
Another Congressman with the same name cleared by legal.
@Caravelle: 1.) this kind of strikes me as a step up in seriousness for the Leverage team - going from running cons on individual companies to dictating national policy. Is this part of a pattern, or am I imagining the progression (after all they did steal a law way back when).2.) I was also wondering at how this intersects with the real world, whether the Leverage team were taking credit for an actual law that had passed or if they were setting right what is wrong in our world.
1.) Not a linear step on the power line. The main fun of it was showing that our guys may be the greatest grifters on earth, but Congress leaves them in the dust.2.) Listen to the podcast, we have a long, in depth discussion of the real world legal cases.
@Ally (Note: I always confuse you and allyone): 1. Why couldn't we actually see Parker do some gymnastic-y stuff? That was really my one regret of this ep.
2. Did Sophie really just forge a multi-national deal?
3. Seeing Parker open up was so sweet...just, more! Please!
4. Nate definitely has weaknesses. Right?
5. Were all of the laws Hardison was stonewalling the Busey with orange boxes, or did you stick some ledgers in there?
6. Why is Eliot suspicious?
7. Did Nate purposely give Eliot LeGrange? If so, what for? 7a. And was it really a test of Eliot's grifting/people skills, or something else?
8. RENEWAL?????????????
1.) Timing, actually. Massive budget/scheduling crunch on this episode.2.) Yep.3.) There's a bit more of it coming this season. We're kind of at the outside edge of how empathetic we want to take the character.4.) As above. In the first draft, Eliot actually enumerates them.5.) Some were real. I grew up near Boston, and Massachusetts has some fascinating blue laws.6.) Because Suspishus Eliot iz Suspishus.7.) Yes and yes.8.) We'll tell you as soon as we know.
@Anonymous: So... that look on Eliot's face at the end of the last scene, it harkens back to "The First David Job", does it not? Eliot knows that Nate played him and you don't con your own crew!, right?
That is ... remarkably close. And you may draw your own conclusions as to why you do not see that expression recur.
@Mark: All the team accomplished was getting a bill through a single committee. Assuming the bill only falls under one committee's jurisdiction, you still need to get through the committee in the Senate, then get the bill up for vote in the House, then actually pass the bill in the House, then get the bill to the floor on the Senate, then get 60 votes to end debate, then pass the bill in the Senate, then reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bill, then repeat the process with the new, identical bills, then get the president to sign it.
Which is all very,very depressing.
@Barri Lynn Moreau: 1.) I'm liking the whole Portland setting, really, but couldn't you do a con linking with the other Portland, the FIRST one? You're a New Englander, have you run out of ideas to do here? (What if the Stanley Cup was in Portland, ME)?2.) When do you learn as producers, whether or not your show will be picked up for another season? Do you just wait until you hear from them or do you go and lobby them or wait for ratings or fan pressure? I am so totally addicted to this show and all the actors, it's disturbing.
1.) I have done stand-up in Portland, Maine. It is a crime-free Mecca, inappropriate for our grifters to despoil.2.) Wait until we hear. One of the reason many exec producers are quite insane.
@Caravelle: I bought the first season of Leverage on DVD ! I am enjoying watching them all again, and I am REALLY enjoying the commentaries. You guys all seem to be fun and smart people ! I'm mostly posting this because in the first episode commentary you talk about how you got picked up for a second season, and then Dean says something like "of course maybe now we're in our fifth season so you should buy all the other DVDs". So that was amusing to me :) Which makes me wonder, did you have specific ideas about how the show would be like by Season 5, and how close are things now to what you were thinking of back in season 1 ?
Huh. It is close-ish. I will say that the last scene of Season Five is PRECISELY the last scene of Season Five I have had in my head since Season One. We've wandered and discovered things along the way, but at the end you will see we had a road map, and stuck to it as close as we humanly could.
@LindaS: When PEP was trying to find the money to transfer and Hardison kept blocking them, where did they think the warning messages were coming from? Would it be some kind of software companies have to alert them to potential ethics or liability problems in running their business? I haven't seen anything like that out there.
Dramatic license to keep from casting another expert for every department/company we had in the con structure.
@ANonymous: ugh. i know nothing about cheer competitions, so that portion didn't bother me. but i've worked with the folks on the Hill for most of my career as an issue advocate, and i can only hope you never, ever revisit congress. this has to have been the worst episode you've fielded so far. "federal high school athletics committee"? i nearly choked on my breakfast. it would have made more sense to steal a federal judge
To be fair to our research-mad writers, the original pitch was state-level. I bumped it up to Federal because Congress is a much richer, fatter target. I'd also note that the "Federal High School Athletics Commission" is nowhere near the most ludicrous commission that could or does exist int he Federal Government.
Also, you can't hear the Death Star blow up in space.
@Kevin W:Full disclosure: I'm a conservative Republican who disagrees with plenty of the political stuff you've posted on here. Now that that's out of the way, thank you for not making LeGrange into the standard strawman conservative character. It seemed like things were heading in that direction with his initial comments about spending but the establishment of the character made it clear he was a good and honest guy. We're not all bad people, you know. :)
Absolutely not all bad people. Unfortunately I think the most extreme examples of each political position tend to be the ones who grab the most headlines. And those people deserve to be mocked. Hard.
@James: 1.) What's going on with Parker not voting?
2.) Also I just want to say that in your last post, someone said it was uncharacteristic of Nate to not know what the client really wanted (his reputation) because he was always so concerned with morality. And you said that it was the writers that were concerning themselves with morality, not Nate. I just wanted to say that I don't know if that's true. In The Reunion Job, Nate wouldn't take the case until Hardison told him WHY. You could argue that he was just pushing Hardison but why else would he push him if not for the sake of morality? I'm sure there are other instances where he's done something similar as well.
3.) Also I wanted to ask your thoughts on the impression I have that everyone seems to have a specialty that is specific to them except Sophie. Everyone can grift pretty exceptionally. Even Parker. Parker's limitations with grifting clearly aren't stopping her from being completely excellent at it. Anyway I'm not complaining. I just want to know your thoughts on it. It seems if Sophie didn't show up for work, she wouldn't really be missed. Aside from her general awesome-ness (and we all love looking at Gina Bellman).
1.) No paperwork exists on Parker's real name, and she doesn't want to commit voter fraud. Which is wrong.2.) Nate does have his own morality and is concerned with the morality of the clients, but I think it's pretty clear he can bounce between caring about the clients and being obsessed with winning/destroying the mark. Even if we don;'t write to it often, it's definitely one of the things I keep in my head about him (see "The Boys Night Out Job" for example).3.) Actually I'd disagree with you. Parker can grift for VERY short periods of time, and there better be plenty of room for those rough edges and not a lot of talking. Hardison can scam but not grift -- he goes over the top every, every time. Eliot's actually second best, but really specializes in low-status grifts. Nate's good in a very specific situation -- the hard-sell. Have you ever seen him do empathy or warmth in a con? Only Sophie can cover every grift base.
Some of this came out of second season, when we lost Gina for a bit and had to write in the idea that everyone was scrambling to cover until she returned. Some of it is because grifting is one of the most teachable elements of the con, and the team learning from each other is a plot point. But you can go back and look at Sophie's role in most episodes, wonder if one of the other team members could have pulled that off, and the answer would be "Hell no."
@TJ: Q1) I know Coach Cornell just wanted her girls safe, but did the team ever find a way to get her back into cheerleading as a coach?
Q2) What's the actual episode number vs. the airing episode number for this one?
Q3) Was Nate forcing Parker to interact with people just like he was forcing Eliot to plan for the same reason or was that a happy accident for him?
Q4) What letter was the RICO case plan?
Q5) Why wasn't it wasn't easier to go after the bad guy in this one and install a new person to change the policies of the company if she was the crux of the problem. That would have been easier wouldn't it? 5b) Did Nate force the bigger congress play for a reason?
Q6) Did Sophie stay sitting down so she wouldn't get noticed by the mark like everyone else did?
Q7) Did Nate basically make the most of the crew run their own con and if so was it on purpose?
Q8) Was it really just a lunch that bought that guy off or more we didn't see?
Q9) Did Nate assign who got which senator because they both seem perfect for which team member they got. They seemed like both the perfect mark for each of our crew while simultaneously being the perfect kryptonite. Hardison getting the numbers/system lady, Sophie getting the Chain of Deals (basically grifting) man, and Eliot getting the "For Service of Country" guy. It seems more like they might have benefited from "The think/be like someone else approach" from the First David Job. And Nate, of course, got the easy target.
Q10)Who's idea was it to show the parallels of conning and grifting to Congress? And was it something that you had to tone down? Is it so much worse in real life?
Q11) Nate seem to be mentoring Eliot this epiosde. Is this going to be a trend, him backing up and guiding the crew more than masterminding the con?
Q12) I know you said there were themes for each season, last season being consequences. What's the theme for this season?
Q13) Did Nate ultimately know the name dropping/yearbook photo/publicity hook on the LeGrange or did he just know the "Some people want to keep serving" hook? Eliot didn't specify which hook he knew Nate knew.
Q14) I know "Bring it on!" was probably on purpose, who wrote it in?
Q15)Did the Wolves cheer performance include the crossing flips like the laser grid because of Parker's influence or am I just reading too much into that? 15b) How did the cheerleaders do with the laser exercise, performance wise?
Q16) How did the federal agents get that warrant so fast?
Q17) How many lobbyists/Pac people did ultimately Sophie play?
1.) She's back in now that the group which disqualified her has been cast into suspicion.2.) This one is where it's supposed to be, fifth and #505.3.) Good question.4.) Deep. Q at least.5.) Hah, that's actually related to one of the real-world bits of research. One of our model companies was sole-owner, so removing him would have just put a proxy board in place. THere's no checks and balances in that company like there ar ein most major corporations.6.) Coincidence.7.) Better question.8.) Nope. Lunch.9.) We always saw it as coincidence, but I like that better. Consider it canon.10.) The room landed on it when stumped. And yeah, it's much worse. Frankly, it's just much less elegant. Kind of gauche.11.) Maybe.12.) "Building"13.) Name dropping one.14.) The writer, fo course.15a.) Of course! 15b.) Once she dialed down the wattage, not bad. Lots of surface burns that first few days.16.) By the same process Law & Order episodes hold a trial less than two years after an arrest.17.) There were more than we showed - I think the chain we constructed in the room was about ten.
@Kate: We've had proof in the past that various team members would be terrifying if they bent their skills to certain fields. Sophie and politics. Parker and Cheerleading. Hardison and Accounting. Those are the ones I spotted in this episode. What would you say is something the Leverage team would be really good at but shouldn't do because it would just terrify the audience with it's possibilities?
Counter-terrorism, which when done right is primarily economic.
@Lin: Is Ian Blackpoole coming back this season? Or maybe it has to do something with Sterling?
... one of those is close.
@Anonymous: It's not really a real question, (and absolutely not a writing one) but why the heck was the coaching doing CPR on a fallen cheerleader? SERIOUSLY. I mean, Parker joking aside, a first responder should have made sure she's breakthing, and then secured her head / neck and waited for the ambulance to arrive. It's just a pet peeve of mine, how bad all actors are at doing the right thing for an injury. Does no one have common sense?
Actually, we based it on a real case, where the girl's neck injury was high enough she stopped breathing. But salt to taste.
@IMForeman: Early in the episode, when Parker's in DC, and Skyping with the team at Leverage HQ, were the graphics (and Beth) on a practical projection screen that the actors could see and react to? Or was it a green screen burn-in? It looked practical to me, so if it was a burn in, kudos on that.
Burn-in, but to be fair we spent a LOT of time tuning that screen for best possible results. We bought that model for specifically that reason, uniform color control.
@Anonymous:I'm disappointed with the shows increasingly poor realtionship with reality.
The show's alway been clever and sometimes stretched credulity but not so much
as to really bother me. That is no longer the case. I can't believe that nobody's
commenting on this. A few points that irritated me in this episode:
1) The cheerleader gets dropped to start out the show. Not just fumbled - dead dropped
with such force so as to put her in a wheelchair. What do we think happened? As she
went up in the air did suddenly everyone fall prey to the Ebola virus? Did they all have pot
brownies that kicked in at the same time? As she's going up there are at least three
people watching her closely, and then she suddenly drops like a stone. It would have
been so easy to put in something realistic like, say, as she's coming down there's an
extremely loud noise or crash and everyone is momentarily distracted.
2) Somehow, the FBI was able to put together a Ricoh task force in, what, a few hours?
Aren't Ricoh Act cases notoriously hard to put together? Is it credible that this could
have been done in a few hours?
3) Is it credible that, after balking at the "legality" warning that Hardison put up for
one of the companies, that the guy would go ahead and commit a blatantly illegal act without
at least calling nnnn? No it is not. Maybe if they threw in a scene where he is clearly
conflicted and tries to call nnnn but Hardison has blocked his cell phone so he decides
to do it anyway, I would be okay with that. Or even, when he calls nnnn, if he simply
says "I tried to reach you before I did the transfer but couldn't", that might be enough
for me to say "unlikely, but it could have happened".
