Kung Fu Monkey

Netflix Friday #3: WIRE IN THE BLOOD S1-S3

2009-11-14T18:09:00.000-08:00

Robson Green. After a run on the early 90's British hit Soldier, Soldier -- widely considered one of the best television shows about serving in the armed forces ever made* -- Green was on the dreamboat track. His recording of "Unchained Melody" was the best selling single in Britain in '95.

He forms his own production company in '02 to leverage his fame, and what does he do? Wire in the Blood. It's as if just-post ER Clooney signed on to play Cracker, and out-Coltraned Coltrane.

Based on a series of very fine novels by Val McDermid, the series follows Green as psychiatrist Dr. Tony Hill, dragooned into helping the police catch killers by DCI Carol Jordan (Hermione Norris). Now, in the ordinary TV-land version he'd be quirky, she'd be adorably spiky -- it's Castle with psychobabble! Wheee!**

But no -- Hill's an unlikable obsessive who walks with a pre-occupied waddle, carries a battered blue plastic shopping bag as his briefcase, and has some serious sexual issues. Over the course of six seasons, his will is utterly broken by the abominations he witnesses. In the 2008 TV movie Prayer to the Bone, a suspect whom Hill believes has PTSD snaps at him: "Maybe you have PTSD." Hill considers for a moment and honestly answers: "Yes, I probably do."

Hill doesn't just catch killers -- he then often treats them. His sympathy never comes across as a TV technique of showing how sensitive he is; instead, it's a natural outgrowth of his obsessive need to understand and his basic humanity.

Some episodes do descend into high pulp (or, rather, ascend). But over the course of six seasons there are damn few clunkers, plenty of very dark moments and some great, twisty, fucked-up mysteries.

If there are six seasons, why do I only recommend S1-S3? Because if you watch all six you'll enjoy them, but those first three seasons are where you get to watch Hermione Norris break your goddam heart. No offense to her replacement, Simone Lahbib, but watching Green and Norris slowly circle in on a strangely noble co-dependency is just great, gut-level storytelling. I have had friends who wanted to quit writing after watching those first three seasons. (right, Kevin?)

Apparently, there is an American adaptation of this show being made right now. If they have the guts to do the same plotline in the pilot as Wire, I will buy every human involved a bottle of 21 yr old Macallan. Because, seriously -- yikes.

If you enjoy this selection, you can hunt down (non-streaming) Green's other series Touching Evil, the American version of which launched Jeffrey Donovan into leading man status in the TV casting club. Similar "broken leading man" conceit, lots of dark turns, and arguably the more consistent show. But for my money, Hermione Norris puts Wire over the top.

* I saw seasons 1 and 2 on bootlegs, back in the day. Great stuff.
** Full disclosure: I like Castle a lot. Perhaps too much.

LEVERAGE #209 "The Lost Heir Job" Post-Game

2009-11-13T16:01:00.000-08:00

Posted through the wifi connection on Virgin American 30,000 feet up. Welcome to the future.

Right, so here we were. Gina was willing to work right up until the delivery date, but we realized that plot-wise a pregnancy didn't work, and shooting around her was not just getting difficult but was kind of an insult to the character and the actress. We accelerated her arc so that she left at ep #207 for good, valid story reasons -- and in a heckuva episode to boot.

But one of the things we were obsessive about -- okay, Downey was just thorough, I'm the obsessive one -- in designing the show was making sure it was a true five-hander. We didn't want Genius McCranky and the Con Sidekicks. Thankfully, in a con crew the jobs are highly specialized, leading us to very character-specific obstacles and story missions. Each Leverage character served a specific niche in the crime world job set. A very specific niche. No (or minor) crossover means we know what everyone is doing in every job in every episode.

So what happens when you lose one? You lose your grifter on a con show?

None of the other characters could fill the slot. I mean, the actors could -- each is very entertaining when running the grift. But they're entertaining in very specific, character-oriented ways.

When Parker's on the grift, the fun is in anticipating when her ability to interact with humans will break down. Nate, it's all about the Mean Guy persona. He can do the other personas, but they don't really feel like Nate. Not only that, we had a specific arc for the back half of the season for him, which involved keeping him on the Mastermind train as much as possible. Hardison's weakness is that he always goes to far in the grift, and Eliot ... well, Kane's done a fantastic job making Eliot more than we originally anticipated, but the Hitter has to stay outside, protecting the weak side and making sure there's always a clear escape route.

Complicating this was the fact we knew Sophie would be coming back. A new grifter -- female to help maintain the balance of the show -- was a substitute, not a replacement. She couldn't be too close to Sophie, or the audience might believe the change was permanent. Also, similar made the writing boring. The team was comfortable with Sophie, and if conflict is the spice of TV then we needed to ramp up the difference to ramp up the discomfort.

This lead us to design the new grifter in a very specific way: although she'd be doing Sophie's job, she'd be the opposite of Sophie's persona. Where Sophie's European and genteel, Tara's ballsy and physical. In one email I sent Downey while we were designing the character (I was up in Portland shooting #207) I wrote "While Sophie still exchanges Christmas cards with some of her marks, the end of Tara's cons involve running out of burning buildings carrying metal briefcases full of blood-stained money."

We have an entire backstory for Tara and her friendship with Sophie that you'll never see. The origin of her skills are hinted at in a few episodes, if you watch carefully. One might deduce that her education involved some of your tax dollars at work.

At the same time we were designing the character, TNT was floating names by us. As the network they have a fair amount of say in casting, and in particular replacing a show lead. Jeri's name came up, we all dug it, we talked to her on the phone and sent the character breakdown -- bang bang, done in a week.

I want to say this right now -- she's amazing. Not only is she a fine actress, she came in at a very stressful time, set everyone at ease and very quickly became part of the Portland Family. I've rarely seen a show do what we did in mid-season (only Life comes to mind). There are a lot of issues involved in bringing in a new human to an ensemble cast, particularly one with the very family-style chemistry our cast has. She's funny -- which you almost never see because of typical Hollywood typecasting -- and she hung off a roof with the best of them. I'd work with her any time, any place.

As far as the Tara character, yes, she did pull off a con on our team -- by cheating. Sophie's inside info gave her this one shot. After this, you'll see, again, Tara's skill set is precisely defined. She's got the odd surprise up her sleeve, and she can (and does) fail when things break the wrong way.

This episode is actually the second we shot with Jeri. #210 was shot first due to a script overlap. So we kind of shot the team's reaction to meeting Tara before the actual meeting. This hiccup actually gave us the inspiration for the show's con structure. So, if the team didn't react to meeting Tara until #210, that gave us the interesting idea of ending #209 with that meeting. But that meant they couldn't know Tara was the replacement ... and so the lawyer character was born, giving us a nice con to overlay on the crime story.

The plot itself is one of our most Rockford-y homages: the lost will, the Jimmie Joe Meeker style attorney, almost more detective show than con. As a matter of fact, in the first version of the story, the girl wasn't actually the Lost Heir. We just kind of fell in love with the idea of highlighting Nate Ford's detective skills over his con skills for an episode. (Playing with Nate's identity is a major part of this year, and the focus of the winter arc)

We got ridiculously lucky with the villain. This ep really put the villain and Nate head-to-head more than most. Peter Riegert's a friend of Tim's, he dug the script -- and we got one of our best villains. The fun for us in most episodes was watching the villain unravel because of our team;s machinations. The fun for this one was having an absolutely cold-blooded, dead-eyed bastard in the driver's seat. The moment where he shoots his Busey still makes me laugh on the hundredth viewing.

