skittl3862

The person who runs his social media is a woman. NBC just released their fall schedule and Robert Greenblatt commented on this: "Greenblatt emphasized that NBC was focused on further lowering the volume of in-season repeats and “spreading the wealth” of scripted programming into the summer." https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/nbc-2017-18-schedule-1202426365/ We'll see how that works out.

Agreed. She was good by early-aughts, cop procedural standards, but TV has moved on. I saw some on Twitter disappointed she wasn't nominated last year for the finale. Why? Because she cried? That kind of performance isn't even on the same level compared with Tatiana Maslany. You can't even blame the network vs. cable shows because Viola Davis won in 2015 for a network show. The writing is bad, the direction is bad, the acting is bad, and the format is practically a dinosaur. No one takes SVU critically seriously anymore. Even if Olivia Benson discovered her lesbian scientist and suburban soccer mom clones next season, I don't think anyone would give an SVU "For Your Consideration" reel a second glance. Related, the channel Pop- which I had never heard of until last week- has been airing old ER episodes every week day. I DVRed them and I'm up to Mariska's stint as Mark Greene's girlfriend. She's almost unrecognizable compared to Benson. So she does have depth. Or at least she did. I'm not sure if she changed or she gave up, or she's been doing the same role for so long that she's forgotten how to act, or if no director just has the balls to stand up to her and say "Maybe not the gaping maw reaction in every shot?" I heard from someone involved with the show that they knew it was being renewed a few weeks ago. I'm surprised how many people didn't think it would be.

Raul has a verified Facebook and that says nothing about him leaving. And if it's true, I think it will be officially announced a little more publicly than buried in the comments of a Facebook post.

Yes. How on earth did that jury give a guilty verdict in this episode? Do the writers think it makes fans feel better to see completely unearned, unrealistic guilty verdicts every single week? Because to me, it's insulting. This case deserved a mistrial at best. 12 people thought he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Seriously? I thought the same thing. Why didn't they bring in some hypnotism expert to talk about the technique or demonstrate for the jury? They kept talking about hypnotism like it was a scientific law and they just expected the jury to believe in it, even with an audio tape where the victim consented to sex. I mean, hypnotism? Ok, whatever. I can't believe it was Barba to suggest it in the first place. That seems like...not his thing. Even with his previous case experience, he doesn't seem like the type to not only take it seriously, but to bring it up out of nowhere as a possible scenario to this rape. Why am I not surprised Rollins is one of those assholes who thinks it's hilarious to mock vegetarians about eating meat? If you're proud to blindly put that garbage in your body, by all means, have at it. Being a disrespectful jerk isn't going to convince me I'm missing out on anything. "All we need to do is prove Trask hypnotized Abby and that yes will mean nothing." That's literally impossible. How do you prove someone was hypnotized in the past? You might as well have a trial to prove God spoke to Trask and told him to have sex with Abby. I'm not sure what the Philly cop with his story about a junkie running away after his friend ODed has anything to do with his rape case. "Heroin addict makes morally questionable choices" is not compelling evidence that he raped someone 22 years later. Fin listening to the rich white woman talk about her trip is probably the best thing I've seen on this show in years.

Disagree. The plot that's been done a million times is a rich white man-said, pretty young white woman-said case. There have been 7 episodes just this season. The last sex trafficking episode was over a year ago. That scene was so stupid and basically killed any decent opinion I had of the episode. This guy is a raging conspiracy theorist who thinks Benson was bought off with a baby so she wouldn't investigate a child sex trafficking ring, and she threatens to frame him unless he stops investigating her? And he listens?! That makes zero sense! He should have marched back upstairs and published their conversation verbatim. It completely confirms what he already believes about her and the NYPD. And it should probably warrant a visit from IAB. A few years ago, Benson called Tucker on Amaro because he threatened someone in defense of his daughter. What happened to that Olivia? The one who didn't do stuff that's overtly against the law? I'm sick of omniscient Benson. She can't *always* be right about everything. In Know it All, Benson went off the deep end with conspiracy theories about the hacker blackmailing everyone to cover up his murder. Literally despite no evidence at all. In this episode, she immediately knows the congressman and Chinese restaurant are innocent. Even after they track the IP address back to the congressman and find child porn on his hard drive- that's far more evidence than they had Know it All. She goes on TV to proclaim his evidence and targets the website guy because she just knows the charges are false. What kind of shitty sting was that at the contractor's place? Just the 4 SVU cops? 2 cars? No back-up? Benson confronted a suspected child sex trafficker alone? She's lucky she didn't get killed. Marian looks rough for 15. Also didn't Benson used to speak Spanish? What happened to that? Favorite moment: Internet nutcase: CB stands for child brides. Fin *deadpans*: It can also stand for Chinese broccoli.