4) As the FBI drags away xxxx at the end, they don't SAY anything to her other than grabbing
her and saying, "come with us"? Really? Is this credible? Don't they usually say, oh I don't know,
"Are you nnn", "you're wanted for questioning" or something like that?
I know that this isn't a reality show (not that those are really real either), but I expect
more effort on the part of the writers to maintain the quality level of the show and this
is done, in part, by writing scenes that at least COULD happen in the real world. This show,
is supposed to be happening in the real world. Dogs don't have seven feet and there are no
flying zebras. C'mon writers, put just a little more effort into it.
There are very few shows that I've dropped after watching from the beginning, but this is
coming close to being one.
1.) ... you know Cheerleaders get dropped while being spotted all the time, right? Like gymnasts? Literally hundreds of times a year, which is where those accident stats come from? Is each one of those spotters, a hundred times a year, distracted by loud noises?2.) Nope. Not credible at all. See the snarky Law & Order reference. Or House. Or every cop show on earth.3.) You know people break the law because their bosses tell them to all the time, right? Remember that giant financial crash that almost destroyed the world about four years ago?4.) Sure. I'll give the FBI day player better dialogue next time.
I don't usually punch down, and I don't have problems with disagreeing with choices, but implying my writers are lazy or don't bust their ass doing more research than five other crime shows put together?
Dont. Shit. On. My. Writers.
********************************
Well, that ended with a spark, eh? Okay, in a day or two, I'll jump to to D.B. Cooper, then catch up as fast as possible. Then plenty of time for the wayback machine write-ups as we hurtle toward the winter episodes.
Every year the writers come in with three or four ideas for episodes. Jeremy Bernstein (@fajitas) led with two crime-y ones, and then said "Also, cheerleading."
We'd joked about it before. The auditorium we scouted for another episode was hosting a cheerleading competition at the time, and of course all the guys said "Cheerleading episode!!" Har-de-har. So at first I thought he was joking.
Then he laid out the stats, and all I kept saying was "Jesus Murphy." And then he laid out the reason for the stats, and Downey and I said "That is ... actual villainy." To be fair, I'll admit I was still a little dubious about whether we could make the episode work, so we had Jer present the info to the writer's room.
It was the angriest I've seen the room since Season Two.
Going much further into backstory will take us the closest to "actionable" we've come in a while, so let's just say there are several companies which indeed practice the business model -- by which I mean wide-scale, boggling efficient grift -- we detail in the episode. A hundred-something national championships. Force you to buy insurance that's never paid out. Fighting efforts to increase safety standards, because better safety standards would interfere with their ability to license and profit off cheerleading camps, etc, etc. Pretty girls in wheelchairs because of some assholes in suits. Using the real world model, we went to work.
We've mentioned before, but every con we do could in theory be used to pull apart the real-world equivalent of the mark. This is one of the reason we have consultants like Apollo Robbins, or sometimes talk to high-level campaign finance experts or US Attorneys. Fiction, where you can bend and twist the rules, is made enormously easier when you force yourself to play by the rules as you break the story. This is a personal issue I have with some con and heist shows. Two lifts and a fake name don't make a con show, they make a particularly aggressive Rockford Files. Of course, this is probably more about my obsession with systems than it is about the bare minimum requirement for audience entertainment.
There was one truly odd moment, after three days of trying to break this thing, where I said: "Jesus, we've pulled corrupt money-laundering apart, international cyber-cons, kleptocratic hustles -- and we cannot break this fucking cheerleading scam. The real version of it is just too ironclad."
Downey: "This web of companies looks like a mob breakdown on The Sopranos."
Me: "Okay, so how do you bring down the mob?"
Downey (who, you will remember, is a former white collar defense attorney): "RICO Act. It's ridiculously broad."
That's how a cut-down version of the RICO Act wound up on the writer's room wall. The key, of course, being that you need to commit TWO acts of racketeering activity. So while half the room banged various combos of offenses off the walls ("Kidnapping and criminal copyright infringement?"), we tackled the other big problem --
-- we can't write a cheerleading episode.
By which I mean, it obeys none of the structural parameters which allow us to make Leverage on a weekly basis. There aren't really enough "hats" for the characters in cheerleading. Coach, cheerleader, maybe judge ... there's no inherent threat of violence or prosecution or meddling law enforcement. What's the real-time (used to be fourth) fifth Act sequence as we tempo up heading into the back of the show?
Again, back tot he research. Jeremy had talked to several groups who were trying to change the cheerleading rules, primarily by trying to get it declared as a sport, where Title IX safety rules would kick in. These groups' primary frustration was in the politics of the situation -- which for once fell on both sides of the aisle. Generalizing roughly, Conservatives didn't want to establish that sort of excess regulation, Liberals didn't want Title IX money being diverted to cheerleading from other women's sports. Few friends on either side.
Well, there you go. Despite assumptions by some of our viewers, we try to stay very even-handed on the political spectrum on the few times we venture into politics. My policy is alway that the primary split in politics is along the money/power axis, and there are plenty of R's and D's chasing both. We'd never done a Congressional episode, and Congress is a lovely, complicated, antiquated ramshackle system all based in a one big, swinging doors-French farce worthy building. Aces. We came up with some prototypical Congresspeople, assigned unlikely humans to deal with them, and turned loose the Fun Train.
I will note that Parker wound up with the cheerleaders for three main reasons. 1.) We didn't want everyone on the grift. 2.) "LASER GRID" 3.) The interrogation scene. The noir interrogation scene of the cheerleader was originally a longer bit, and we laughed ourselves silly at the prospect. Sometimes, it really is the simple things in life ...
Okay, let's see what you maniacs have for us this week:
@Miranda: When the folks in the audience held up the "Badgers" sign, was that to support the cheer squad from Larry Duberman's alma mater or a different school with the same mascot?
Same school! Small world, eh?
@PurpleOps: 1. How did Hardison introduce HR505 in the first place? Was he already working in the Congresswoman's office?
2. It seemed pretty obvious that the team, at least Nate and Eliot, was "made" in the hearing scene, yet they were more interested in Bisutti's facial expression than that fact. Was the audience supposed to be ahead of the team, was it intentional misdirection, or... something else?
3. Nate thinks he has "no weaknesses"? SERIOUSLY?? Even after the episode in a previous season where he had to con someone as if he were conning himself? I'd thought his self-awareness was improving, but that seems a dangerous gap for him to have.
4. In one of the scenes between Nate and Eliot in Congress, Kane had a hair sticking out on his right side. Was there a point to it? (Pun intended!)
5. Parker's "All AAH" and Eliot's wink to Hardison - hilarious!
6. Nice tip of the fedora to Indiana Jones - "Corn subsidies! Why did it have to be corn subsidies?"
7. Loved "War & Peace with math", the "Ready... ready... let's go" duality, and "Fort Devereaux".
8. "Bring it on!" Seriously? Or did you feel it was expected and you HAD to use it? :)
9. I'm gonna keep on praising LoDuca until (and after) you put out another Leverage soundtrack album. STELLAR work on the "casing lasers" scene and the "Let's grift" walk, among others (the Middle Eastern bit was another good one).
1.) It was already introduced and hearings being held -- the first hearing we see.2.) No, they weren't "made", Bisutti was distracted -- she may have seen them but not registered them. The moment was there for Nate to make the connection that her mood and intention didn't seem to match.3.) Oh God, no, that was two guys bluffing each other out. Think of it as "Well, I've never had trouble in bed..." and you'll get it. Nate and Eliot are yanking each others chains a bit.4.) Nope.... 8.) Kind of mandatory, no? By the way, Bring It On is a tightly plotted little movie.9.) We will never be able to thank Joe LoDuca enough. Let me talk to Dean about another soundtrack, if only a downloadable one.
@Anonymous: PEP HQ was the Boston federal courthouse, right? You had lots of DC exterior shots -- if I'm right about the HQ, why a Boston shot for that one? .
It seemed the mst super-villainous out fo the shots we pulled from stock. Location had nothing to do with that one.
@ChelseaNH: How much of this was "must. suppress. gag. reflex" and how much of this was "bloviating is fun!"? Did you make all the writers give stump speeches? I was particularly impressed with the "as someone who once did something vaguely related, I'm going to pretend that I am now an expert on this subject" trope
Bloviating is FUN! Basically, we did look at some political speeches. After marvelling at their vagueness, we cut and pasted.
@Susannah: 1. Was any of the Pep stuff inspired by/based on CrossFit? 2. By any chance was Sophie's assistant "Ginger" a shoutout to The West Wing?
1.) Nope, all based on the actual cheerleading world. Although it does seem like the fitness world is rife with grift.2.) Considering @fajitas's love of West Wing, I'd say that's a definite yes.
@Vanessa: Is it my imagination, or has the act-break structure changed? It seems like the acts are shorter & there's 6 instead of 5.
Nope, we're at six, ever since Season 4. Six. Gah. We all hate it. Every showrunner who works in it hates it. But that's episodic TV for you right now.
@LindaS: Need to know, John: was the cheer team named the Wolves as an homage to the "Eliot signal" from the end of season four ("either a wolf or a knife")?
Nope, but that is cool.
@Ruben: Loving the entire season so far and thank you for setting it in Portland. I have but two quick questions.
1. I'm starting a Leverage RPG set in Portland (hometown is easy). Just so I can line my game up with show cannon, can I assume that the team eventually leaves Portland with some marks?
2. Please tell me that you've partnered with Bridgeport to make Thief Juice.
1.) You can assume ... Portland is not permanent.2.) Sadly, no. But feel free to brew it yourself!
@Calla: 1.) Since everything seems to be going so well for Parker & Hardison (not perfect, but honestly not bad at all), would Eliot ever play a joke on Hardison and let Hardison believe there was something going on between Parker & Eliot? If, say, Hardison misunderstood something saw or over-heard and, instead of clearing things up, Eliot just let Hardison's imagination run amok for a bit. Just to tease him, because Eliot does need to get Hardison back for eating his special hand-crafted sandwich last season.
2.) this was another ep directed by Frakes. How many did he get to direct this season?
1.) Nope. He's not that kind of guy.2.) I think he has four this year.
@thebacardiqueen: Fantastic episode - loved it as per usual! My question...that look Eliot gave the retreating Nate at the very end...Eliot has guessed something's up, right? Do we see more of that during the rest of the season and if so, does it impact the relationship between the two of them...we know he'd do anything for Nate but is there a line, even for him?
Eliot is taking a "wait and see" attitude. But don't assume that some of the events of this season you DON'T see won't be revealed in the season finale.
@john:The stats given at the beginning, something like 3% of all female sports participants are in cheer, but 65% of the injuries are in cheer - are those accurate?? Crazy if that's real.
Jeremy steps you through the numbers in the podcast, but yeah, pretty much.
@oppyu: 1) Is there an in-universe reason that Leverage Inc. doesn't keep a few more people around? Parker's grown as a grifter over the years, but the crew would still run more smoothly if they had Tara around as a part-time secondary grifter, or if they hired that Apollo guy from the Two Live Crew job to back up as a thief when Parker's out of position. Hardison is also growing more versatile, but a thief he ain't (the Truffle and Potato jobs come to mind).
2) This season seems a lot like it's setting up as a finale... please reassure me that this is not the case :(
3) Does Nate REALLY believe he has no weaknesses? It seems like an inordinate amount of time in this series has been devoted to meticulously identifying and describing the many ways Nate Ford is... not the most healthy man.
4) Did Hardison get a cheerleading company classified as a haberdashery? If so, how?
1.) Crews tend to be very insular, and most conmen are very averse to working one con or town for any length of time. Assume those folks are on call. Hell, I'd love to see more of them if the actual humans attached to those characters weren't so damned busy.2.) We write every season so if it's the last one, you are satisfied if not happy. That said, We are ramping up to a much more definite "Well, this COULD be it" finale.3.) Addressed above.4.) Part of the cheerleading company's business is providing all the official uniforms (and you MUST wear the official uniforms to compete) for the industry. This is based on a real element of the real-world grift.
@Jugglernaut: I enjoyed this ep a lot but thought Parking going all after-school special was a bit much. Too mainstream. New Parker is not as interesting as Classic Parker.
In retrospect, I might have taken about 20% empathy off the top of that speech in writing. It's a combo deal. First, you can't play 1st Year Parker in Year 5. That is static and boring, although falls more in line wiht how TV shows are structured. Second, Beth Riesgraf herself is an incredibly sweet, empathetic person. Whenever we swing by that character beat, it can't help but bubble up a bit.
@Zmiles: I see that Bob Jenkins managed to survive the Castleman take down in Season 1. Or was it another congressman with the same name?
Another Congressman with the same name cleared by legal.
@Caravelle: 1.) this kind of strikes me as a step up in seriousness for the Leverage team - going from running cons on individual companies to dictating national policy. Is this part of a pattern, or am I imagining the progression (after all they did steal a law way back when).2.) I was also wondering at how this intersects with the real world, whether the Leverage team were taking credit for an actual law that had passed or if they were setting right what is wrong in our world.