The episode also includes one of my favorite stand-alone sequences: Eliot and Parker vs. the cops. Kane and Beth had really advanced their characters' relationship over the year, and it was fun to watch Crazy Parker re-emerge in an adrenaline situation. She seems genuinely delighted at the prospect of watching Eliot deal peacefully with the cops ("I look forward to watching you do that"). Good lesson for writers, by the way. That line was meant to play as frustrated. Beth brought out kind of a buzzed, kinky vibe to it that was utterly unexpected, and it works 1000x better.

Hokay, to the questions:

@Taima: I do have a question though. Did Nate know from early on that Ruth was Kimball's daughter? Or did he come to that conclusion while he was in court?

He actually suspected it when he saw the mother's driver's license ("color blindness" is up there on the screen, for all to see). Even when he tumbled it, he tried to go through with the Lost Heir scam because a.) he didn't want to endanger the real daughter if he could help it, b.) he wasn;t sure about the moral ramifications of telling this woman the truth and c.) that gave him a backup he could spring when his opponent was least expecting it. Revealing the real daughter was Plan M.

@Jocelyn: Great side arm throw from Christian with the rock and according to him that was all real. How many takes do you have to do to get that just right?

First take, I think. Can't believe he kept it in frame for the whole slo-mo shot.

@ita: Are you pissed at TNT for spoiling that Jeri's character was a grifter just before the last segment? Are you allowed to say if you are?

We were ... not happy. Not angry, but not happy. To be fair, I believe the promotions people cut the promos without knowing it would run in the penultimate spot rather than before the credits. But we had a chat, and they were incredibly apologetic, so we'll just have to communicate with them better. TNT has sold the hell out of the show, and that was a pretty minor hiccup in two years of kick-assery on their part.

@Thomas: Does Beth Riesgraf do her own stunts or do you use a stunt double?

Beth does everything the insurance company will let her do. In the finale, for example, she's the one on the line rappelling, but for the feee-jump she had a double. In #205 getting hit by a car is actually a very specific skill, so it was her double. She walked the ledge in #214 though.

@Barb: If the lawyer is listed as a beneficiary, he shouldn't be legally able to be the executor of that will. ...not trying to stop the fun train, just wondering how ya'll decided to make that play

Executors can be beneficiaries in most cases. This story is actually based on a real case -- he's abusing his powers as executor in a very specific way. Annnnd I'm pretty sure if I reveal more I'll wind up getting sued. Just, ah, once again, we are as accurate with the law as House is with medicine. Take that as you will.

@Catchester: She was just too good. She can create a fake ID good enough to fool Hardison (who can create CIA level fake ID's so should know what to look for). She can grift well enough to completely fool the everyone on team. She can pick locks (i assume they didn't give her a key to the apartment). Added to that she's beautiful, confident, more skilled than Sophie (since she obviously avoided being on Nate's radar) and ends up laughing at having pulled the wool over the team's eyes. I'm just surprised you didn't have her disarm five armed thugs and mastermind the whole thing.

You're kind of looking at it backward. It's not "How is that character so superbly skilled?", it's "Why does that character seem superbly skilled, and what does that tell me about off-screen stuff?" Simply put, again, Tara cheated. Sophie helped her with the con; there's a reason her fake ID is that good; she didn't cross Nate's radar because she worked a different kind of crime, and she used Sophie's key to Nate's apartment.

But we really felt she had to prove herself. You don't get to join the Leverage team just because you asked. You gotta impress them.

And "It took you long enough", watch for that phrase to recur ...

@MelodyAnne: 3) This is doesn't really have anything to do with the episode.. but are you guys considering doing more viewing parties for the season 3 premier? I took my mom to the one in Tampa, FL for her birthday. (She is a HUGE fan and I wanted to say thank you because I totally gave her a better present than my brother. haha! And I got to ask you a question via skype! I still annoy my friends constantly with that story...)

Not for the winter premiere, but for Season 3, absolutely.

@pogo9200: I also noticed that Parker is getting sexier while crawling through air ducks. Off the shoulder top and hair down with loose braids. I kinda miss the old Parker.

@Chris Ayers: But she also seemed especially comfortable in social situations, more so than usual. While this has been a nice character progression, I kinda miss awkward, slightly "off" Parker. I hope she's not gone for good.

They were a man down, so she needed to be in civvies for backup -- which was fortunate. (Nate really does think of everything) I don't think Parker's changed that much. Look at the cop/hallway scene, and of course the fight in #211, and the truly horrible moment in #215 ... oh wait. Never mind.

And if you think "I looooove the meth" is her being comfortable in social situations, you have set a very low bar.

@SueN: Speaking of Eliot, I did have a moment of "What?" when he said he wouldn't hit a cop. It just seemed a bit … strange? Especially for a career criminal whose career is, well, hitting people (among other things). So my question is, why?

@Codger: My question has to do with Eliot refusing to hit cops, yet in the pilot episode, after the explosion and when they were handcuffed in the hospital, he suggested to Nate that he could take out all the cops so they could make their escape. Until Parker vetoed that and said that if he killed the cops it would ruin her getaway. Kill or not, he certainly didn't have any reluctance to hitting the cops then. What changed?

You have to remember, Eliot sees himself as a negotiator who is occassionally required to resolve situations with short, sharp applications of physical force. He doesn't hit people unnecessarily, and he doesn't enjoy it. Hitting some honest citizen just doing his job brings him no pleasure -- not to mention a fair amount of local heat.

Parker's the one in the pilot who assumed he meant "killed." And, to be fair, two factors: there was a big difference between handcuffed Eliot about to go down for ten years and Eliot-with-options b.) we just see the character in a slightly different light now that we've lived with him. Kind of like Nate getting into the cons. It happens as a show evolves over the years.

@Patrick: And my question: what's the secret web address for the streaming video of the remaining episodes? I mean, there is a way to see them before next year, isn't there? Tell me!

Sure, there's our editing website, where you can -- what? Oh, sorry. Never mind.

Besides, who on the internet likes spoilers, anyway? ce.

@Monica: 1.) Poor Sophie, seeing Nate outside her door and her first question is who died, kinda like that reaction you get when the phone rings at 3am. This makes me said because she's worried about her 'kids' and daddy's ability to keep them safe. 2.) My question: Any chance that you could publish some Leverage books? Imagine the cons, locations, and explosions you could do without the worry about expenseive CGI.

1.) Oh, that's a big motivator for Tara's arrival. Watch for a throwaway line in the conference call in #210, the winter season opener. 2.) we're talking seriously about Leverage tie-in novels.

@Nato: is "Tara Cole" in any way a reference to "Tara King," the replacement for Diana Rigg's inimitable Emma Peel on "The Avengers"?

Ding ding ding.

@Nicole: My other question is this: How long til you guys have to start breaking season 3? I know y'all were rushed when season 2 was announced. Will any of the writing team be working on other projects we should tune in for in the meantime?

Everyone's scurrying about on other projects until February when the writing room returns, but nothing coming up for broadcast. The exception is Berg, who is now one of the big kahunas on Eureka. Trust me, you are going to want to tune in to a Berg-toned Eureka.