Yeah, this trend bothers me. I also remember people flipping out at Rape Interrupted because the victim didn't want to go through with a trial. Benson was going to let the guy make a deal and certain fans thought this was somehow unacceptable. Why? Only in SVU World do rapists get the book thrown at them. In real life, if they've even convicted, they get a slap on the wrist. Better to get your $20 million for suffering than the moral victory because he went to jail for 3 months and got out in 45 days for good behavior. It's not like a rape conviction will ruin the life of a rich white man.

I was really surprised with the tone of that final scene, considering the entire episode was about workplace sexual harassment and men using their power and authority over women working under them. Obviously Dodds isn't a rapist, but considering how some people were apoplectic about Tucker dating Benson, dating her direct superior is literally insane to the point of shark jumping. TV pet peeve: How did Heidi know where Benson lived? They met "years ago" at a thing, and suddenly she has Olivia's address and apartment number? Even if she gave it to her after the disclosure, doesn't Olivia have a doorman? Only my best friend's doormen all recognize me and let me up without calling. Episode was fine. The only egregious misstep IMO was the scene where Benson, Rollins and Heidi gang up on Margery at the courthouse after she testified. It's incredibly inappropriate for them to approach a witness like that.

Yeah, well, the issue was, the description for this episode and all the SVU promo hype online was that this case was supposed to be Barba-centric and he had some big secret- and when it finally aired, it turned out to be tangential to the case. Same thing happened with No Surrender- the episode description highlights Fin specifically and yet he was in 2 scenes and still second-banana to Benson. It's garbage. SVU was the Benson and Stabler show for 12 seasons, but they still managed to have a few episodes per season that focused on Munch or Fin or even Cragen and Cabot. Hell, even Lake got an episode. There were entire episodes where Benson didn't appear. Or had only a few lines because she was "in court" and they would be shooting Ripped at the same time as 911 or whatever to give both of them equal focus as leads. No longer. All Benson, all the time. I'm surprised Mariska isn't fried.

True, they could have tried to charge Willard, but it would have been much easier to plead out the lesser charge (or hell, blackmail yourself out of a lesser charge) than this elaborate conspiracy of hacking into the NYPD database to frame a serial murderer, hope he cops to the charges (and totally by chance the Strangler went with his plan), blackmail the rope expert, blackmail the ADA, hack into more NYPD computers and phones to track their investigation- all to cover up involuntary manslaughter, which has an average sentence of 12 months. Benson and the sister spent the entire episode bad-mouthing this guy whose girlfriend hit her head on the coffee table and died. Without the cover-up, there was no real crime. The death was an accident. After seeing the big reveal of how Jennifer died, his response seemed disproportionate, and Benson and the sister just comes across as crazy and vindictive for assuming the absolute worst of him (murder) from the start.