1.) Not a linear step on the power line. The main fun of it was showing that our guys may be the greatest grifters on earth, but Congress leaves them in the dust.2.) Listen to the podcast, we have a long, in depth discussion of the real world legal cases.
@Ally (Note: I always confuse you and allyone): 1. Why couldn't we actually see Parker do some gymnastic-y stuff? That was really my one regret of this ep.
2. Did Sophie really just forge a multi-national deal?
3. Seeing Parker open up was so sweet...just, more! Please!
4. Nate definitely has weaknesses. Right?
5. Were all of the laws Hardison was stonewalling the Busey with orange boxes, or did you stick some ledgers in there?
6. Why is Eliot suspicious?
7. Did Nate purposely give Eliot LeGrange? If so, what for? 7a. And was it really a test of Eliot's grifting/people skills, or something else?
8. RENEWAL?????????????
1.) Timing, actually. Massive budget/scheduling crunch on this episode.2.) Yep.3.) There's a bit more of it coming this season. We're kind of at the outside edge of how empathetic we want to take the character.4.) As above. In the first draft, Eliot actually enumerates them.5.) Some were real. I grew up near Boston, and Massachusetts has some fascinating blue laws.6.) Because Suspishus Eliot iz Suspishus.7.) Yes and yes.8.) We'll tell you as soon as we know.
@Anonymous: So... that look on Eliot's face at the end of the last scene, it harkens back to "The First David Job", does it not? Eliot knows that Nate played him and you don't con your own crew!, right?
That is ... remarkably close. And you may draw your own conclusions as to why you do not see that expression recur.
@Mark: All the team accomplished was getting a bill through a single committee. Assuming the bill only falls under one committee's jurisdiction, you still need to get through the committee in the Senate, then get the bill up for vote in the House, then actually pass the bill in the House, then get the bill to the floor on the Senate, then get 60 votes to end debate, then pass the bill in the Senate, then reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bill, then repeat the process with the new, identical bills, then get the president to sign it.
Which is all very,very depressing.
@Barri Lynn Moreau: 1.) I'm liking the whole Portland setting, really, but couldn't you do a con linking with the other Portland, the FIRST one? You're a New Englander, have you run out of ideas to do here? (What if the Stanley Cup was in Portland, ME)?2.) When do you learn as producers, whether or not your show will be picked up for another season? Do you just wait until you hear from them or do you go and lobby them or wait for ratings or fan pressure? I am so totally addicted to this show and all the actors, it's disturbing.
1.) I have done stand-up in Portland, Maine. It is a crime-free Mecca, inappropriate for our grifters to despoil.2.) Wait until we hear. One of the reason many exec producers are quite insane.
@Caravelle: I bought the first season of Leverage on DVD ! I am enjoying watching them all again, and I am REALLY enjoying the commentaries. You guys all seem to be fun and smart people ! I'm mostly posting this because in the first episode commentary you talk about how you got picked up for a second season, and then Dean says something like "of course maybe now we're in our fifth season so you should buy all the other DVDs". So that was amusing to me :) Which makes me wonder, did you have specific ideas about how the show would be like by Season 5, and how close are things now to what you were thinking of back in season 1 ?
Huh. It is close-ish. I will say that the last scene of Season Five is PRECISELY the last scene of Season Five I have had in my head since Season One. We've wandered and discovered things along the way, but at the end you will see we had a road map, and stuck to it as close as we humanly could.
@LindaS: When PEP was trying to find the money to transfer and Hardison kept blocking them, where did they think the warning messages were coming from? Would it be some kind of software companies have to alert them to potential ethics or liability problems in running their business? I haven't seen anything like that out there.
Dramatic license to keep from casting another expert for every department/company we had in the con structure.
@ANonymous: ugh. i know nothing about cheer competitions, so that portion didn't bother me. but i've worked with the folks on the Hill for most of my career as an issue advocate, and i can only hope you never, ever revisit congress. this has to have been the worst episode you've fielded so far. "federal high school athletics committee"? i nearly choked on my breakfast. it would have made more sense to steal a federal judge
To be fair to our research-mad writers, the original pitch was state-level. I bumped it up to Federal because Congress is a much richer, fatter target. I'd also note that the "Federal High School Athletics Commission" is nowhere near the most ludicrous commission that could or does exist int he Federal Government.
Also, you can't hear the Death Star blow up in space.
@Kevin W:Full disclosure: I'm a conservative Republican who disagrees with plenty of the political stuff you've posted on here. Now that that's out of the way, thank you for not making LeGrange into the standard strawman conservative character. It seemed like things were heading in that direction with his initial comments about spending but the establishment of the character made it clear he was a good and honest guy. We're not all bad people, you know. :)
Absolutely not all bad people. Unfortunately I think the most extreme examples of each political position tend to be the ones who grab the most headlines. And those people deserve to be mocked. Hard.
@James: 1.) What's going on with Parker not voting?
2.) Also I just want to say that in your last post, someone said it was uncharacteristic of Nate to not know what the client really wanted (his reputation) because he was always so concerned with morality. And you said that it was the writers that were concerning themselves with morality, not Nate. I just wanted to say that I don't know if that's true. In The Reunion Job, Nate wouldn't take the case until Hardison told him WHY. You could argue that he was just pushing Hardison but why else would he push him if not for the sake of morality? I'm sure there are other instances where he's done something similar as well.
3.) Also I wanted to ask your thoughts on the impression I have that everyone seems to have a specialty that is specific to them except Sophie. Everyone can grift pretty exceptionally. Even Parker. Parker's limitations with grifting clearly aren't stopping her from being completely excellent at it. Anyway I'm not complaining. I just want to know your thoughts on it. It seems if Sophie didn't show up for work, she wouldn't really be missed. Aside from her general awesome-ness (and we all love looking at Gina Bellman).
1.) No paperwork exists on Parker's real name, and she doesn't want to commit voter fraud. Which is wrong.2.) Nate does have his own morality and is concerned with the morality of the clients, but I think it's pretty clear he can bounce between caring about the clients and being obsessed with winning/destroying the mark. Even if we don;'t write to it often, it's definitely one of the things I keep in my head about him (see "The Boys Night Out Job" for example).3.) Actually I'd disagree with you. Parker can grift for VERY short periods of time, and there better be plenty of room for those rough edges and not a lot of talking. Hardison can scam but not grift -- he goes over the top every, every time. Eliot's actually second best, but really specializes in low-status grifts. Nate's good in a very specific situation -- the hard-sell. Have you ever seen him do empathy or warmth in a con? Only Sophie can cover every grift base.
Some of this came out of second season, when we lost Gina for a bit and had to write in the idea that everyone was scrambling to cover until she returned. Some of it is because grifting is one of the most teachable elements of the con, and the team learning from each other is a plot point. But you can go back and look at Sophie's role in most episodes, wonder if one of the other team members could have pulled that off, and the answer would be "Hell no."
@TJ: Q1) I know Coach Cornell just wanted her girls safe, but did the team ever find a way to get her back into cheerleading as a coach?
Q2) What's the actual episode number vs. the airing episode number for this one?
Q3) Was Nate forcing Parker to interact with people just like he was forcing Eliot to plan for the same reason or was that a happy accident for him?
Q4) What letter was the RICO case plan?
Q5) Why wasn't it wasn't easier to go after the bad guy in this one and install a new person to change the policies of the company if she was the crux of the problem. That would have been easier wouldn't it? 5b) Did Nate force the bigger congress play for a reason?
Q6) Did Sophie stay sitting down so she wouldn't get noticed by the mark like everyone else did?
Q7) Did Nate basically make the most of the crew run their own con and if so was it on purpose?
Q8) Was it really just a lunch that bought that guy off or more we didn't see?
Q9) Did Nate assign who got which senator because they both seem perfect for which team member they got. They seemed like both the perfect mark for each of our crew while simultaneously being the perfect kryptonite. Hardison getting the numbers/system lady, Sophie getting the Chain of Deals (basically grifting) man, and Eliot getting the "For Service of Country" guy. It seems more like they might have benefited from "The think/be like someone else approach" from the First David Job. And Nate, of course, got the easy target.
Q10)Who's idea was it to show the parallels of conning and grifting to Congress? And was it something that you had to tone down? Is it so much worse in real life?
Q11) Nate seem to be mentoring Eliot this epiosde. Is this going to be a trend, him backing up and guiding the crew more than masterminding the con?
Q12) I know you said there were themes for each season, last season being consequences. What's the theme for this season?
Q13) Did Nate ultimately know the name dropping/yearbook photo/publicity hook on the LeGrange or did he just know the "Some people want to keep serving" hook? Eliot didn't specify which hook he knew Nate knew.
Q14) I know "Bring it on!" was probably on purpose, who wrote it in?
Q15)Did the Wolves cheer performance include the crossing flips like the laser grid because of Parker's influence or am I just reading too much into that? 15b) How did the cheerleaders do with the laser exercise, performance wise?
Q16) How did the federal agents get that warrant so fast?
Q17) How many lobbyists/Pac people did ultimately Sophie play?
1.) She's back in now that the group which disqualified her has been cast into suspicion.2.) This one is where it's supposed to be, fifth and #505.3.) Good question.4.) Deep. Q at least.5.) Hah, that's actually related to one of the real-world bits of research. One of our model companies was sole-owner, so removing him would have just put a proxy board in place. THere's no checks and balances in that company like there ar ein most major corporations.6.) Coincidence.7.) Better question.8.) Nope. Lunch.9.) We always saw it as coincidence, but I like that better. Consider it canon.10.) The room landed on it when stumped. And yeah, it's much worse. Frankly, it's just much less elegant. Kind of gauche.11.) Maybe.12.) "Building"13.) Name dropping one.14.) The writer, fo course.15a.) Of course! 15b.) Once she dialed down the wattage, not bad. Lots of surface burns that first few days.16.) By the same process Law & Order episodes hold a trial less than two years after an arrest.17.) There were more than we showed - I think the chain we constructed in the room was about ten.
@Kate: We've had proof in the past that various team members would be terrifying if they bent their skills to certain fields. Sophie and politics. Parker and Cheerleading. Hardison and Accounting. Those are the ones I spotted in this episode. What would you say is something the Leverage team would be really good at but shouldn't do because it would just terrify the audience with it's possibilities?
Counter-terrorism, which when done right is primarily economic.
@Lin: Is Ian Blackpoole coming back this season? Or maybe it has to do something with Sterling?
... one of those is close.
@Anonymous: It's not really a real question, (and absolutely not a writing one) but why the heck was the coaching doing CPR on a fallen cheerleader? SERIOUSLY. I mean, Parker joking aside, a first responder should have made sure she's breakthing, and then secured her head / neck and waited for the ambulance to arrive. It's just a pet peeve of mine, how bad all actors are at doing the right thing for an injury. Does no one have common sense?
Actually, we based it on a real case, where the girl's neck injury was high enough she stopped breathing. But salt to taste.
@IMForeman: Early in the episode, when Parker's in DC, and Skyping with the team at Leverage HQ, were the graphics (and Beth) on a practical projection screen that the actors could see and react to? Or was it a green screen burn-in? It looked practical to me, so if it was a burn in, kudos on that.
Burn-in, but to be fair we spent a LOT of time tuning that screen for best possible results. We bought that model for specifically that reason, uniform color control.
@Anonymous:I'm disappointed with the shows increasingly poor realtionship with reality.
The show's alway been clever and sometimes stretched credulity but not so much
as to really bother me. That is no longer the case. I can't believe that nobody's
commenting on this. A few points that irritated me in this episode:
1) The cheerleader gets dropped to start out the show. Not just fumbled - dead dropped
with such force so as to put her in a wheelchair. What do we think happened? As she
went up in the air did suddenly everyone fall prey to the Ebola virus? Did they all have pot
brownies that kicked in at the same time? As she's going up there are at least three
people watching her closely, and then she suddenly drops like a stone. It would have
been so easy to put in something realistic like, say, as she's coming down there's an
extremely loud noise or crash and everyone is momentarily distracted.
2) Somehow, the FBI was able to put together a Ricoh task force in, what, a few hours?
Aren't Ricoh Act cases notoriously hard to put together? Is it credible that this could
have been done in a few hours?
3) Is it credible that, after balking at the "legality" warning that Hardison put up for
one of the companies, that the guy would go ahead and commit a blatantly illegal act without
at least calling nnnn? No it is not. Maybe if they threw in a scene where he is clearly
conflicted and tries to call nnnn but Hardison has blocked his cell phone so he decides
to do it anyway, I would be okay with that. Or even, when he calls nnnn, if he simply
says "I tried to reach you before I did the transfer but couldn't", that might be enough
for me to say "unlikely, but it could have happened".
4) As the FBI drags away xxxx at the end, they don't SAY anything to her other than grabbing
her and saying, "come with us"? Really? Is this credible? Don't they usually say, oh I don't know,
"Are you nnn", "you're wanted for questioning" or something like that?