Thank God we get a little breathing room this year --the last two years rolled out like one long season. Chris and I will have to start a little earlier to get the first few eps outlined in mid-January, but that's the timeline. We won't have quite as many in the can as we did first season (three scripts and three outlines) but close.

@CindyD: OK, we've had the summer finale and I still don't know the reason Eliot sawed that new door into Nate's apartment in 201. WHERE does that door lead? WHAT is inside the room through that door? WHY did Eliot need access to it? The possibilities are endless. Will my curiosity ever be satisfied?

That room is where the fanfiction comes true. You must never look in that room. DO NOT EVEN LOOK AT THE DOOR!

@buzz: Question: I didn't understand the ending. Tara gives the team an invoice for "my share of the inheritance" and then says "We're making money already!" Nate gives his incredulous team a look of resignation.What does this mean? The team doesn't charge clients for what they do, and are ot getting any of the inheritance, so why does Tara lay claim to a "share"? Is the incredulity and look from Nate more about Tara maybe not understanding that the team does not do this for the money? I just didn't get it.

Tara's a criminal. She gets a share of the score. Whether the team takes their share or not, somebody's paying her for her work. If the team wants to foot the bill instead of taking it out of the inheritance, that's their problem, not hers.

@Anonymous: 1) Sophie vouching for Tara's skills, combined with the element of surprise to pull a fast one on the team have, for now, sold me on her being able to keep up with Team Leverage. However I'm curious. Why did Sophie choose to send someone who is the complete opposite from her when she knows that they need someone who would be more open to being a team player? Of course, grifters are loners, but the way Tara conned the team was just about the worst way to build a working relationship with the team. Sophie must know from the way they called her that they need someone to hold them together not create more conflict because of differing priorities. Couldn't she have found someone with less of an antagonistic personality?
2) Since Tara's tentative acceptance on the team depends mostly on Sophie vouching for her, are we going to find out what their relationship was/is? Is this strictly a favor to Sophie or does it have more to do with Tara wanting to work with the "nastiest crew on the East Coast" and scoring really big?

1.) Sophie's concern is for her team's safety, and that means the best. Even if the best is a little .. spiky. She's trusting the team -- and Tara -- to work out the rough edges.

2.) A favor for Sophie, in return for a big, big debt and a longstanding friendship that started in a very odd fashion.

@scooter5203249: You had me worried for a bit. I thought this might be the ep where, as predicted by Sophie, Nate loses control of the situation and has a melt down. A Sophie no-show, a chaperon, an attempted hit on Parker, and Nate looked out of control running for the courtroom, but in the end he pulled it off. My hero.

Tick. Tick. Tick.

@Ashley: Quick question! Who came up with Nate's lawyer name? Another one! Will any of the old clients ever come back for blood?

Downey came up with Papa.. Papa ... the name. As far as old clients, Saul Rubinek keeps pitching his return as the Lex Luthor of the League of Evil Leverage Marks, but Warehouse 13 is keeping him busy.

@SueN: We know so much about the others' skill sets and why Nate would have chased them. But what exactly did Eliot do to have an insurance investigator come after him? Obviously not his mercenary stuff, and most likely not the hitter stuff. So, as a "retrieval specialist," what, exactly, did Eliot "retrieve" that had Nate on his tail? And how is a "retieval specialist" different than a thief? Or is it?

The first time they met, they were both chasing the same thief. After that, Eliot did occasionally "retrieve" things covered by IYS.

@Anonymous: What is up with Eliot always being all "honorable" and rescuing horses/beaten children, not using guns, not hitting cops, ect. When one works as, essentially, a walking weapon, can you really maintain intense values? It seems like Eliot would be walking off a lot of jobs when he's not working with the Leverage team.

Oh, Eliot has intense values. They just don't always coincide with society's values, and they've evolved from his early days. Even before Leverage, Eliot had some jobs he wouldn't take that he would've taken ten years earlier.

@ClynnGo: Why is the finale disc-only on Netflix? I couldn't watch the episode in real time or record it (my family preempted it with Obama's speech instead), but I was counting on the handy-dandy Netflix instant watch! Will the episode ever be included in the on demand queue?

It should be up now. There's a broadcast window we have to honor, X number of downloadables, etc.

@kresky's dame: "I hope you have a Plan B or F or something in the first half of the alphabet." A reference to the pilot and the line "In Plan M Hardison dies"? Or am I just geeking out on the show a bit too much?

Absolutely a reference. When Nate gets past Plan G, things start to get very hairy.

@pogo92000: When Parker & Nate are at the meet for the payoff - two things stuck out this time
1) How did Nate get back to the courthouse? 2) Did the dirty cop not know that Nate was supposed to be 'Jimmy'? Dont you think he would have mentioned that Eliot called out 'NATE'... perhaps he was going to do that right before he was shot.

1.) on foot. 2.) He was rattled by having Eliot beat him up with his own gun.

@CatChester: If Parker and Nate are both headed to the courthouse, why did they split up?

Nate split them into two plans. If either were caught by the cops, the other had a chance at succeeding. Also, one might suspect, if one didn't know Nate better, he was kind of using Parker and Eliot as bait ...

@Kanedoras: (various legal questions about the timeline of the hearing, edited for space)

Again --Law:Leverage as Medicine:House.

@briddie: Did Gina's pregnancy change the direction of the Nate/Sophie arc, or is that where you planned on taking it anyway, seeing as how Nate is 1) sober and b) a bigger bastard?

Accelerated, not changed, and some of the beats are moved around. But yeah, we're on track for what was planned thematically.

@Eyetee Monkey: At the end of the episode Parker (love to bits) sniffs Tara. I know that she randomly sniffs objects but this is only the second time (that I noticed) that she sniffs a person. The other being Maggie. My point being is that is this a conscious choice by Beth or just coincidence that she seems to sniff out other mother type figures?

That's Beth, all the way. I like that Parker uses her senses... oddly.

@oppisum: This doesn’t have that much to do with the episode, but about how old are each of the characters supposed to be?

Hardison and Parker: mid 20's
Eliot: early 30's
Sophie: A lady never tells.
Nate: early 40's.

It's a little annoying that standing next to Hutton, people assume I'm older than he is. Clear-eyed bastard.

@Antaeus Feldspar: If Kimball had the same kind of color-blindness his daughter does, which keeps her from correctly identifying blue, how did that get to be his favorite? Or is Kimball supposed to have had a much different form of color-blindness, so he could see and identify blue irises but his daughter couldn't?

...

... they were his favorite because of the scent. You see, they reminded him of the perfume his lost love (and the vic's mother) wore when SLEEEEP! SLEEEP NOOOOWWW!!

@msd: 1.) Since you haven't answered these questions I'm going to try and sneak another one in. On the DVD everyone talks about the insane 7-day shooting schedule. What are your schedules? Does everyone get a "weekend" off in between episodes or what? I'm just curious. 2.) If anyone hasn't listened to the commentaries on the S1 DVD - please do. There are great insights, techie stuff and y'all are very complimentary to each other and about the actors and crew. It just adds another layer to how great this show is.

1.) Shoot mon-fri, weekends off. That means the episodes stagger. We often wrap one episode on Tuesday, and at 8am Wed we're shooting an entirely different script. The actors have to work like hell to learn thier lines for each episode while performing the previous one.

2.) If you buy Season 2, you get to hear a drunken Frakes bellow "RED ALERT!"