Not a fan of this episode. The entire premise of the investigation didn't make sense to me, so the deeper it got, the more ridiculous it seemed. Why did Benson even question whether the Strangler was lying about Jennifer? There was not enough evidence for them to question the killer's confession in the first place, and Benson's "It was like he saw her picture for the first time!" comment didn't match the guy's reaction at all. In her first scene with Barba she calls Willard "Her controlling, emotionally abusive boyfriend", despite no evidence beyond her sister's hearsay. The cops have no evidence he was controlling or emotionally abusive. The sister and Willard both admit they didn't like each other, so she's hardly an unbiased source. And when the rope expert calls them in to say "Oh, sorry, I got it wrong, the ropes were mixed up", she immediately assumes an elaborte conspiracy. Why immediately leap to that conclusion? Of course, she's right on all counts, but why? There was no in-universe evidence to get her to that point. It's just really lazy writing to make her out to be some genius who- all of a sudden, 18 years in- can make these inexplicable leaps of logic like she's Sherlock Holmes. Why was Carisi's "friend" bra shopping on his NYPD laptop? I'm pretty sure NYPD has pretty strict rules about letting anyone else have access to your department computer. Also- since when did pop-up ads remember your bra size? And who still gets pop-up ads in 2017? Get an ad-blocker, Carisi. The whole "revelation" about Barba was so lame. After the build-up, I thought it would be way bigger than "I gave a junkie money and she used to for heroin." I thought the girl would be his secret daughter or something. After all the conspiracy and espionage, it turns out the death was just an accident? So lame. He could have called 911, told them she hit him (true), then tripped and fell on the coffee table. It would have been ruled an accident and saved him a lot of effort.

Kind of disappointed Rachel didn't comment on the super porny-sounding lady rangers Twitter bio beyond a giggle.

You mean like Benson did? Heh. Did this episode feel choppy to anyone? There was that whole exchange where Carisi gets mad at Barba for not using that case he gave him...which we didn't see. I literally rewatched (well, FF to the Barba scenes) to see if I had missed something. Nope. It didn't exist. Seems odd to hang such an intense confrontation between the characters based on an interaction that wasn't portrayed onscreen. Also the penultimate scene- it cuts from "Call him" at the courthouse to finding Will on a roof, halfway over a ledge and mid-sentence. No transition or anything. Nothing of how they found him on the roof in the first place. If he was really suicidal, would he really answer a call, then hang out and wait for the cops to show up? The scene with Noah was fine, but that set looked like they threw it together in 5 minutes because someone had a "great idea" on the last day. It didn't look very well set-dressed for a 4-year-old boy's room and it was probably such a tight shot because all that existed was that one wall and the bed. I didn't hate the episode. It's nowhere near No Surrender levels of bad. It's just odd that they rescheduled all these episodes and aired something that felt like an unpolished, rough draft of an episode instead of a finished product.

I thought of that same episode last night- Confession. Someone who hadn't committed a crime yet seeking help to prevent themself from acting on the urges. On that note- how did Will the choir boy find this creepy rape support group in the first place? Do they have a subreddit or something? If they hadn't spent 20 minutes on Jessica's case, I would have liked to know how these men came across each other in life, and trusted each other enough to disclose their crimes. On what planet is a young blonde woman in New York responsible for locking up a bar in the middle of the night ALONE? Is there not a bouncer? Coworkers? Do SVU characters not live in the real world? Yeah yeah, victim blaming, men should just not rape, but I worked at a suburban mall in college and everyone who closed walked out together for safety. It just seems...unrealistically dumb that no one in Jessica's world questioned this. Why did Benson re-interview the victim at the hospital? The entire scene consisted of "You told my detectives [repeats line from previous scene]." It was such a useless scene of repeated information. That should have seen the cutting room floor. Can you imagine Cragen showing up to re-interview a victim after Benson and Stabler? Why did they bother promoting her to head SVU if they never intended to shift her role on the show? Why not start doing the Morris Commissions again or other types of scenes that show her on the bureaucracy side of NYPD if they want her to have the screentime? Sam the River Rapist sounds way more interesting than Jessica's rape. Why was the episode not entirely about him instead of spending half an hour on Nick? Carisi also said "We'll talk to the detectives on that case." Shouldn't SVU be on that case? Why did SVU completely take it over someone else's case to make the arrest, interrogate him and take him to court if other detectives are already working it? I thought the defense attorney was the Brooklyn DA for the William Lewis trial. Is he supposed to be the same character? Did he switch sides like John Cullum?