I know that this isn't a reality show (not that those are really real either), but I expect
more effort on the part of the writers to maintain the quality level of the show and this
is done, in part, by writing scenes that at least COULD happen in the real world. This show,
is supposed to be happening in the real world. Dogs don't have seven feet and there are no
flying zebras. C'mon writers, put just a little more effort into it.
There are very few shows that I've dropped after watching from the beginning, but this is
coming close to being one.
1.) ... you know Cheerleaders get dropped while being spotted all the time, right? Like gymnasts? Literally hundreds of times a year, which is where those accident stats come from? Is each one of those spotters, a hundred times a year, distracted by loud noises?2.) Nope. Not credible at all. See the snarky Law & Order reference. Or House. Or every cop show on earth.3.) You know people break the law because their bosses tell them to all the time, right? Remember that giant financial crash that almost destroyed the world about four years ago?4.) Sure. I'll give the FBI day player better dialogue next time.
I don't usually punch down, and I don't have problems with disagreeing with choices, but implying my writers are lazy or don't bust their ass doing more research than five other crime shows put together?
Dont. Shit. On. My. Writers.
********************************
Well, that ended with a spark, eh? Okay, in a day or two, I'll jump to to D.B. Cooper, then catch up as fast as possible. Then plenty of time for the wayback machine write-ups as we hurtle toward the winter episodes.
September 9, 2012
LEVERAGE #508 "The Broken Wing Job" Question Post
Well, this one should be interesting. Parker-iffic! Parker-tastic! Dr. Parker and her Companion. Complaints, questions, hosannahs and wry disappointment in the Comments, please.
September 7, 2012
LEVERAGE #504 "The French Connection Job" Post-Game
Lovely little episode, ain't it? After #509 "The Frame-Up Job" (which you haven't seen yet) it's probably one of my favorites for the year. A good Leverage episode has a solid emotional runner that involves more than one character, an interesting but not too exotic locale, serves a tiny chunk of backstory and runs you out a real-time Act Five. Much like "The Boiler Room Job" last year, Paul Guyot tags all the bases.
The episode had many fathers. First, we had the location based off our annual trip to Portland. A fully decked out culinary school, and a character who cooked. Those just don't fall out of the sky.
The sub-plot about Parker reaching for a "thing" came form a discarded sublot in #411 "The Experimental Job". Originally Parker in that episode was going to have a parallel experience to Hardison at the university. Then, as noted, we realized Parker didn't really need or want the validation in that context. So we threw it up on the board for later. It never really went away -- the idea that Parker was somehow blind to the aesthetic value of the objects she routinely heisted was too intriguing to fall off the big board of index cards. When doing an episode about Eliot's "art", it made sense to address that in this show.
We originally had a straight-on subplot about drug-smuggling, but nobody was happy with that. The French farce ending was established early in story breaking -- another sequence from an earlier episode's wish list -- but the way into the plot seemed pretty right down the middle.
This was when Paul Guyot's wife said "Hey, you should watch this 60 Minutes piece on truffle smuggling." Paul brought that idea into the room, and we jumped on it.
It also gave us our title. "How are we changing it from drugs to truffles?" Paul asked.
"The trick is we're not," I choked around some Bushmills. "Do ALL the tropes of the drug episodes, just with truffles. We're doing The French Connection with truffles." And there you go.
We then got a double helping of luck on the casting. For the villain, the amazing Steve Valentine. One of the nice things about fifth season is that (possibly unearned) air of legitimacy. Cary Elwes, Treat Williams, Steve Valentine, Gregg Henry later in the year ... we had some very fine villains this season.
And, of course,
To answer approximately 60% of the questions up front -- yes, that was Kane doing his own chopping.
Other than that, the shoot went smooth as silk, with some great directing by
Right, so let's see what your fevered brains have cooked up. Oh, and a reminder we anwer some of these questions and a few more on the Leverage10 podcast. ...
@Kevin W: Ok, the henchman's name was clearly Rampone but I could have sworn Sophie's alias was Wambach. Is there a USWNT fan writing for you guys?
That would be Paul Guyot. He and Joe Hortua are giant soccer fans, who have recently attempted to win me over to the sport. Go Everton!!
@Pixie: 1.) Maybe I missed something, but where did the team get enough truffles for the first 'shipment' Nate sold?I knew it was going to end up being truffles the moment the deal took place in a cooking school. 2.) did some of this come up through research on The Last Dam Job? Because it strikes me that quahog or truffle, it's importing a potentially invasive species without permit. Which the penalties are woefully inadequate for, when you consider the potential for damage.
1.) They came from a friend of the victim. May have gone by too fast in the edit, apologies. 2.) Nope, the origin was mentioned above. it was fun coming up with the dead serious Fisheries and Wildlife Agents. We may have broken out an entirely new spin-off for them at one point.
@Calla: So, is part of the theme of this season about the team rediscovering things about themselves? Hardison - what has he forgotten that he used to enjoy?
That's not quite right. This was much more about Eliot broadening out Parker's world-view -- and even more importantly, Parker being emotionally evolved enough to feel like she's missing something. The "art is communication" runner is one of my personal hobbyhorses.
@Eleanor Rigby: 1.) Annoying science question: what on earth did Hardison inject into his super cool liquid nitrogen safe popper? Because, s'far as I know, liquid nitrogen looks like boiling water and not iridescent blue liquid (also, if it's cold enough to pop a safe, it's cold enough to shatter a plastic syringe.) 2.) Is the Foodie Queen a real (fictional) person? Did Parker just borrow her identity for a night?
1.) That's not a plastic syringe, it just looks plastic. 2.) She is base don a real food critic, and more generally on the research we did about the great lengths food critics will go in New York to stay anonymous, and how the restaurants deal with that. Big City restaurants really do have mug shot/sketches of food critics up by the reception desk. Funky, eh?
@oppyu: 1.) What were you doing with Hardison this episode? Elliot was shedding light onto his mysterious backstory, Parker was learning to grow as a person outside of stealing stuff, Sophie was learning to grow as a person outside of crime and acting (for herself) in general, Nate was in the background doing his usual mastermind thing, but Hardison seemed to be front-and-centre doing... nothing. Geeking out over the laser was very in-character and funny, but edible paper and being a douche about tipping seemed a little... I dunno, redundant? The others got character development with their funny, while Hardison just got funny. Which is fair enough, but it just stands out a bit when he's front-and-centre even though he's kind of irrelevant to the grift (I mean, the grift we see. We all remember how quickly the team falls apart without Hardison in 'The Gold Job'; he's definitely not irrelevant.)
2.) Just how good is Elliot at cooking? Talented amateur, someone who could make a decent living as a professional, someone who could make a fantastic living as a professional, or heads-and-shoulders above every other cook in the world? Turning a bunch of uninterested, untalented rich people into professional chefs in the time it takes to set up a con must have taken some talent.
3.) Was that Kane doing the knife stuff during Elliot's fast vegetable chopping into to his students? That seems like it could be very dangerous for someone who wasn't a talented cook.
4.) where the hell does Elliot find the time to be the world's baddest bad-ass, top-notch chef, quality singer and flirty Casanova all at once? It's ridiculous how talented that man is...
1.) I think we just wanted to use Hardison to show off the cool high-tech culinary stuff we found in the research. It's a goddam five hander, people. Not everybody's on point.2.) Eliot could make a very good living at cooking. He's not one to do anything half-way well.3.) Kane and knife. Correct. He really can cook, you know, we're not making this up.4.) It's an accretion of experience. And considering Kane does his own stunts, cooks, sings and is, well, him, we're not exactly writing an impossible dude here.
@Sarah W: I wouldn't have expected him to undertip, either, considering how free he usually is with his money---and how paid for the potential damages to the bar when Sterling walked in way back in The Zanzibar Marketplace. i'm waiting for that to mean something, too---should I? I feel like a conspiracy theorist, but you've trained me to assume everything is relevant to either the episode or the seasonal arc. Maybe y'all are just a little too good at your jobs (that sounds oddly familiar . . . ).
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I think the tipping bit came out of a discussion we had in the room, where we actually had this argument. I always thought you should tip UP FRONT, to guarantee good service for the meal to follow. But that's just me.
@Allyone: The only thing that fell flat for me is the idea the Parker lost touch with her own passion. This is the girl who's probably the most consistently passionate (next to maybe Hardison) about what she does. I thought the idea that she didn't get someone else's passion could have been explored on it's own without it coming from a place of her not feeling it herself.
No, that wasn't the intent -- and the theme probably wasn't helped by the Sophie coaching beat, which none of us thought of as on the same theme until YOU people saw it that way. A constant reminder that you guys are not necessarily seeing the same show we think we're making. Parker knows she loves stealing. But the others interests are non-thiefy. Parker was realizing she has no emotional connection to anything outside work.
@Unknown: Why was the airport capture by Fish and Wildlife instead of the Department of Agriculture?
Because, oddly, that's who it would be. We've seen some arguments otherwise, but frankly it's just a funnier Department name.
@Lori: 1.) Was the window to the outdoors in the pub there in the last 3 eps? 2.) Did some of the students' names get changed from script to filming (uh..Whitney?).
1.) Yep. 2) We varied the number of students in the drafts, and changed sexes. Not uncommon.
@SaffieDarling: 1.) I actually have a question that dates back to the (Very) Big Bird Job: do you feel that by creating an episode that features the Spruce Goose, but not a single cast member in aviator goggles, you've broken your contract with the audience? 2.) How is the brewpub menu going?
1.) Aviator goggles are more Sopwith Camel than Spruce Goose. 2.) It's a work in progress. Currently half Eliot and half Hardison. Guess which half is more popular ...
@ChelseaNH: Just a note of concern, though: I have been noticing some learning lately, and I'm starting to fear that there might be hugging soon.
There will be some bro-hugging.
@petticoat: 1.) What was Sophie's tree-hugger accent? It sounded like it was in and out of British with some Ashley Judd thrown in? Perhaps some UK country-esque regional accent? 2.) Did Nate fill up those last 4-ish pounds of truffles with something else? 3.) It seems like the villains this season are more personable. And hilarious. ('Napoleon's dead.' 'Thank you, Rampone.') Is this a conscious trend or just something happening on its own?
1.) as commenter Suzanne M points out: "Sophie's accent was a pretty spot on West Country (South West England) accent. It's stereotypically spoken by Cornwall/Devon farmers but I'm from Bristol in the South West and know a fair few people who talk exactly like that and have that kind of twang myself to be honest! You don't hear that accent on American tv very often! It was pretty great."2.) No, he got them from Toby.3.) I think it's a mix of the types of cons and casting. The casting's been super-strong this year.
@PurpleOps:1. Wasn't Hardison's insult of the delivery man by not wanting to tip him somewhat out of character? And was Hardison really receiving D&D material? (If so, gotta be Rogers' hardcovers!)
2. Did Eliot do all his own cutting? Particularly good rhythm on his initial cutting sequence. How much wound up on the, erm, cutting room floor?
3. Did Eliot actually say "And I smelt it" at one point, rather than "smelled"?
4. About midway through the episode, there was this cityscape shot, and a very loud "wipe" sound effect. We've heard such wipe sounds before, but never that loud. What might have happened?
5. What accent was Gina doing as the "hippie"? It seemed to swing wildly between something UK and American - very odd.
1.) See above for the tipping thing. Honestly, it struck us as a quirk. And yes, they were the D&D hardcovers.2) Him.3.) Maybe. I;d have to go back and check.4.) Sometimes the mix gets distorted in the compression between the distribution copy and however your cable/satellite provider encodes the signal to get it to your box. We see and hear weird artifacting all the time when we watch on TV. Makes us wince, but there;s nothing you can do.5.) Noted above.
@Cheese: I loved this episode as I usually do with Leverage but I was just wondering: are we ever going to see deeper into Hardison's backstory? His may be the least dramatic out of the team, but I think we've seen the least of hardisons background story outside of his hacking escapades as a teenager in little glimpses. It would be fun to learn more about his experience in foster care with Nana maybe.
You kids love your Hardison backstory. Not this year. As we've discussed in the podcast, we always felt you joined Hardison early enough in his arc, you were kind of getting his "backstory" from episode #101.
@Suzanne M: My question: I loved the Parker & Eliot stuff. I'm really liking the way Eliot's letting his guard down even more this season - explaining his love of food, asking Nate for help and last week almost telling Nate & Sophie about his helicopter missions before catching himself and covering with the hilarious fishing line (amazing line read there btw). Is this deliberate or am I reading too much into things?
Eliot's definitely more comfortable with the team this year. The tone of the season is indeed to show that they are in a new equilibrium.
@Video Beagle: Ok, I'm missing something...how is having the truffles illegal, if restaurants are advertising that they have them?
Not having truffles -- importing truffles, and doing it from a black market to boot.
@Izzie: What book is Parker reading when Hardison's package arrives?
The stoic writings of Marcus Aurelius, as recommended by Nate.