Whew. All right, we'll see what we can do about some hiatus chats or commentaries with the actors, and we'll do some nice warm-up before the Jan 13th return (that date may shift). As always thanks for coming by and spending so much time and attention on the show. Really makes it worthwhile for us seeing you care about these little stories.

Oh, and see you at the Con Con March 19-21 -- the fan convention that you guys actually named before we even decided to do it.

50,000 MIA

2009-11-09T23:39:00.001-08:00

Courtesy The Dark One, a great story about a historical tall tale that turns out to be true.

The remains of a mighty Persian army said to have drowned in the sands of the western Egyptian desert 2,500 years ago might have been finally located, solving one of archaeology's biggest outstanding mysteries, according to Italian researchers.
Bronze weapons, a silver bracelet, an earring and hundreds of human bones found in the vast desolate wilderness of the Sahara desert have raised hopes of finally finding the lost army of Persian King Cambyses II. The 50,000 warriors were said to be buried by a cataclysmic sandstorm in 525 B.C.

In the Comments, your favorite Fortean tale.

It Was Never Guaranteed To Be A Just Universe

2009-11-09T17:51:00.000-08:00

What wakes liberal writers up at night -- I mean that eye-snap of soul-gnawing, nauseating dread -- is not social injustice, is not the fear of creeping fascism, is not rage against corporate greed ...

It is the haunting certainty that Jonah Goldberg will die happily in his sleep without ever comprehending that he's an idiot.

(Yeah, I tried reading Liberal Fascism. It's just that bad.)

EDIT: One of the commenters wrote:

Wow. Great way to insult half of Leverage's audience. You do realize that there are conservatives that watch and enjoy the show, don't you? This kind of commentary which spews vitriol towards a particular viewpoint only damages and taints the Leverage brand.

I'm sorry, that wasn't my intent at all. Let me clarify.

Goldberg isn't an idiot because he's a conservative. There are quite a few conservatives I both like and admire. We have many conservative fans of the show, because enjoying a good con show, or relishing watching protagonists taking down rich bad guys is neither conservative nor liberal. A fun show is a fun show.

Goldbeg's an idiot because he writes what he writes the way he writes it.

If I'm "spewing vitriol at one particular viewpoint", it's at shoddy research, childlike logic and a truly Cthulhu-level hubris. *

But if you equateGoldberg's massively awful thinking and writing with the conservative movement -- that is, if in your world-view you are OBLIGATED to admire or agree with Goldberg just because he's conservative royalty -- then that's the sort of lockstep, blind hero worship I don't respect in anyone of any ideological stripe.

If you consider an insult to Jonah Goldberg an insult to all conservatives, that's your problem. Not mine. And, frankly, an insult to thinking conservatives.

*(I also found Michael Moore's latest film an embaressment. But this post isn't about him.)

"Say it. Out Loud."

2009-11-08T16:48:00.000-08:00

Courtesy a commenter at i09.

I hate those goddam books.

Okay, So What Does the Bill DO?

2009-11-08T10:05:00.000-08:00

In all the sturm unt drang, easy to lose track of what got in and what didn't. Steve Benen gives you a primer. And, of course, all this has to go to the US Senate, the most undemocratic institution in America. So, you know, this is less than halfway there.

Netflix Friday #2: AUDITION

2009-11-06T16:03:00.000-08:00

Ahhh, Takashi Miike. For a long time one could just assume that if you were a horror fan or geek, you'd already seen this. But it's been ten years now. Newer and shinier Japanese horror has come, gone, and been mulched into tweener entertainment. Newer Japanese horror conforms to standard plot structure and pacing.

Takashi Miike thinks standard plot structure and pacing are for little girls.

The first time I saw this movie was during a Japanese Horror Film Marathon on DirectTv. I'd just gotten a big-screen, my friend Mike and Lovely Wife sat down to grab some late night horror.

For a while it's ... kind of a romantic comedy. A Widower, still devastated by his wife's death a decade earlier, is urged by his teen-age son to start dating again. His cheerfully amoral TV producer friend concocts a cunning plan. They'll going to hold auditions for an imaginary TV series in order for our sweet, likable but socially awkward Widower to meet young women.

Hijinks ensue!

If by hijinks, you mean staring at the screen, screaming "What the fuck? WHAT THE FUCK?"

It happens in a moment, in one shot, a tectonic shift in the movie. The train goes off the rails. And the train is on fire, and full of dynamite and naked clowns who live under your bed.

Be aware -- the pacing is glacial, and this is not a shock-horror movie. It's a slow accretion of creepiness. Do not even bother to watch this while there's daylight. This is meant to be watched at midnight, uninterrupted, to let it wash over you. For a good half the viewers, it'll be a "meh." For the half who find just the right night, it's a mood, a tone poem of unease.

No spoilers in the Comments, but feel free to recommend some other horror fun.

Your Entertainment Setup

2009-11-06T08:31:00.001-08:00

Ran into an interesting design problem the other day. The house we moved into (it was a flip, old house/new wiring) has one of those iPod docks in the front room. Pop in the iPod, play though speakers built in through the whole house. The CD player and AV receiver running the system are tucked away in a nook, on a shelf just above the stacked washer/dryer units. The wires for the system run from a hole in the wall behind them, into the back of the receiver.

Now of course, you don't need to do a hard-wire hookup anymore -- just connect your A/V receiver up to an Airport Express and stream your music. Which is what I was intending on doing last weekend ...

... until I discovered that the power outlet running the AV receiver was behind the washer dryer stack. No way I'm pulling down a half-ton of machinery to plug in an Airport Express that probably won't fit back there anyway when you replace the washer/dryer. By hiding the power outlets behind the appliances, the designer made the wiring cleaner, simpler -- and utterly un-upgradable. Of course, why would you upgrade? You can hook up your speakers to your iPod! When will we ever invent anything cooler than that?

I theory, I can't even unplug and replace the AV receiver without pulling out those appliances. Remember, when installing anything in your house:

a.) Assume it will break, or you will need to remove it at some point.
b.) Remember you will be pissed off and impatient when doing so. Design backwards, to minimize your own frustration. The longer it takes to make it pretty, the longer it'll take to tear it out it when you need to. When, not if. When.

Actually, let's make this more than a grouse. Your entertainment setup, in the Comments.
Mine is very simple:

-- Sharp Aquos 42'
-- Tivo Series 3 HD (with those accursed Time Warner cable cards that reset themselves every three months). When I moved back to LA, went with Time Warner Cable after years of satellite for the Tivo interface. I have experienced a DVR without the Tivo interface. We will never speak of it.
-- Xbox 360
-- Apple 1Tb Time Capsule/Router
-- Rivet
-- Handbrake

Both the Tivo and Xbox have access to Netflix Streaming, the Tivo also gives access to Amazon VOD and now Blockbuster streaming. The Xbox also plays my ripped media stored on my Time Machine (it's connected by an ethernet cable) through Rivet. Apparently Orb, the stream-everywhere program is now available on Mac, so I'll download it just to give it a try and report back.

Considering getting an OPPO region-free DVD player, but to tell the truth I usually just rip my (personal, legally purchased) foreign DVD's with Mac the Ripper and then convert them to mp4 with Handbrake . *

You can use just Handbrake now, apparently, but I got into the habit of the two step process and some irrational part of me likes breaking the task down into specialized programs for each step. If you have any settings you like for Handbrake, toss 'em in. Tuning Handbrake is a sub-hobby all its own.