The cast and crew professing that they like her doesn't suggest to me "out of control ego" or PR spin when they could just as easily not say anything. Unless you're suggesting Mariska is the real life Kate Burton in the wine company episode, and they're all being forced to say positive things against their will. Plenty of (male) lead actors have gotten producer credits on their respective long-running shows and no one faults them personally for the shows' successes or failures- not to mention the obviously gendered criticisms like queen bee and bossy. Bryan Cranston on Breaking Bad, Jon Hamm on Mad Men, Michael C. Hall on Dexter- the Dexter conclusion was garbage and I don't recall people faulted Michael C. Hall personally like they do with Mariska. She's not calling literally all the shots. If she were, why do the Warren Leight fans seem to think there's such a drastic difference between the episodes of this season and last season? Why are the types of cases different this season? Why is there less Noah, and why did they cut Robert John Burke- a recurring character dating 15 years- so abruptly after such a longtime build-up to Benson's relationship when Mariska loved Tuckson last summer? Why did the episodes run on time last season, but not this season? It's not like this megalomania you're describing appears overnight. She may be the face of the show as the lead, and the writers and producers (all of them) may think more Mariska is what people want (who knows, maybe marketing suggests they do, we represent a small portion of fans), but I strongly disagree that issues like network episode scheduling issues, or inconsistent writing quality lies at Mariska's feet when those responsibilities are not hers.

The reruns are the choice of the network, not the producers. They have like 3 episodes in the can, but NBC wants to highlight their shiny new Chicago shows instead. I could probably figure this out if I cared to try, but didn't they film the Trump episode before the Trump Access Hollywood tape was leaked? When the script was green-lit, they probably had no idea how close to home it would end up being. They also probably had no idea that Trump would actually win, and thought they could just air it in the spring with little controversy. In an alternate universe where Hillary won, I don't think the premise of this episode would have bothered me if it had aired months after Trump lost.

Ah, thanks. I thought the similar rankings might have some mutual equivalence. It just seemed odd to me that Beth insisted on being called "Captain", but then didn't return the courtesy by referring to Benson as "Lieutenant".

This reminds me of something else I thought of during the episode. I know nothing about military or police rankings. Beth is a captain, and Dantley is a major. Would they be referring to Lieutenant Benson as "ma'am"? Don't they both technically outrank her? I agree with all of this. I don't understand why these fans started watching SVU in the first place. It's like a chicken and egg scenario- did the show change to a super PC rape culture after school special and it attracted people who weren't previously fans (or weren't previously old enough to watch), or did these fans start watching a "problematic" show, the producers (especially Warren Leight and Mariska) saw the fan feedback, and started to shift the storylines to appeal to them? I saw people saying that Beth's fight club is "victim blaming" because they seem to think any personal flaw in the victim equals victim blaming. When was SVU ever only innocent victims who were as pure and wholesome as the undriven snow? Why are they suddenly expecting that now? Why would anyone want that? I watched Hysteria from S1 last night. They found a dead hooker in an alley. Benson and Stabler spent the whole episode interviewing hookers, including a gang of trans hookers. It was a great episode. They manage to find a serial killer cop in vice who slipped under the radar for 30 years because vice cops didn't care about the victims, AND they discovered the real killer of the original girl, who wasn't a hooker. SVU are still the good guys. Even though there's a scene where SVU make jokes about a cis hooker/trans hooker turf war that would send a modern day campus LGBTQIA center into hysterics, they're obviously still concerned for the safety of the sex workers and want to get a killer off the street, no matter who the victims are. There was no heartfelt moment. No living victim who got to confront her attacker and heal. Cops solving a crime. That's it. This discussion reminded me of this Twitter thread from Patton Oswalt a few years ago, about telling PC jokes: http://ijr.com/2015/04/286078-comedian-patton-oswalt-destroys-political-correctness-epic-53-tweet-rant/ I'm super liberal in my daily life, but the first time I see an SVU episode lecturing us about intersectional feminism or gender neutral pronouns, I'm out. I can just imagine Rollins now- "Why are you assuming the rapist is a man? Not everyone with a penis identifies as a man!" I'd rather watch old episodes with a few outdated lines than a TV show that sounds like it was written by lawyers from human resources.