@Bill Crouch: How long does the cast have the script before filming?
The script drops during prep. So in theory they have about three to five days, but note that they are filming when that script arrives. For big ones with great demands on the actors (big emotional scenes, high page count for one character) we try to get it out early. To tell the truth we usually have the script done a good two weeks before prep at least, but I don't like loose scripts floating around in the production cycle. Distracting.
@David Hunt: So how much of that scene of Eliot holding the knife on the Busey was Eliot actually considering killing the guy and how much was Eliot punishing him by making himthink Eliot was about to kill him? I lean more toward the former, but his conversation with Nate makes me wonder.
I'd say that's a Kane acting choice there more than a writing choice. However, I think I can point to an actual decision moment in the performance. YMMV.
@Laney: I was watching season 4 of Leverage on dvd and realized something when watching it. In episode 10 (The Queen's Gambit Job), when Sterling and Eliot are in the car, Sterling says to Eliot "You're father says that you crawled 3 miles through a sewer to kill the head of Al Qaeda in Yemin, but the coffee is a problem". So, Sterling mentions that he has talked to Eliot's father; so does that mean that Sterling knows his father? If so, that should definitely be in an episode! Please respond, because I'm interested to hear what you think!
Sorry, Laney, Sterling said "Your file says you crawled ..."
@Katie and others ... Jesus, last episode Hardison is jury-rigging starscapes to make Parker feel good about not being able to follow through on the date she was planning, and now he's a putz? Let the guy have an off week.
Oona: 1.) When Nate and Eliot are talking at the beginning about Eliot's past, Nate says basically "you did wetwork," and Eliot nods. Google tells me that means assassinations/murders. Correct? 2.) Was Eliot really close to killing Rampone before Nate stepped in? If so, are we to assume that Eliot would only slip that far back if someone was a real threat to someone very important to him? 3.) Also, did I hear right that Eliot referred to having worked as a PMC - Private Military Contractor?
1.) Oh yeah. Eliot was a bad man. 2.) Others would answer differently. I'd say "No, but he was certainly comfortable with the idea." 3.) Yes, before he quit to become a retrieval specialist, he did time with a PMC.
@Jessica Snyder: Did christian really get cut while doing the knife fight with Marshall? Chris's reaction to it looked like he really got cut by the knife Yep. Some day if you meet him in person, ask Kane to take you through the tour of his scars.
@Crazy Eddie: Why did Nate shake his head and blow off Parker after one question? How did everyone except Sohpie manage to forget that Parker already had a passion. At the end, was she reembracing her passion, or was she *seeing* the artwork for the first time and that's why she was shown looking around and not touching anything?
1.) Because Nate is often kind of a dick. 2.) It wasn;t about not having a passion, it was about not understanding a passion that wasn't crime-related. 3.) Seeing it for the first time.
@PsychoKitty: 1.) Alright, so the French guy who was dealing the truffles was named Jean-Luc and the guy sitting next to him in the front of the car was called Patrick. Is that subtle reference to Sir Patrick Stewart and Star Trek: TNG? Because it made me very, very happy (especially after the "Willy Riker" thing in the previous episode)! 2.) is there ever going to be another Con-Con? I saw all of the video from the 2010 one but didn't hear about it until afterwards and ever since I've really wanted to go!
1.) You people miss nothing. 2.) We're not planning on it, but the Fan Con seemed pretty fun this year.
@SueN: Most of my questions have been asked above, so I'll throw out that occurred to me this morning, about the teaching chef Sophie cleared out with the cooking strippers reality show. What happened to the poor guy when he got to wherever he was going and discovered there were no strippers? Or, more meta, what happens to anyone the team clears out with a fake story and plane tickets? Do they just enjoy the free vacation, or does the team actually have something waiting for them?
It depends. Nice people get a free vacation and soft let-down. In the chef's case, Hardison had actors from an ARG group tell the guy the financing fell through.
@CHelsea: You guys come up with a ton of backstory for the crew that never makes it into the show. What's the best heist or con pulled off by a character or the team that the audience doesn't know about?
You see little bits of it in this week's episode, "The Broken Wing Job".
@Shayna: I don't mean to be crude but... have Hardison and Parker... consummated? The reason I ask is because Parker seemed really unfamiliar with sex in season 3. Notice I didn't say she'd never experienced it before. That I could not tell. But she certainly didn't seem to know it when she heard it. I realize that was for a cartoonish comedic beat but still. In addition, she clearly hasn't gotten close to anyone before Hardison (at least no one that didn't then leave her). I don't know if Leverage is the type of show where you can deal with that kind of thing (physcial intimacy I mean. Maybe that's too "adult") but I just want to know what we're supposed to assume as viewers (and I was kind of looking forward to Sophie giving Parker "he sex talk". Not that we were promised that or anything). It seems like they're sleeping together and she has no issue with it (waking up in the morning with one of Hardison's t-shirts on is a clue). Are we just to assume everything is hunky dory on that front? Did I spell hunky dory right? Is it bad that I'm too lazy to look it up? Does that make me a product of a lazy generation?
You lazy, lazy sex pervert.
No, right, let's see ... I'm going to go with, as usual, "whatever makes you want to watch the show more." I think to enjoy this year you just have to know they are emotionally intimate and physically comfortable. Anything more is up to you.
@SureenderDorothy: I know you can't talk about the actor's contracts but, out of curiosity, did Gina ask for time off or something? I'm not saying us Sophie fans are getting shafted or anything. I'm happy with what we're getting. It just seems like something is off with her presence. Does the network put any pressure on you to focus on characters that they know are really popular? Like Eliot and Parker? I'm just curious. Again, no complaining. Just genuine curiosity. Sophie's character must be hard because you don't really want to dig too much into her back story (which you know we hate haha) so you have to create conflicts and obstacles for her that are very... present tense. like her theatre. It explores her character in an interesting way without actually revealing anything about her. Is that right? Or am I way off?
The network never tells us to do anything with the characters. TNT are a remarkably freeing creative partner. They give us feedback on tone and plot, but don't dictate the fine tuning of the show at all.
I think you can look at it two ways. Sophie's arc was accelerated when Gina stepped out for her pregnancy in S2, so when she came back the character had settled a lot of stuff in her head. Instead of looking at her conflicts, look at how often she gives THE emotional or support speech in the episode over the last two seasons, and how often she's in the last keynote scene of the show.
You're also in a bit of a weird place in the season. The back half is much Sophie-heavier.
@Sabine: Eliot had already developed (or regained) some principles about his job before the Nigerian Job. So when he says that Nate kept him from hitting the bottom, is he referring to something that happened before the team got together or does he mean Nate kept him from backsliding?
Backsliding, although at that point Eliot was really more in a holding patter, rather than moving forward.
@TJ: 1)It seems like Eliot bring in most of the personal cases – a lot of the times, one particular character will get attached to a case after it comes in, but Eliot so far is the one who has brought in the most aside from maybe Nate himself, most of those cases Nate hears about from other people who bring them to the team for him. Eliot is the one who actually acknowledges the people he knows and says “These are good people and this should be a job.” Any reason for that, character wise? 2)What was Parker reading?
3Is Hardison going to regret that whole tip thing later in the season? That seems like it should be a running joke, considering how much stuff he orders.
4)What happens to the old chef when there is no show and there are no strippers? Does he just try to get his old job back confused or slink away in misery or what?
5)What made Nate give up on helping Parker? His exasperation seemed kind of quick especially since it was obvious Parker was so…distraught, (for Parker, at least.)
6Was the techno pop theme playing while Hardison and Eliot were arguing their theme song from the car chase? It sounded a bit out of place until I realized it sounded a bit familiar…
7)Poor Chef Eliot just laying on Stonerboy and squeezing the strawberry – hilarious.
8How did it end up being Eliot and not Sophie that Parker went to with her feelings problem? (Character wise and writing wise…) Normally when she wants to be “normal” or understand people she asks Sophie for advice. Was it the “It makes us, us.” (From Long Way Down) principle in action?
9)Please tell me where the hell the N was in Nate’s alias? Please.
10)What part of the U.K. was Rebecca the co-op lady suppose to be from? I recognize the accent, (sort of) but I don’t know the location.
11)How did Lampart not realize how badly he got screwed in Nate’s version of the truffle deal? He was a full four pounds light…
11)I’ve noticed this a bit lately, I think everyone has, but specifically in this episode is Nate pushing Hardison (thief-wise) and Sophie (mastermind-wise) in this episode or did it just happen that way because of the plan?
12)Please tell me what was in the students’ mind during the French mooks cooking prep/beatdown moments?
13)What were the black noodles again? I couldn’t hear Eliot’s very complicated explanation of what they really were.
14)How did Rampone (?) not recognize Eliot earlier? I went back and checked, Eliot did attempt to turn away every time they ran into each other, but he looked him dead in the face at least once when Eliot was doing something extremely sketchy in the freezer, and I think a couple of more times. He didn’t seem to have any sense that something was familiar until the knife fight.
15)Eliot left his meal. Was it because it was a bit blood splattered?
16)Was Eliot really debating killing Rampone or was it all just show? If it was show, why? If it wasn’t, how close did he come?
17)Head pat on kid’s head, again very cute and very Eliot.
Good Lord.
1.) Let's see, the Horse Job, this one, one later this season ... out of 77? Nah, we'r enot going for a pattern. Just seemed revelatory.2.) Noted above. 3.) Nope. A one-off based on a room bit.4.) Noted above. Nice vacation, cover story, and there's a lovely severance package waiting for him.5.) As noted. Nate's on mission. Nobody's perfect. Speaking as someone who's been married twenty years, it is very,very easy to miss when a love done is genuinely concerned over something.6) No.8.) It is indeed a call-back to the bond they share from that Job. In particular, while Sophie's very good at explaining things, she;s not necessarily good at understanding the problem Parker is grappling with. Parker sees Eliot as the closest to her in emotional landscape, and went to him for help.9.) Gnar Slabdash.11.) Good noticing.12.) Whatever amuses you most. Primarily fear at letting down Eliot.13.) Squid ink noodles, I believe. You can go back and check on the iTunes version!14.) That's just editing trapping us. Seven days of shooting. Although, as Kane has explained, Eliot didn't have his hair long when he was "working" back in the day. He grew it to throw off people who might be looking for him.15.) His hunger was for justice, and it was sated.16.) Noted above.
@Caravelle: - 1.) A few years ago I heard a report (on French radio) about truffles, and about how there was this Chinese species of truffles which is 1) very common, i.e. cheap and 2) terrible-tasting that was flooding the market and replacing the "good" truffles that grow in France and Italy. Once I saw this episode was about truffles I somehow expected this to come up, and in fact if occurs to me such cheap-but-terrible truffles could have helped Nate pad out the 16 pounds to 20... Did this issue come up during your research at all, and did you consider using it if so ? 2.) the other thing that confused me was Parker's story; I mean, as others have said, isn't thieving "her thing" ? Having just watched the Rashomon job and her doing her happy dance when she gets the knife it surely looks like she's feeling something. And in the Studio Job that was an actual tear on her cheek listening to Eliot sing. 3.) Is it the significant thing here that she's actually trying to explore her emotions where she usually ignores, denies, or represses them ? Or does she want a hobby, to branch out from her laser focus on thieving ? 4.) And while I'm remembering S3, I'd forgotten about that flashback to Eliot in Home Ec. Has he always had a passion or inclination for cooking, or was that just a random class he took in high school and his real passion for cooking came in the story he tells in this episode ?
1.) Yes, it did come up, and was one fo the first versions of the cons we were going to use. There may even be a reference in there kicking around. In the end it got too damn complicated.2.) Again, Parker is looking for a "thing" like a hobby, while thieving is her avocation. Look, I'm giddy when I'm typing, but I also love hiking and game design. You've seen Parker's crash pad. It's thief-a-riffic and not much else.3.) Yes exactly. She's leanring how to prcess her emotions, and that means exploring them hin a non-crisis way.4.) It's where he developed a taste for it. His time with Toby, seasoned by his years of monomaniacal habitual training, brought him to the next level.
@Chelsea: Given the extent of Christian Kane's fight training through the course of the show, what's his capacity to win a real brawl? Does the choreography make practical application tricky, or is it just a matter of gauging distance between fist and opponent?
Answering that question sis the sort of thing that winds up inspiring people to come up and challenge actors to fights in bars. That said, I've known Kane a fair bit of time. He can handle himself.
@Kate: A bit off-episode. I'm set to be the Fixer for a Leverage RPG and wonder if there's a consistent source of ideas for villains you might be able to recommend?
The villain generator in the RPG is pretty great. If you do a search for "Weird Crime" on the web, or peruse the WIRED magazine back issues, they;ve been focusing on 21st Century crime a lot lately.
@KAtie: So the first thing Parker goes to because she loves it is on of the Shades from the Gates of Hell? I'm sure there's some deep inner meaning there. Is there?
Yes. It cleared legal.
@Andrew Wilson: just wondering if I was the only one who thought Palmer and Sneeds small lady in charge and silent enforcer act was great and wishes they reappear in atleast a cameo.