No, no Blu-ray. Regular old HD is just fine, thanks. I don't upgrade often, or go for the biggest/most expensive. My fetish for one-bag travelling extends all the way down through my life.

Ezra Klein Wonks So You Don't Have To ...

2009-11-06T07:57:00.000-08:00

The first part of his interview with the head of the largest managed health care company in America is here. If you've never been over there before, rip through the archives. Ezra has a remarkably clear writing style, and manages to do an excellent job of translating arcane health care terms into things people can understand.

Assuming you want to understand, and you're not just a crazy person who thinks making sure you don't lose your house when your kid gets sick is the moral equivalent of Dachau.

BeaucoupKevin's Halloween Comic

2009-10-30T19:45:00.000-07:00

Dear Kevin:

Yes, this interface. This is what I've been waiting for, since I saw Yves Baclan do it. Although I think he uses the concept a bit more artfully -- creating movement or adding information by playing with the layers on the original frame -- I think your execution is the dead-simple version that can be most easily utilized by the majority of web comic creators. Expect a phone call this weekend.

This links to the thing I mentioned on Twitter about e-print formats. But basically -- look, Flash. It works everywhere. It's already here. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel, Longbox.

Netflix Friday #1 - INVASION: EARTH

2009-10-30T18:41:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the first in what will be a "as long as my attention lasts" series, Netflix Friday, focusing on "Watch Instantly" selections from Netflix. There are a lot of shows you can stream off Netflix on your computer, or Roku, or through your Xbox 360 or Tivo HD -- but much is what we might generously call off-brand. I think it's worth the time to give you some choices for those rainy Sundays when you're in the mood for something right now.

Invasion: Earth has a very dumb title. It also has a truly creepy alien invasion narrative linked to some real world anomalies (creeping chromosomal feminization), time-lost humans, aliens who are alien, and pretty well-done SFX for a BBC production at the time. Most impressively, it has Maggie O'Neill as the lead (!) scientist (!!) using her goddam brain to piece together the alien plan. The manly RAF pilot -- who would become the lead in any other version of this mini-series -- has a good run but at no point distracts us from the fact that Rather Large Brains are required to unspool alien intentions.

And even then, it might not do us any good. These are creatures who have mastered interstellar travel. To paraphrase Warren Ellis, 1.5 million Earthling children die every year from diarrhea -- we have not yet mastered drinking water.

Tonally, I adore this thing. You know how a lot of alien invasion movies start with "Holy Shit, We Are In Way Over Our Head," but then swing into "Those Aliens Underestimated Our Plucky Resourcefulness!"?

Yeah. Not so much on the second bit.

I am obligated to admit that the 100 year alien invasion plan I used in Blue Beetle was heavily influenced by the effect this show had on me in the 90's. Bonus points for Fred Ward doing yeoman's work as the American general. Because in any British sci fi, it's only a matter of time before the Yanks show up with the heavies ...

Don't read any spoilers, and just enjoy. All six episodes of Invasion:Earth are your Netflix Streaming recommend for this weekend.

"Every Time."

2009-10-28T10:15:00.000-07:00

Nicely done, Greg and Lou.

I would like to note that those claw SFX are BETTER than the ones in this year's Wolverine movie.

L4D2 Trailer 2

2009-10-23T10:54:00.001-07:00

Go fullscreen for the good stuff. I wonder what the cost per minute on that animation is?

Black Lightning Trailer

2009-10-22T11:54:00.001-07:00

This is absolutely mad, and I'd like to know why I'm not already watching it. (h/t Warren)

B&N E-book Reader

2009-10-20T14:29:00.000-07:00

The promo video for the new Barnes & Noble e-book reader, which begins with the single dirtiest sentence in all product video history.

What She Puts Up With

2009-10-19T14:11:00.000-07:00

Yeah, that's pretty much what the Lovely Wife deals with whenever we travel. (XKCD)

Back

2009-10-18T22:55:00.000-07:00

Well, on one hand, I'm not in Bora Bora anymore. On the other, there's new Venture Brothers.

I'll call that a draw.

Oh, hey, a collection of Brock beatdowns. Ganked.

Vacation Break

2009-10-09T22:43:00.001-07:00

.... until the 19th of October. As we have a real hiatus this year, you should see some changes on the blog when I get back, stuff I've been meaning to do for a while. Stay tuned, and enjoy some of the fine sites in the Sidebar.

In the Comments -- book, movie. TV and DVD recommendations. Let's see what you people cook up for each other.

NASA Bombs the Moon

2009-10-09T11:07:00.000-07:00

Sure, we're feeling very smug right now, but they're just going to strike back with suicide moon-bombers.

LEVERAGE #208 "The Ice Man Job" Post-Game

2009-10-08T21:28:00.000-07:00

Our first episode without Gina, which ironically allowed us to highlight how important it was to have the team together.

Some people had pointed out that Hardison, when playing a character, tends to go a bit over the top. Our answer to that is: "Absolutely." That's intentional, and this was our chance to pay that off. There's a big difference between being able to fast talk your way out of a two minute confrontation and the long con. Sophie's skill is that of a good intelligence agent working an informer. She can read moods, knows exactly when to lay it on and back it off, can adapt on the fly and most of all make the mark always feel that he's the one in charge without ever letting the mark be in charge.

Grifter, hitter, hacker, thief -- they all have Thief 101 skills, but when they're a man down, it shows. It's not only important for the show premise on a meta-level to reset this idea occasionally, but worth reminding us there's a reason the characters stick together -- they've never had anyone to cover their blind spots before, and the work they're doing now is a level of artistry (and emotional satisfaction, although they'd never admit it) they've never approached on their own.

The episode was born, of course, of the Wired article about the famous Antwerp diamond heist. New crimes are a rare thing for a writing staff that's already parsed through the classics; the day after this issue of Wired hit the stands, literally the entire staff scrambled into the room, each clutching the magazine, screaming "MINE!" like the gulls in Finding Nemo.

This is one of the few episodes to work backwards. We knew we'd have the heist as acts 4 and 5, but we needed a context that would make sense. We ran through several permutations, different hostages to force the team to break into the vault -- Maggie was in this episode for a second and a half -- all balanced against the idea that this would be the winter season opener, and so should be as streamlined as possible. I'd always felt-- even then, in the middle of the season -- that I'd overcomplicated the season opener with the crime plot, the character back-and-forth, etc. This was designed to be as pure an episode of Leverage as we could muster, using the simplest, cleanest plot and focusing on the family vibe that the fans really seemed to dig.

What was interesting here was how the minimalism of the episode kind of re-sparked the writing staff in the middle of a very stressful season. Even watching the first cut, I was thinking ,"I am just watching Beth Riesgraf break into a vault for close to 15 minutes. And I am totally cool with that." It was a good reminder that while we can sometimes get lost in trying to over-plot, end of day you want to watch characters you like doing what they do well. This episode was alllllll competence porn.

The tech side of the diamond/laser business was fudged, of course, although the Gemological Institute of America was so impressed with how we treated the business side of the system that they dropped the director a nice note. I'd also add that when the writing staff was researching the process, we got lots of very patient, very technical help from the GIA. Spec-monkeys: Research is fun and people want to tell you all about the fiddly bits of their profession. Don't skimp.