Good lord, I loved those characters. We originally had a much larger scene for them that was cut for time. Just know they are the Riggs and Murtaugh of the Fisheries and Wildlife Agency.
@allyone: did somebody punch Tim Hutton in that last scene or was he allergic to all those truffles he was sniffing? One eye was distractingly red and puffy in that final scene with Rampone and Eliot. Like, injury or medical emergency red and puffy. Which also brings to mind, we know Kane spends his fair share of time getting scuffed up. Have the other actors had any major scrapes?
He did indeed have a weird eye infection flare-up that day. But on our shooting schedule, we couldn't give him the day off.
I think everyone's managed to get a little dinged over the four years. At least emotionally.
********************
Okay, kids, strap in for the next one, in just a few days. As always, thanks for your time and questions!
The episode had many fathers. First, we had the location based off our annual trip to Portland. A fully decked out culinary school, and a character who cooked. Those just don't fall out of the sky.
The sub-plot about Parker reaching for a "thing" came form a discarded sublot in #411 "The Experimental Job". Originally Parker in that episode was going to have a parallel experience to Hardison at the university. Then, as noted, we realized Parker didn't really need or want the validation in that context. So we threw it up on the board for later. It never really went away -- the idea that Parker was somehow blind to the aesthetic value of the objects she routinely heisted was too intriguing to fall off the big board of index cards. When doing an episode about Eliot's "art", it made sense to address that in this show.
We originally had a straight-on subplot about drug-smuggling, but nobody was happy with that. The French farce ending was established early in story breaking -- another sequence from an earlier episode's wish list -- but the way into the plot seemed pretty right down the middle.
This was when Paul Guyot's wife said "Hey, you should watch this 60 Minutes piece on truffle smuggling." Paul brought that idea into the room, and we jumped on it.
It also gave us our title. "How are we changing it from drugs to truffles?" Paul asked.
"The trick is we're not," I choked around some Bushmills. "Do ALL the tropes of the drug episodes, just with truffles. We're doing The French Connection with truffles." And there you go.
We then got a double helping of luck on the casting. For the villain, the amazing Steve Valentine. One of the nice things about fifth season is that (possibly unearned) air of legitimacy. Cary Elwes, Treat Williams, Steve Valentine, Gregg Henry later in the year ... we had some very fine villains this season.
And, of course,
To answer approximately 60% of the questions up front -- yes, that was Kane doing his own chopping.
Other than that, the shoot went smooth as silk, with some great directing by
Right, so let's see what your fevered brains have cooked up. Oh, and a reminder we anwer some of these questions and a few more on the Leverage10 podcast. ...
@Kevin W: Ok, the henchman's name was clearly Rampone but I could have sworn Sophie's alias was Wambach. Is there a USWNT fan writing for you guys?
That would be Paul Guyot. He and Joe Hortua are giant soccer fans, who have recently attempted to win me over to the sport. Go Everton!!
@Pixie: 1.) Maybe I missed something, but where did the team get enough truffles for the first 'shipment' Nate sold?I knew it was going to end up being truffles the moment the deal took place in a cooking school. 2.) did some of this come up through research on The Last Dam Job? Because it strikes me that quahog or truffle, it's importing a potentially invasive species without permit. Which the penalties are woefully inadequate for, when you consider the potential for damage.
1.) They came from a friend of the victim. May have gone by too fast in the edit, apologies. 2.) Nope, the origin was mentioned above. it was fun coming up with the dead serious Fisheries and Wildlife Agents. We may have broken out an entirely new spin-off for them at one point.
@Calla: So, is part of the theme of this season about the team rediscovering things about themselves? Hardison - what has he forgotten that he used to enjoy?
That's not quite right. This was much more about Eliot broadening out Parker's world-view -- and even more importantly, Parker being emotionally evolved enough to feel like she's missing something. The "art is communication" runner is one of my personal hobbyhorses.
@Eleanor Rigby: 1.) Annoying science question: what on earth did Hardison inject into his super cool liquid nitrogen safe popper? Because, s'far as I know, liquid nitrogen looks like boiling water and not iridescent blue liquid (also, if it's cold enough to pop a safe, it's cold enough to shatter a plastic syringe.) 2.) Is the Foodie Queen a real (fictional) person? Did Parker just borrow her identity for a night?
1.) That's not a plastic syringe, it just looks plastic. 2.) She is base don a real food critic, and more generally on the research we did about the great lengths food critics will go in New York to stay anonymous, and how the restaurants deal with that. Big City restaurants really do have mug shot/sketches of food critics up by the reception desk. Funky, eh?
@oppyu: 1.) What were you doing with Hardison this episode? Elliot was shedding light onto his mysterious backstory, Parker was learning to grow as a person outside of stealing stuff, Sophie was learning to grow as a person outside of crime and acting (for herself) in general, Nate was in the background doing his usual mastermind thing, but Hardison seemed to be front-and-centre doing... nothing. Geeking out over the laser was very in-character and funny, but edible paper and being a douche about tipping seemed a little... I dunno, redundant? The others got character development with their funny, while Hardison just got funny. Which is fair enough, but it just stands out a bit when he's front-and-centre even though he's kind of irrelevant to the grift (I mean, the grift we see. We all remember how quickly the team falls apart without Hardison in 'The Gold Job'; he's definitely not irrelevant.)
2.) Just how good is Elliot at cooking? Talented amateur, someone who could make a decent living as a professional, someone who could make a fantastic living as a professional, or heads-and-shoulders above every other cook in the world? Turning a bunch of uninterested, untalented rich people into professional chefs in the time it takes to set up a con must have taken some talent.
3.) Was that Kane doing the knife stuff during Elliot's fast vegetable chopping into to his students? That seems like it could be very dangerous for someone who wasn't a talented cook.
4.) where the hell does Elliot find the time to be the world's baddest bad-ass, top-notch chef, quality singer and flirty Casanova all at once? It's ridiculous how talented that man is...
1.) I think we just wanted to use Hardison to show off the cool high-tech culinary stuff we found in the research. It's a goddam five hander, people. Not everybody's on point.2.) Eliot could make a very good living at cooking. He's not one to do anything half-way well.3.) Kane and knife. Correct. He really can cook, you know, we're not making this up.4.) It's an accretion of experience. And considering Kane does his own stunts, cooks, sings and is, well, him, we're not exactly writing an impossible dude here.
@Sarah W: I wouldn't have expected him to undertip, either, considering how free he usually is with his money---and how paid for the potential damages to the bar when Sterling walked in way back in The Zanzibar Marketplace. i'm waiting for that to mean something, too---should I? I feel like a conspiracy theorist, but you've trained me to assume everything is relevant to either the episode or the seasonal arc. Maybe y'all are just a little too good at your jobs (that sounds oddly familiar . . . ).
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. I think the tipping bit came out of a discussion we had in the room, where we actually had this argument. I always thought you should tip UP FRONT, to guarantee good service for the meal to follow. But that's just me.
@Allyone: The only thing that fell flat for me is the idea the Parker lost touch with her own passion. This is the girl who's probably the most consistently passionate (next to maybe Hardison) about what she does. I thought the idea that she didn't get someone else's passion could have been explored on it's own without it coming from a place of her not feeling it herself.
No, that wasn't the intent -- and the theme probably wasn't helped by the Sophie coaching beat, which none of us thought of as on the same theme until YOU people saw it that way. A constant reminder that you guys are not necessarily seeing the same show we think we're making. Parker knows she loves stealing. But the others interests are non-thiefy. Parker was realizing she has no emotional connection to anything outside work.
@Unknown: Why was the airport capture by Fish and Wildlife instead of the Department of Agriculture?
Because, oddly, that's who it would be. We've seen some arguments otherwise, but frankly it's just a funnier Department name.
@Lori: 1.) Was the window to the outdoors in the pub there in the last 3 eps? 2.) Did some of the students' names get changed from script to filming (uh..Whitney?).
1.) Yep. 2) We varied the number of students in the drafts, and changed sexes. Not uncommon.
@SaffieDarling: 1.) I actually have a question that dates back to the (Very) Big Bird Job: do you feel that by creating an episode that features the Spruce Goose, but not a single cast member in aviator goggles, you've broken your contract with the audience? 2.) How is the brewpub menu going?
1.) Aviator goggles are more Sopwith Camel than Spruce Goose. 2.) It's a work in progress. Currently half Eliot and half Hardison. Guess which half is more popular ...
@ChelseaNH: Just a note of concern, though: I have been noticing some learning lately, and I'm starting to fear that there might be hugging soon.
There will be some bro-hugging.
@petticoat: 1.) What was Sophie's tree-hugger accent? It sounded like it was in and out of British with some Ashley Judd thrown in? Perhaps some UK country-esque regional accent? 2.) Did Nate fill up those last 4-ish pounds of truffles with something else? 3.) It seems like the villains this season are more personable. And hilarious. ('Napoleon's dead.' 'Thank you, Rampone.') Is this a conscious trend or just something happening on its own?
1.) as commenter Suzanne M points out: "Sophie's accent was a pretty spot on West Country (South West England) accent. It's stereotypically spoken by Cornwall/Devon farmers but I'm from Bristol in the South West and know a fair few people who talk exactly like that and have that kind of twang myself to be honest! You don't hear that accent on American tv very often! It was pretty great."2.) No, he got them from Toby.3.) I think it's a mix of the types of cons and casting. The casting's been super-strong this year.
@PurpleOps:1. Wasn't Hardison's insult of the delivery man by not wanting to tip him somewhat out of character? And was Hardison really receiving D&D material? (If so, gotta be Rogers' hardcovers!)
2. Did Eliot do all his own cutting? Particularly good rhythm on his initial cutting sequence. How much wound up on the, erm, cutting room floor?
3. Did Eliot actually say "And I smelt it" at one point, rather than "smelled"?
4. About midway through the episode, there was this cityscape shot, and a very loud "wipe" sound effect. We've heard such wipe sounds before, but never that loud. What might have happened?
5. What accent was Gina doing as the "hippie"? It seemed to swing wildly between something UK and American - very odd.
1.) See above for the tipping thing. Honestly, it struck us as a quirk. And yes, they were the D&D hardcovers.2) Him.3.) Maybe. I;d have to go back and check.4.) Sometimes the mix gets distorted in the compression between the distribution copy and however your cable/satellite provider encodes the signal to get it to your box. We see and hear weird artifacting all the time when we watch on TV. Makes us wince, but there;s nothing you can do.5.) Noted above.
@Cheese: I loved this episode as I usually do with Leverage but I was just wondering: are we ever going to see deeper into Hardison's backstory? His may be the least dramatic out of the team, but I think we've seen the least of hardisons background story outside of his hacking escapades as a teenager in little glimpses. It would be fun to learn more about his experience in foster care with Nana maybe.
You kids love your Hardison backstory. Not this year. As we've discussed in the podcast, we always felt you joined Hardison early enough in his arc, you were kind of getting his "backstory" from episode #101.
@Suzanne M: My question: I loved the Parker & Eliot stuff. I'm really liking the way Eliot's letting his guard down even more this season - explaining his love of food, asking Nate for help and last week almost telling Nate & Sophie about his helicopter missions before catching himself and covering with the hilarious fishing line (amazing line read there btw). Is this deliberate or am I reading too much into things?
Eliot's definitely more comfortable with the team this year. The tone of the season is indeed to show that they are in a new equilibrium.
@Video Beagle: Ok, I'm missing something...how is having the truffles illegal, if restaurants are advertising that they have them?
Not having truffles -- importing truffles, and doing it from a black market to boot.
@Izzie: What book is Parker reading when Hardison's package arrives?
The stoic writings of Marcus Aurelius, as recommended by Nate.
@Bill Crouch: How long does the cast have the script before filming?
The script drops during prep. So in theory they have about three to five days, but note that they are filming when that script arrives. For big ones with great demands on the actors (big emotional scenes, high page count for one character) we try to get it out early. To tell the truth we usually have the script done a good two weeks before prep at least, but I don't like loose scripts floating around in the production cycle. Distracting.
@David Hunt: So how much of that scene of Eliot holding the knife on the Busey was Eliot actually considering killing the guy and how much was Eliot punishing him by making himthink Eliot was about to kill him? I lean more toward the former, but his conversation with Nate makes me wonder.
I'd say that's a Kane acting choice there more than a writing choice. However, I think I can point to an actual decision moment in the performance. YMMV.
@Laney: I was watching season 4 of Leverage on dvd and realized something when watching it. In episode 10 (The Queen's Gambit Job), when Sterling and Eliot are in the car, Sterling says to Eliot "You're father says that you crawled 3 miles through a sewer to kill the head of Al Qaeda in Yemin, but the coffee is a problem". So, Sterling mentions that he has talked to Eliot's father; so does that mean that Sterling knows his father? If so, that should definitely be in an episode! Please respond, because I'm interested to hear what you think!
Sorry, Laney, Sterling said "Your file says you crawled ..."