There's another interesting beat in here, one that recurs through the second half of S2. Bringing up Parker's past heists is part of a pattern; we wanted to remind audience members -- or introduce to new audience members -- that these characters had reps out in Crime World, that this is not a Super-Team, but in this fictional universe considered the Super-Team. In particular, Parker's past and Eliot's life of violence are highlighted several times in eps 208-215. Although the lines are dropped as an afterthought, we wanted to remind people that funny, cranky Eliot Spencer is a guy who killed people. Professionally. Not gleefully, but professionally.

Okay, let's go to your questions:

@Nicole: Did Chris work in "the fun train" comment, having picked it up from the writers? Or did y'all work that in on purpose?

On purpose. I think by that point it never even occurred to us that it wasn't a common metaphor and just wound up slipping in.

@Anonymous: However, Sophie and Nate continue to break my heart...make them stop that soon, ok? I was actually yelling at my screen when he hung up the phone like that at the end. Fail, Nathan, fail.

@inconstant Reader: My whole family was yelling at Nate during his phone conversation. My son asked why he was acting like such a douche (I'm paraphrasing here). I said Nate's addicted to control, and he can't control Sophie *or* his feelings for her. Am I even warm?

You know, Nate's divorced for a reason. From a woman even Parker likes. He's not good at this.

That's a pretty good read, Inconstant. The entire second half of S2 is about Nate's control issues.

@Melissa in St. Louis: Questions -- 1) How did the Eliot is Mute come into play. Hardison just going overboard? 2) How many takes did you have to have for 'Hugging it out' scene? I can just see them burst out laughing at that one! 3) Do the cast and crew watch together on Wed nights? ... 4.) what did Eliot say to Hardison right after Hardison and Parker busted through the floor? I couldn't make it out.

1.) We were just coming up with the most arrogant, annoying things Hardison might do that were still within his character. It's worth noting that Eliot is actually much better at the con than Hardison. That was a burst of insecurity on Hardison's part.

2.) I think the broadcast take was the first take. Honestly, when you turn the camera loose on the three of them doing a mini-scene, you just get the hell out of their way.

3.) The cast and crew were working all the way through the summer broadcasts. The cast comes into the studio for special screenings. We just had one for the two-part finale this Wed.

We did watch this episode, 208, on the night it aired, in the hotel where we shot the finale. People kept running in and out of the hotel room where we had it playing on the TV, in between takes.

4.) "Det cord." Explaining how they blew the floor (also part fo the frame-upo, which may have been cut for time)

@Anonymous: Is Eliot actually annoyed with Hardison, or is he annoyed with the fact that he knows he won't hit Hardison no matter how much Hardison screws up? I really loved the little "family" moments in this episode; Parker moving around on the empty couch and irritating the others, Hardison calling Sophie-Mom for help when he's in trouble, Hardison and Eliot snapping at each other as Hardison pretends to beat him up.

Oh, Eliot is epically annoyed at Hardison. What most annoys him about Hardison is that Hardison manages to annoy him, in a weird circular way.

This came across as a real "family" episode, not just because we wrote it that way but because it was actually the first we shot without Gina being on set every day. The other cast members were genuinely uncomfortable at her absence. A lot of the emotions you're seeing on screen were real.

@Nicole: Is Sophie waiting for Nate to ask her to come back or is she really just taking a well-needed break?

A well-needed break. How long that lasts does not depend on Nate stopping his asshat ways, but it is informed by his behaviour.

@Antisocial Butterfly (and @Alexandra): I have to ask, did you expect to get that much mileage out of that deleted scene of Parker trying to pick up the mark in the bar? Do you have lots of those little flashbacks that have been edited for time in storage? Do you plan on pulling them out in season 3? I suspect that I am not the only one who would like to see that.

Honestly, it just happened to coincide with the character beat we needed. (The scene was deleted from the pilot, and included on the S1 DVD set) I can't see any of the other cut ones showing up, although it seems a shame that only those with the DVD get to see Hardison in braces ...

@Sapphire Smoke: ... And I also loved Parker's break in scene, the girls got serious skills and it'd be awesome if we could see more of that... AND GOD. YOU EVIL PEOPLE WITH THE PARKER/HARDISON ALMOST-MOMENT. Jeez. You just keep giving us teasers.

More Parker in rigging, lots of thief-y goodness in the back S2 episodes. As far as Parker/Hardison ... What's interesting for me this year is what Beth and Kane have decided to do with Parker and Eliot's relationship. We gave them several scenes with that pair, and they wound up playing them almost like ... outside the team. Like there's an awareness that their relationships with violence make them unique among the others. Watch for it during the upcoming episodes.

@Dante: Similar the the Canada question in a previous post, is there any chance of Leverage being aired and/or getting a DVD release in the UK? I feel bad for getting it from the internet, but I see no other way.

Still working on it. The Hustle cross-over really hurts us. Although the two shows are nothing alike in plotting or tone, TV real estate is very thin on the ground in the UK right now, and I understand the buyers' apprehension. Hopefully we will have a resolution for this situation soon.

@Matt: Eliot's use of "fun train" is a decent segue into a question I was going to ask anyway: How much influence, if any, does the conversation here have on the show? For instance, do the questions that come up here give insight (that you wouldn't get from other sources) into what worked and what didn't? Also, fanboys the world over thank you for putting Beth in that dress.

The conversations here and on Twitter tend to reinforce, rather than evolve ideas on the show. The unexpected love for the conference room scenes is the best example. We have an unusually positive fan base online -- when I worked in comics, the general rule was that forums ran 3 to 1 negative as a baseline, and that needed to be taken into account when looking at internet feedback.

It's also a matter of timing. By the time you folks are seeing the episodes, we're close to wrapped. 208 aired while we were shooting the finale.

And you're welcome, fanboys. Although for me, the highlight of the episode is her riding the safe door.

@Anonymous: ust one question (apologies for my ignorance) what's the hoo-haa about "the fun train"? I don't get it.

The "fun train" is an expression we picked up from another show, meaning that we're all here to watch a fun heist show, and sometimes the niggling logic questions just interfere with the ride. You cannot use the fun train as a catch-all excuse, but there are times when we're hurtling down the track and exposition is optional/unnecessary/look-Parker-in-that-dress-and-Eliot-punching!!

@alikitty619: Question- Does Beth like the dress up stuff or is she happier w/ Parker's regular wardrobe. Cause I have say, Beth ROCKED that dress.

Beth never complains about anything we put her in, but she tends to prefer Parker's normal wardrobe, because it's Parker's normal wardrobe. If that makes sense. Parker happens to look good in those dressesa, and we have to be careful not to let how blown away we are as producers when we see Beth in those outfits to change how we see Parker in those outfits.

@David Wintheiser: If the alarms were triggered by the seismic sensor going off when the explosive punched through the floor of the box where Parker and Hardison were hiding, how does Parker have time to get back out of the box, pick the lock, and get down so that Eliot thinks they came down together? Or is Hardison just that lucky?

No, this explanation got cut in editing, and we could never figure out a way to get it across without being stuck with the longer, undoable sequence. There was a longer bit where Hardison distracted the Russians, Parker picked the lock, and then the dealer comes into the vault. Just editing chuffah.

@CindyD: 1.) Who opened the box with the diamonds in it and how/when? 2.) Why did the idiot Russian thug bring it to the attention of the cop? 3.)Why did Sophie drop the phone in her drink? There are various reasons, I guess, but I just wasn't clear about that.

1.) Parker, although I think we screwed up showing how. By which I mean I screwed up.

2.) He was just generally trying to bluff, didn't mean to draw Bonanno's attention to the box.

3.) Sheer frustration.

@MelodyAnne88: Also, right before Parker and Hardison fell through the vault floor... the look between them.. it was easy to tell how Hardison felt but was parker feelin it too? Or was she still annoyed at him for taking credit for all her work? I couldn't tell.

Parker's emotional landscape is a mystery to all. But I'm betting she was surprised by how relieved she was to get Hardison out of there ...

@Cat: Was the accent an acting choice on Aldis' part or was it scripted?
@Gordon: So, how many times has Hardison seen "Snatch" and does he really think he's Vinnie Jones?

We wanted an accent, and Aldis went out and crafted that one. That was a brutal challenge -- he had to do an accent that Hardison would do when going over the top, without going over the top the wrong way. I thought it was perfect. And Aldis gets to do a flawless Scottish accent in the finale ...

@Gordon: Burning question of the night: Glinda the laser? That's got to have a story behind it. Right?

I think that was an Aldis improv.

@Save-vs-Dm: I had a giggle when I noticed that the armored car robbery at the beginning took place right on Naito Parkway. I happen to know that there are several train tracks quite near there. Did you guys have problems filming around the train noise (not to mention the Portland weather)?

The train noise wound up killing us only once, during the finale. And the rain only got us twice -- once during the season opener, when we got rain and hail all on Day 2, and during the rooftop scene when Parker and Tara ... well, that'd be telling. Let's just say Jeri Ryan's a trooper, hanging off a roof in gale force winds and soaking rain. You won't be able to tell it's raining in the shot, but yeah, that was a tough one.

@Darkrose: 1.) Was Hardison really saying "I'm sorry I've been kind of a dick?" to Parker there at the end of the job, and did she get it? 2.) Will we ever find out what Sophie was doing while she was gone? 3.) Aldis mentioned at the Vancouver SPN con that he'd like to have Zoe Saldana as a better, rival hacker for a love interest. Can you make that happen plskthx?

1.) Yes, and she got it. There's a lot of complicated emotions going on in that trio.

2.) No. Well, a little, but not until S3.

3.) Dude, everyone wants Zoe Saldana. She's Zoe frikkin' Saldana. But no, there's no way I'm breaking up the Hardison/Wil Wheaton dream team.

@Rayhne: A second question, part of the first. Nate doing Sterling ... Is that how Sterling really is or is that how Nate sees him (or wants to see him.)?

It's actually the impression of Sterling Nate used to do at IYS Christmas parties.

@Improper Bostonian: Just an odd question. Have any of them actually been arrested? Thanks for the skyline shots.

Sophie's been arrested, Hardison's definitely been arrested, Eliot's been in prison in a lot of places where due process isn't a big part of the culture, Parker's never been caught.

@Michael: so .. I'm supposed to believe that a red laser running CW is really a pulsed UV laser? seriously? Come on man, you're a fellow PHYSICIST! show some physicist love, man!

Yes. Look into my eyes and believe -- SLEEP! SLEEEEEP NOW!!

@Nato: I notice that thus far this season, Parker and Hardison's most honest, intimate moments have come when they're in bank vaults (and when Hardison is wearing a costume and using an English accent, oddly enough). Given Parker's almost sexual attraction to money, is this deliberate? Does the presence of all that loot make her feel secure enough to let down her guard even a little bit?

That's ... interesting. At the very least, she's probably a little more emotionally open and happy when she's in the Heist Zone.

@Tequila Kaniac: i notice that Christian is wearing his Cherokee braids and beads...is there gonna be a bit of back story on Elliot to explain thischoice of hair decoration?

S3, I think.

@briddie: My only question, which you probably can't answer yet, is if using Sterling's name is going to come back to bite Nate. "Speak of the devil" and all that.

Nope, he gets away with it this time. But let's just say that after this season, I doubt they'll ever use Sterling's name as a joke, even a nervous one, ever again.

Sterling. Never. Loses.

@catchester: Okay, now i have a question. Why on earth did Nate pick Hardison to be the grifter? I know it's kind of necessary for the plot but Nate is supposed 'to know what all of them can do' which gives him his 'edge'. He had no choice but to give Parker the girlfriend role as she's the only women left but both Nate and Eliot are better grifters than Hardison. Hardison should have been the insurance guy instead.

Nate needs to be outside the grift to call the plays, and with the Russians in play they needed Eliot free to operate as muscle. Also, Nate puts a lot of paternal faith in Hardison, which does not always pay off.

In the comments, David Hunt really nailed it:

"Sidenote about Nate assigning himself the background Mastermind role: It even makes sense in a lot of ways. If he’s in the middle of it surrounded by Marks, he can’t give hints/suggestions/info/orders to the rest of the Team. From the background he can prompt them with info and suggest/order them in various ways to keep the con moving. Finally, it gives him the option of stepping in as whatever character is needed to pull anyone’s *cough* Hardison *cough* fat out the fire.

That’s all rationalization, though. Nate is controlling from the background because Nate’s a control freak. Plus I sometimes wonder if Nate trying to keep his face out of things as much as possible because he doesn’t want to be remember as a thief even by the Marks. Afterall, he’s still an Honest Man. The rest of the team are Thieves!"

That fact -- Nate doesn't consider himself a thief -- is a big part of the last few episodes of this season.

@Matthew E: I live in Canada and I've still never seen an episode of this show. I just ordered the DVDs, so that's fine... but I had to order them from amazon.ca, the fourth place I looked. Chapters/Indigo doesn't have them listed. Future Shop doesn't have them listed. Zip.ca doesn't have them listed. It should be a lot easier to get somebody to take my money.

All of the other alternatives are specifically Candian distributors, where we don't have a deal. But I agree.

@Jocelyn: I was just curious, when you were plotting out each character in the beginning how far into detail did you go? Like to the extreme of what each person's birthday is and place of birth? Or was it more of a general outline? I only ask cause what do you get a person for their birthday when they can just steal whatever they want.

General outlines. What their motivations are, how they react, what their relationships with the other characters are. It's always better to build the characters' pasts to serve the stories you want to tell once you're in the weeds of plotting a season. Not to mention the actors' input is crucial. Aldis really evolved Hardison's Nana while talking to us, and I think I mentioned earlier that Gina had a backstory for Sophie that was so cool we immediately made it canon. Kane seems genuinely amused at the shit we drag up from Eliot's past -- however, the cooking thing is something he brought to the part. Not every show works this way, but we tend to keep it vague and let the show fill in the spaces. It seems to create a more organic character.

For example, I don't think we ever had a good sense of who Nate Ford's father was before S1, while this year it became crystal clear who the man needed to be in order to tell the Nate stories we wanted to tell.

@David Hunt: My question: I am I right thinking that Hardison is beginning to take his and the Team’s invulnerability for granted? I remember in watching him “run” surveillance on the food company in the Top Hat Job sitting around balancing that ball on his head instead of paying attention. Now he gives the Team this mess. And if he learned anything at all from this particular goatf**k, he’s hiding it real well.

This was a wake-up call, particularly with Sophie gone. You'll see Hardison's attitude arc quite distinctly from this episode through the finale.