@Katie and others ... Jesus, last episode Hardison is jury-rigging starscapes to make Parker feel good about not being able to follow through on the date she was planning, and now he's a putz? Let the guy have an off week.
Oona: 1.) When Nate and Eliot are talking at the beginning about Eliot's past, Nate says basically "you did wetwork," and Eliot nods. Google tells me that means assassinations/murders. Correct? 2.) Was Eliot really close to killing Rampone before Nate stepped in? If so, are we to assume that Eliot would only slip that far back if someone was a real threat to someone very important to him? 3.) Also, did I hear right that Eliot referred to having worked as a PMC - Private Military Contractor?
1.) Oh yeah. Eliot was a bad man. 2.) Others would answer differently. I'd say "No, but he was certainly comfortable with the idea." 3.) Yes, before he quit to become a retrieval specialist, he did time with a PMC.
@Jessica Snyder: Did christian really get cut while doing the knife fight with Marshall? Chris's reaction to it looked like he really got cut by the knife Yep. Some day if you meet him in person, ask Kane to take you through the tour of his scars.
@Crazy Eddie: Why did Nate shake his head and blow off Parker after one question? How did everyone except Sohpie manage to forget that Parker already had a passion. At the end, was she reembracing her passion, or was she *seeing* the artwork for the first time and that's why she was shown looking around and not touching anything?
1.) Because Nate is often kind of a dick. 2.) It wasn;t about not having a passion, it was about not understanding a passion that wasn't crime-related. 3.) Seeing it for the first time.
@PsychoKitty: 1.) Alright, so the French guy who was dealing the truffles was named Jean-Luc and the guy sitting next to him in the front of the car was called Patrick. Is that subtle reference to Sir Patrick Stewart and Star Trek: TNG? Because it made me very, very happy (especially after the "Willy Riker" thing in the previous episode)! 2.) is there ever going to be another Con-Con? I saw all of the video from the 2010 one but didn't hear about it until afterwards and ever since I've really wanted to go!
1.) You people miss nothing. 2.) We're not planning on it, but the Fan Con seemed pretty fun this year.
@SueN: Most of my questions have been asked above, so I'll throw out that occurred to me this morning, about the teaching chef Sophie cleared out with the cooking strippers reality show. What happened to the poor guy when he got to wherever he was going and discovered there were no strippers? Or, more meta, what happens to anyone the team clears out with a fake story and plane tickets? Do they just enjoy the free vacation, or does the team actually have something waiting for them?
It depends. Nice people get a free vacation and soft let-down. In the chef's case, Hardison had actors from an ARG group tell the guy the financing fell through.
@CHelsea: You guys come up with a ton of backstory for the crew that never makes it into the show. What's the best heist or con pulled off by a character or the team that the audience doesn't know about?
You see little bits of it in this week's episode, "The Broken Wing Job".
@Shayna: I don't mean to be crude but... have Hardison and Parker... consummated? The reason I ask is because Parker seemed really unfamiliar with sex in season 3. Notice I didn't say she'd never experienced it before. That I could not tell. But she certainly didn't seem to know it when she heard it. I realize that was for a cartoonish comedic beat but still. In addition, she clearly hasn't gotten close to anyone before Hardison (at least no one that didn't then leave her). I don't know if Leverage is the type of show where you can deal with that kind of thing (physcial intimacy I mean. Maybe that's too "adult") but I just want to know what we're supposed to assume as viewers (and I was kind of looking forward to Sophie giving Parker "he sex talk". Not that we were promised that or anything). It seems like they're sleeping together and she has no issue with it (waking up in the morning with one of Hardison's t-shirts on is a clue). Are we just to assume everything is hunky dory on that front? Did I spell hunky dory right? Is it bad that I'm too lazy to look it up? Does that make me a product of a lazy generation?
You lazy, lazy sex pervert.
No, right, let's see ... I'm going to go with, as usual, "whatever makes you want to watch the show more." I think to enjoy this year you just have to know they are emotionally intimate and physically comfortable. Anything more is up to you.
@SureenderDorothy: I know you can't talk about the actor's contracts but, out of curiosity, did Gina ask for time off or something? I'm not saying us Sophie fans are getting shafted or anything. I'm happy with what we're getting. It just seems like something is off with her presence. Does the network put any pressure on you to focus on characters that they know are really popular? Like Eliot and Parker? I'm just curious. Again, no complaining. Just genuine curiosity. Sophie's character must be hard because you don't really want to dig too much into her back story (which you know we hate haha) so you have to create conflicts and obstacles for her that are very... present tense. like her theatre. It explores her character in an interesting way without actually revealing anything about her. Is that right? Or am I way off?
The network never tells us to do anything with the characters. TNT are a remarkably freeing creative partner. They give us feedback on tone and plot, but don't dictate the fine tuning of the show at all.
I think you can look at it two ways. Sophie's arc was accelerated when Gina stepped out for her pregnancy in S2, so when she came back the character had settled a lot of stuff in her head. Instead of looking at her conflicts, look at how often she gives THE emotional or support speech in the episode over the last two seasons, and how often she's in the last keynote scene of the show.
You're also in a bit of a weird place in the season. The back half is much Sophie-heavier.
@Sabine: Eliot had already developed (or regained) some principles about his job before the Nigerian Job. So when he says that Nate kept him from hitting the bottom, is he referring to something that happened before the team got together or does he mean Nate kept him from backsliding?
Backsliding, although at that point Eliot was really more in a holding patter, rather than moving forward.
@TJ: 1)It seems like Eliot bring in most of the personal cases – a lot of the times, one particular character will get attached to a case after it comes in, but Eliot so far is the one who has brought in the most aside from maybe Nate himself, most of those cases Nate hears about from other people who bring them to the team for him. Eliot is the one who actually acknowledges the people he knows and says “These are good people and this should be a job.” Any reason for that, character wise? 2)What was Parker reading?
3Is Hardison going to regret that whole tip thing later in the season? That seems like it should be a running joke, considering how much stuff he orders.
4)What happens to the old chef when there is no show and there are no strippers? Does he just try to get his old job back confused or slink away in misery or what?
5)What made Nate give up on helping Parker? His exasperation seemed kind of quick especially since it was obvious Parker was so…distraught, (for Parker, at least.)
6Was the techno pop theme playing while Hardison and Eliot were arguing their theme song from the car chase? It sounded a bit out of place until I realized it sounded a bit familiar…
7)Poor Chef Eliot just laying on Stonerboy and squeezing the strawberry – hilarious.
8How did it end up being Eliot and not Sophie that Parker went to with her feelings problem? (Character wise and writing wise…) Normally when she wants to be “normal” or understand people she asks Sophie for advice. Was it the “It makes us, us.” (From Long Way Down) principle in action?
9)Please tell me where the hell the N was in Nate’s alias? Please.
10)What part of the U.K. was Rebecca the co-op lady suppose to be from? I recognize the accent, (sort of) but I don’t know the location.
11)How did Lampart not realize how badly he got screwed in Nate’s version of the truffle deal? He was a full four pounds light…
11)I’ve noticed this a bit lately, I think everyone has, but specifically in this episode is Nate pushing Hardison (thief-wise) and Sophie (mastermind-wise) in this episode or did it just happen that way because of the plan?
12)Please tell me what was in the students’ mind during the French mooks cooking prep/beatdown moments?
13)What were the black noodles again? I couldn’t hear Eliot’s very complicated explanation of what they really were.
14)How did Rampone (?) not recognize Eliot earlier? I went back and checked, Eliot did attempt to turn away every time they ran into each other, but he looked him dead in the face at least once when Eliot was doing something extremely sketchy in the freezer, and I think a couple of more times. He didn’t seem to have any sense that something was familiar until the knife fight.
15)Eliot left his meal. Was it because it was a bit blood splattered?
16)Was Eliot really debating killing Rampone or was it all just show? If it was show, why? If it wasn’t, how close did he come?
17)Head pat on kid’s head, again very cute and very Eliot.
Good Lord.
1.) Let's see, the Horse Job, this one, one later this season ... out of 77? Nah, we'r enot going for a pattern. Just seemed revelatory.2.) Noted above. 3.) Nope. A one-off based on a room bit.4.) Noted above. Nice vacation, cover story, and there's a lovely severance package waiting for him.5.) As noted. Nate's on mission. Nobody's perfect. Speaking as someone who's been married twenty years, it is very,very easy to miss when a love done is genuinely concerned over something.6) No.8.) It is indeed a call-back to the bond they share from that Job. In particular, while Sophie's very good at explaining things, she;s not necessarily good at understanding the problem Parker is grappling with. Parker sees Eliot as the closest to her in emotional landscape, and went to him for help.9.) Gnar Slabdash.11.) Good noticing.12.) Whatever amuses you most. Primarily fear at letting down Eliot.13.) Squid ink noodles, I believe. You can go back and check on the iTunes version!14.) That's just editing trapping us. Seven days of shooting. Although, as Kane has explained, Eliot didn't have his hair long when he was "working" back in the day. He grew it to throw off people who might be looking for him.15.) His hunger was for justice, and it was sated.16.) Noted above.
@Caravelle: - 1.) A few years ago I heard a report (on French radio) about truffles, and about how there was this Chinese species of truffles which is 1) very common, i.e. cheap and 2) terrible-tasting that was flooding the market and replacing the "good" truffles that grow in France and Italy. Once I saw this episode was about truffles I somehow expected this to come up, and in fact if occurs to me such cheap-but-terrible truffles could have helped Nate pad out the 16 pounds to 20... Did this issue come up during your research at all, and did you consider using it if so ? 2.) the other thing that confused me was Parker's story; I mean, as others have said, isn't thieving "her thing" ? Having just watched the Rashomon job and her doing her happy dance when she gets the knife it surely looks like she's feeling something. And in the Studio Job that was an actual tear on her cheek listening to Eliot sing. 3.) Is it the significant thing here that she's actually trying to explore her emotions where she usually ignores, denies, or represses them ? Or does she want a hobby, to branch out from her laser focus on thieving ? 4.) And while I'm remembering S3, I'd forgotten about that flashback to Eliot in Home Ec. Has he always had a passion or inclination for cooking, or was that just a random class he took in high school and his real passion for cooking came in the story he tells in this episode ?
1.) Yes, it did come up, and was one fo the first versions of the cons we were going to use. There may even be a reference in there kicking around. In the end it got too damn complicated.2.) Again, Parker is looking for a "thing" like a hobby, while thieving is her avocation. Look, I'm giddy when I'm typing, but I also love hiking and game design. You've seen Parker's crash pad. It's thief-a-riffic and not much else.3.) Yes exactly. She's leanring how to prcess her emotions, and that means exploring them hin a non-crisis way.4.) It's where he developed a taste for it. His time with Toby, seasoned by his years of monomaniacal habitual training, brought him to the next level.
@Chelsea: Given the extent of Christian Kane's fight training through the course of the show, what's his capacity to win a real brawl? Does the choreography make practical application tricky, or is it just a matter of gauging distance between fist and opponent?
Answering that question sis the sort of thing that winds up inspiring people to come up and challenge actors to fights in bars. That said, I've known Kane a fair bit of time. He can handle himself.
@Kate: A bit off-episode. I'm set to be the Fixer for a Leverage RPG and wonder if there's a consistent source of ideas for villains you might be able to recommend?
The villain generator in the RPG is pretty great. If you do a search for "Weird Crime" on the web, or peruse the WIRED magazine back issues, they;ve been focusing on 21st Century crime a lot lately.
@KAtie: So the first thing Parker goes to because she loves it is on of the Shades from the Gates of Hell? I'm sure there's some deep inner meaning there. Is there?
Yes. It cleared legal.
@Andrew Wilson: just wondering if I was the only one who thought Palmer and Sneeds small lady in charge and silent enforcer act was great and wishes they reappear in atleast a cameo.
Good lord, I loved those characters. We originally had a much larger scene for them that was cut for time. Just know they are the Riggs and Murtaugh of the Fisheries and Wildlife Agency.
@allyone: did somebody punch Tim Hutton in that last scene or was he allergic to all those truffles he was sniffing? One eye was distractingly red and puffy in that final scene with Rampone and Eliot. Like, injury or medical emergency red and puffy. Which also brings to mind, we know Kane spends his fair share of time getting scuffed up. Have the other actors had any major scrapes?
He did indeed have a weird eye infection flare-up that day. But on our shooting schedule, we couldn't give him the day off.
I think everyone's managed to get a little dinged over the four years. At least emotionally.
********************
Okay, kids, strap in for the next one, in just a few days. As always, thanks for your time and questions!
September 5, 2012
TREMULUS: the horror storytelling game
I'm deep in writing -- well, everything right now. But I promised Sean Preston (@realityblurs) that I'd do a write up of a session he ran for us of his new game tremulus, which is currently rocking Kickstarter. I told him that I couldn't give a full-on recommendation until I'd playtested. I think Reality Blurs does some of the best supplements on Earth for the Savage Worlds game system, but this was an entirely new system and I was flying blind.