@Anonymous: Is Nate going to get some kind of comeuppance for repeated undervaluing Eliot? I remember in The 6th Juror Job, Nate asks if anyone else on the team plays chess, and when Eliot says he does, Nate gives him this dubious look and says, "Of course you do," in one of the most patronizing tones I've ever heard him use. And there's the "Did you think all I could do was bust heads?" "No . . . well, yeah," exchange in The Wedding Job. Then, in this episode, it seems like Eliot's trying to get himself placed in the grifter role in the beginning, and Nate shoots him down in favor of Hardison, who then sucks . . . Just seems like there might be some tension/resentment building up there, at least on Eliot's side.

Oh, you misread that beat in "Juror" -- that was Nate reminding himself that Eliot is, essentially, Batman (also, remember that in canonical order "Wedding Job" is ep 103, very early in the run). Nate's learned his lesson, and we specifically address that in ep 212.

@Transcriptae: So, the tall skinny black guy with the British accent (even if it was intentionally horrendous) gave me serious flashbacks to Mickey Bricks in Hustle. The color scheme in the pool hall was a lot like the one in the bar in Hustle, too-- intentional shout-out to an influential show, or accident?

Accident. That bar was a location, we used their own lighting, so it was a coincidence.

@SueN: And now I have an actual question of the vehicular nature. The pickup that Eliot and Parker leave in while Hardison is having a moment with his Ferrari … Kane's or a prop?

A prop, but that's Eliot's official vehicle. Kane drives something similar, if I remember.

@Lynsy: This s kind of random, but which world currency is Parker's favorite?

Other people's.

@Calla: And everyone's phone calls to Sophie made TOTAL sense, except Eliots. "How? I'm back up. They can't rely on me." I think he's talking about his role in the con, rather than on the team. But, I really wish I knew what Sophie's end of the conversation was, because I definitely think I'm missing why Eliot felt the need to call her.

While everybody else was calling for guidance, Eliot was calling to bitch to Sophie that they were driving him crazy. Sophie was urging him to help out -- and she's come to realize that she's going to have to step in if she wants them to stay safe.

@briddie: Just a general question - how much of the actors' wardrobe, jewelry, vehicles, etc are used in the show? I know Gina mentioned her Jeep showing up in Mile High, and Dean's Tesla in the opener, what else is personal and not prop?

Not a lot, to tell you the truth. Our Wardrobe Goddess consults with the cast, but she works hard to create the looks for our little movie every week. The only person who crosses over a lot is Mark Sheppard -- those are his suits.

@Topher: I may have heard incorrectly, but I heard that you actually have Dungeons & Dragons character sheets of the main characters. As a long-time D&D player, I must see these. Is there any chance you could scan them? Or have scans of them for the second season's DVD? Or something. Feel free to redact any and all information about storylines and background information, but I am very curious as to their stats/level/skills.

Nope -- wrong system, anyway. D20 Modern, maybe, but I think those levels are too discreet. Personally I'd use Savage Worlds or True 20 (although Cortex is kind of interesting, I'm reading it now) ... one reader sent me some kick-ass character builds in the FATE system used by the pulp game Spirit of the Century. I may toss those up.

@Anonymous: This is a somewhat off-topic question, but I've noticed a reference in an earlier answer to "CON" and "DEX" and Hardison has a strange addiction to Orange Crush. Are you intending to be a massive D&D geek- or am I just the geek reading too much into your comments?

Let me tell you about my character ...

@True: 4) I LOVED reading about where you got the heist idea from (http://www.wired.com/politics/law/magazine/17-04/ff_diamonds) is there a chance of finding out what other real life stories spawned some of your ideas?

5) Final comment, my boyfriend and I decided you need to bring back the Hebrew woman that had that awesome mental fight with Eliot. Please have them brawl again only this time naked or as near to naked as possible. I feel safe to say this will please everyone in some fashion. tia

We need to be careful about what our inspirations are because, well, we do not cast these people in a positive light. Indeed, we cast them in a legally actionable light. We'll do some posts on general con research, etc. later in the year.

I think it's safe to say the League of Evil Leverage will be back.

@Anonymous: Was Parker sexually abused during her time in foster care? It's obvious someone (more multiple someones) messed her up pretty bad, but is Parker's heightened discomfort with men who are interested in her a result of that, or is it just innate in her personality?

We don't answer questions about the characters' sexuality here, generally, but I'd say no. That's not necessarily the answer Beth would give you.

@Stefan Jones: And HEY, ROGERS! "Royal Pains" is good stuff. Maybe there's some sort of sore feelings or legality that keeps you from discussing it here, but for what it's worth, I'm liking it.

Different John Rogers, as improbable as that may seem.

@Erik K: OK, not a question specific to this episode, but as a Portlander I gitt ask when will we get to play ourselves rather than being Boston or even frikkin Nebraska?

Possibly very soon. We're talking about doing a different crime show, and setting it there.

@Courtney: How long does it take to create an episode? I'm talking from coming up with the idea for the episode to the finished product. How long does that generally take?

The ideas generally kick around for a few weeks, either as fully formed plots or just "I want to do an episode like X." Sometimes the ideas go on the shelf for months -- the idea of doing crew vs. crew has been kicking arouns since before S1 even started. In a best case scenario they take a week or so to break, two weeks to write, one week for notes and me to do my pass, then the writer does the notes that come up during the week of pre-production and also -- being on set -- handles any changes necessary during shooting.

This year things got crazy for a variety of reasons, and we broke and wrote a couple of them in a week. There's a process you use for that sort of deadline, every showrunner knows it, and we all have to pretend it never happens or the WGA gets pissed off.

*********************

Well, you guys certainly dug that one. Now we'll take a week while I'm roasting my pale Irish ass in the tropics, bang out the questions for #209, and then we'll see what goodies we can cook up to keep you people hooked 'til the Jan 13th return of the winter season. As always, thanks for your time and enthusiasm.

West Hollywood Book Fair

2009-10-02T14:03:00.000-07:00

A ridiculous number of very cool people will be speaking at the West Hollywood Book Fair this weekend -- Mark Waid, Javier Grillo-Marxuach, Mignola. etc. Along with those actually talented people, I will be peddling my wares on Sunday.

That's Sunday October 4, the West Hollywood Book Fair (at the West Hollywood Park, 647 N. San Vicente Blvd, West Hollywood, CA) at the Comics, SciFi & Beyond Pavilion. 3:00pm to 4:00pm

I may be sober. I may not be. Either way, it should be pretty amusing.

Life on Mars on US DVD

2009-09-23T16:48:00.001-07:00

You have no bloody excuse. At all. 16 episodes of perfection, and Gene Hunt is my favorite fictional creation in years. No, not created -- summoned. Gene Hunt is a frikkin' avatar of justice.

Also on Netflix, but as far as I can see, only series 1, which is insane.

Gahh, if you have not seen this yet, I am so jealous of what you are about to experience. NO SPOILERS IN THE COMMENTS.

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

2009-09-22T14:18:00.001-07:00

Yes, well, I needed sleep.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.) Wil Wheaton was a girl.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After. Please, don't encourage him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ep #212.

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

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

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

Occasionally. Eliot and Hardison more than most.

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

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

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

... wow. Just ... wow.

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

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

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

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

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

What? Seriously? I'll check on that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's still a mix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

W.

T.

F?

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

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

ON CBS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hell, now you have no excuse:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vengeance > profit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shine On Me

2009-09-21T18:44:00.001-07:00

Fine, Internet. You win. I will never return.

To Be Fair ...

2009-09-13T23:07:00.000-07:00

... Taylor Swift did gun down Kanye's bodyguard in '05 and walked on a technicality.