This is going to be a geek deep cut, so prepare yourself.
For those of you new to gaming, this is not your traditional dice-rolling, sword-swinging shoot'em up role-playing game. It's a storytelling game -- a game where the Game Master and players collaborate to create a narrative within a somewhat loose rules framework. Good RPG's are always part improv, as players detail their characters' actions within the game world. In many RPG's you roll the dice to accomplish a goal or pass a test. In Storytelling games, during your turn you take some level of control of the gameworld and narrative itself. tremulus blends elements from such storytelling games as Apocalypse World, Fate and Fiasco.
A reminder, for those who'd like to see how Fiasco is played, from Wil Wheaton's show Tabletop:
Set-up
Game Session Pt. 1
Game Session Pt. 2
Bonus, the Hong Kong shoot'em up Fiasco playset I helped design - HKTPK is here.
tremulus is built around playsets: descriptions of characters who would ordinarily star in H.P. Lovecraft-type stories, defined by few very simple little bonuses to die rolls and with a phrase or two explaining what THEY can do in the game that NO ONE ELSE CAN. Characters such as the Alienist, the Heir, the Reporter, the Antiquarian, etc. Each player picks one of eleven archetypes -- no doubling up. You then pick a simple package that defines what variation of that character you are running (smarter or faster? Stronger or more charming?) to affect die rolls, pick some possessions from a list, and that's it. You just created a character. These characters have physical and mental damage tracks which can be worn down by their experiences in the story. It's quite possible for your character to die or go mad during the tale.
The limited customization choices directly affect the simple gameplay engine, which is strangely freeing. If nothing else matters, you have the freedom to play ANYTHING else as relevant to your character. Like Fiasco, you have just enough details to create story and relationship seeds.
Sean agreed to Skype-run a session for myself and some other playtesters. I'd note that with the exception of some technical issues, the game played very, very well over Skype. Sean mentioned he's logged over 60 hours of play on Skype. tremulus would be be an excellent online gameplay choice.
The playtesters were myself, Leverage long-timer but gaming newbie Rebecca Kirsch (@rdkirsch) and screenwriter/game-designer Christopher Kubasik, creator of the Hulu show The Booth at the End, which is finally now getting the buzz its funky moral weirdness deserves.
I picked the Dilettante Playset, Kirsch the Professor, and CK the Alienist. No more than ten minutes later we had names, possessions, relative abilities and relationships in play. I was Winslow Hamilton (of the Pittsburgh Hamiltons), bluff adventuring toff; Kirsch was Professor Cynthia December, disturbed semi-psychic professor; Christopher was the icily obsessed mind-parser Simon King. I'd note that a lot of these descriptions came out of the relationships which the game placed on us, somewhat randomly. Again, like Fiasco, it tosses you the rules seed, and you gleefully blow it up.
All dice rolls are player-facing -- the players make ALL the rolls. You don't really have to know the rules. Say what your character is doing, take a look at the front of your sheet and figure out what roll that corresponds to, roll, and check the result. Succeed or fail, it's up to you. The Game-Master then helps you improvise what that success or failure meant in the story. I'd never played this kind of system before except for a bit of dabbling in Steve Kenson's ICONS! superhero game, and I will say I dig it immensely. No waiting around while the GM rolls to see what people you didn't create and aren't playing do. If I could grind the math to get SW to be player-facing I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Often when you succeed, you often define what that sucess means. Did you convince a guy by winning him over or breaking his arm? How you describe the action adds to the narrative and changes the prameters of the story.
We then created -- WE DID! -- our game setting. Your Game Master can make up his own world, but for fast-play the players answer a few yes-or-no (and disquieting) questions about the town of Ebon Eaves. These answers inform the GM on what conspiracies and threats swirl under the surface of the town. It's worth noting that the limited number of questions concerning the town give you plenty of non-repetitive gameplay. The Kickstart strretch goals have added two new locations, adding a ridiculous number of variations into the game.
We then picked the year and the location (adding even more variation). And so Ebon Eaves became a troubled farm valley town in California, 1928. From zero to play in a little under half an hour, with lots of rules discussion.
We improvised our arrival -- sharing the same train, all friends interested in investigating weirdness. Taking my car (one of my possessions), we set off to check out rumors of a bizarre gold fever which afflicted the town intermittently. Townsfolk will occasionally just up and walk into the surrounding mountains, never to return. As we drove in, making small talk, we were passed by a truckload of men with pickaxes. We gave pursuit to see where they were going. I rolled to see how well I acted under pressure -- and woofed it. Now what did that mean? All that meant rules-wise was that I failed. HOW I failed was fluid. Did I drive into a ditch? Hit a tree? No, in this case Sean decided my car simply threw a gasket. We were stranded a few miles out of town.
At this point I asked Sean "Can we split up?", which most of you gamers know is death in a game. But Sean said "Sure, tremulus can handle that fine!" So Winston and the Professor hoofed it into town. Simon King set off down the road to see if he could find the amateur miners.
The game then flowed quite neatly between Winston (taking a bit of fatigue damage from the hot hike) and the Professor walking into town to find a mechanic and Simon's adventures in the hills. Winston and Professor December found an Italian mechanic (who was created, again, almost completely by we players) who sold them his own car. Simon encountered a ghostly priest who came perilously close to driving him mad before he'd even reached town. By the time the group reconvened we'd discovered evidence of a lost Tibetan Cthulhoid artifact in the hills and a connection to the corrupt Mayor -- all by taking actions and asking questions within the game world.
Once we returned to town we set up a meeting with the corrupt Mayor. He seemed a likable sort, but during dinner the Professor managed to get a glimpse of his signet ring. Oh, that was the sign of the King in Yellow, all right. Something was very, very wrong in Ebon Eaves ...
We had to leave it off there. Despite the fact that my character spent a chunk of the time walking to town and buying a car, I was never bored or frustrated. Even my failures in tremulus had consequences (the subject of how to treat failure in an RPG is endlessly fascinating for me), and my most minor successes allowed me to make interesting tweaks to the story. We were fully engaged in the story and the world at all times.
The tremulus playtest did what it was supposed to: it convinced me that the game would be a ton of fun for both short and long-term play. Not only that, it made me want to try the games its engine was based on, which is even more flattering.
The tremulus Kickstarter ends on Oct. 1. I recommend this game whole-heartedly for players of all styles and skill levels.
This is going to be a geek deep cut, so prepare yourself.
For those of you new to gaming, this is not your traditional dice-rolling, sword-swinging shoot'em up role-playing game. It's a storytelling game -- a game where the Game Master and players collaborate to create a narrative within a somewhat loose rules framework. Good RPG's are always part improv, as players detail their characters' actions within the game world. In many RPG's you roll the dice to accomplish a goal or pass a test. In Storytelling games, during your turn you take some level of control of the gameworld and narrative itself. tremulus blends elements from such storytelling games as Apocalypse World, Fate and Fiasco.
A reminder, for those who'd like to see how Fiasco is played, from Wil Wheaton's show Tabletop:
Set-up
Game Session Pt. 1
Game Session Pt. 2
Bonus, the Hong Kong shoot'em up Fiasco playset I helped design - HKTPK is here.
tremulus is built around playsets: descriptions of characters who would ordinarily star in H.P. Lovecraft-type stories, defined by few very simple little bonuses to die rolls and with a phrase or two explaining what THEY can do in the game that NO ONE ELSE CAN. Characters such as the Alienist, the Heir, the Reporter, the Antiquarian, etc. Each player picks one of eleven archetypes -- no doubling up. You then pick a simple package that defines what variation of that character you are running (smarter or faster? Stronger or more charming?) to affect die rolls, pick some possessions from a list, and that's it. You just created a character. These characters have physical and mental damage tracks which can be worn down by their experiences in the story. It's quite possible for your character to die or go mad during the tale.
The limited customization choices directly affect the simple gameplay engine, which is strangely freeing. If nothing else matters, you have the freedom to play ANYTHING else as relevant to your character. Like Fiasco, you have just enough details to create story and relationship seeds.
Sean agreed to Skype-run a session for myself and some other playtesters. I'd note that with the exception of some technical issues, the game played very, very well over Skype. Sean mentioned he's logged over 60 hours of play on Skype. tremulus would be be an excellent online gameplay choice.
The playtesters were myself, Leverage long-timer but gaming newbie Rebecca Kirsch (@rdkirsch) and screenwriter/game-designer Christopher Kubasik, creator of the Hulu show The Booth at the End, which is finally now getting the buzz its funky moral weirdness deserves.
I picked the Dilettante Playset, Kirsch the Professor, and CK the Alienist. No more than ten minutes later we had names, possessions, relative abilities and relationships in play. I was Winslow Hamilton (of the Pittsburgh Hamiltons), bluff adventuring toff; Kirsch was Professor Cynthia December, disturbed semi-psychic professor; Christopher was the icily obsessed mind-parser Simon King. I'd note that a lot of these descriptions came out of the relationships which the game placed on us, somewhat randomly. Again, like Fiasco, it tosses you the rules seed, and you gleefully blow it up.
All dice rolls are player-facing -- the players make ALL the rolls. You don't really have to know the rules. Say what your character is doing, take a look at the front of your sheet and figure out what roll that corresponds to, roll, and check the result. Succeed or fail, it's up to you. The Game-Master then helps you improvise what that success or failure meant in the story. I'd never played this kind of system before except for a bit of dabbling in Steve Kenson's ICONS! superhero game, and I will say I dig it immensely. No waiting around while the GM rolls to see what people you didn't create and aren't playing do. If I could grind the math to get SW to be player-facing I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Often when you succeed, you often define what that sucess means. Did you convince a guy by winning him over or breaking his arm? How you describe the action adds to the narrative and changes the prameters of the story.
We then created -- WE DID! -- our game setting. Your Game Master can make up his own world, but for fast-play the players answer a few yes-or-no (and disquieting) questions about the town of Ebon Eaves. These answers inform the GM on what conspiracies and threats swirl under the surface of the town. It's worth noting that the limited number of questions concerning the town give you plenty of non-repetitive gameplay. The Kickstart strretch goals have added two new locations, adding a ridiculous number of variations into the game.
We then picked the year and the location (adding even more variation). And so Ebon Eaves became a troubled farm valley town in California, 1928. From zero to play in a little under half an hour, with lots of rules discussion.
We improvised our arrival -- sharing the same train, all friends interested in investigating weirdness. Taking my car (one of my possessions), we set off to check out rumors of a bizarre gold fever which afflicted the town intermittently. Townsfolk will occasionally just up and walk into the surrounding mountains, never to return. As we drove in, making small talk, we were passed by a truckload of men with pickaxes. We gave pursuit to see where they were going. I rolled to see how well I acted under pressure -- and woofed it. Now what did that mean? All that meant rules-wise was that I failed. HOW I failed was fluid. Did I drive into a ditch? Hit a tree? No, in this case Sean decided my car simply threw a gasket. We were stranded a few miles out of town.
At this point I asked Sean "Can we split up?", which most of you gamers know is death in a game. But Sean said "Sure, tremulus can handle that fine!" So Winston and the Professor hoofed it into town. Simon King set off down the road to see if he could find the amateur miners.
The game then flowed quite neatly between Winston (taking a bit of fatigue damage from the hot hike) and the Professor walking into town to find a mechanic and Simon's adventures in the hills. Winston and Professor December found an Italian mechanic (who was created, again, almost completely by we players) who sold them his own car. Simon encountered a ghostly priest who came perilously close to driving him mad before he'd even reached town. By the time the group reconvened we'd discovered evidence of a lost Tibetan Cthulhoid artifact in the hills and a connection to the corrupt Mayor -- all by taking actions and asking questions within the game world.
Once we returned to town we set up a meeting with the corrupt Mayor. He seemed a likable sort, but during dinner the Professor managed to get a glimpse of his signet ring. Oh, that was the sign of the King in Yellow, all right. Something was very, very wrong in Ebon Eaves ...
We had to leave it off there. Despite the fact that my character spent a chunk of the time walking to town and buying a car, I was never bored or frustrated. Even my failures in tremulus had consequences (the subject of how to treat failure in an RPG is endlessly fascinating for me), and my most minor successes allowed me to make interesting tweaks to the story. We were fully engaged in the story and the world at all times.
The tremulus playtest did what it was supposed to: it convinced me that the game would be a ton of fun for both short and long-term play. Not only that, it made me want to try the games its engine was based on, which is even more flattering.
The tremulus Kickstarter ends on Oct. 1. I recommend this game whole-heartedly for players of all styles and skill levels.
September 2, 2012
LEVERAGE #507 "The Real Fake Car Job" Question Post
Matthew Lillard is a God who walks among us. Questions, rants, sighs and murmurs should be posted below.
August 26, 2012
LEVERAGE #506 "The DB Cooper Job" Question Post
It was moustache-a-riffic. And yes, you're welcome for that flight attendant uniform. Qustions, rants, hue and cry in the usual spot.
John Rogers's Blog
- John Rogers's profile
- 42 followers
John Rogers isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