Yes. I don't know if it's, like you said, Mariska's public persona and charity work for rape victims, or just recent societal attention and shifting attitudes towards rape reporting and prosecution, but the show has changed and Benson has changed. I don't want a weekly PSA about rape culture where Super Benson saves the day with a fairy tale ending. It seems like in recent years, there's become a vocal fanbase (especially on Twitter) that feeds into this kind of girl power/survivor mindset that idolizes Olivia Benson, and I think Mariska and the writers think they have to pander this. I miss the episodes where they found a dead hooker in an alley and just worked the case. I can't imagine they would ever do that kind of episode these days. It's not empowering and Benson can't have a heart-to-heart about being a survivor if the victim is dead. If they even tried, we'd end up with a hooker with a heart of gold paying for her mother's cancer treatments, and Benson would convince her to stop turning tricks and go to nursing school by the end of the episode. Or possibly cure the cancer herself.

The thing is, though, SVU is the 3rd highest rated show on NBC. This Is Us and Chicago Fire rank higher, but Chicago PD is always lower. Chicago Med isn't even in the Top 25 Network shows. It's not like NBC has a deep bench of hit shows and they're desperate to clear a slot for something new, like CBS goes through every year. I couldn't tell you the NBC Thursday night line-up if you put a gun to my head, and they made that night. I can see SVU coasting as long as the network ratings are as bad as they are until Mariska decides to call it quits, because it's not like they can do any better. I'm sure we'll find out during the episode, but I have to wonder- why would a killer bother hacking everyone's phones? Is it going to be some super genius serial killer? Part of a Russian spy network? I feel like hackers aren't generally murderers.

See, to me, those episodes are bad, but they're camp, so I can still re-watch them, roll my eyes and laugh at ProstituteBenson or SwingerBenson or ShroomsBenson. This episode was just irredeemably bad.

I 100% agree with Sarah D. Bunting's recap intro. Probably my least favorite episode ever. I'd rather watch all the episodes that are so upsetting to me that I purposefully skip them (Juvenile, Angels) than sit through this again. I'd rather watch a Dani Beck episode. So many lines of dialogue had me literally cringing. Beth's repeated mantra about her "mission" and "what's my mission" and "soldiers need a mission" was so cloying. I've known people who are career military in the past. They're still functional human beings in their private life and daily conversation. It's not all fed through a solider-speak robot filter. The scene at the MMA gym was also pretty terrible. When Rollins and Carisi confront the gym owner and he says "I don't want to betray anyone's privacy." Rollins responds "This is a rape case. We're beyond privacy." First of all, who writes this pablum? Second of all, was Rollins absent the day they learned about the 4th-6th amendments? They're confronting a business owner about hosting a possibly-illegal fight club and definitely illegal gambling, and he's hesitant to release a list of all the attendees (no mention of needing a warrant, of course, even from almost-lawyer Carisi). She basically says individual liberty doesn't matter because of her rape case. In the real world, those attendees would probably get a harsher punishment for the illegal gambling than her ex would be if he were convicted for the assault. And Benson. Ugh. I generally can tolerate the preachiness, but this week. Jesus. She made such a huge deal about Beth needing healing and closure, then proceeded to lecture Beth at every step. An Army Ranger is obviously going to have very different coping mechanisms than the average drunk sorority girl Benson usually deals with. She lectured Beth on coping, got mad that she confronted her fiancé, got mad she didn't show up for to court, tracked her down on the army base to lecture her about how she should testify and "come out" publicly as a rape victim because it will help her heal, and then topped it all off with the "You can call me Beth" shit and Benson nodding during the press conference- I could go on for paragraphs, but it was all so fucking sanctimonious. This episode reminded me of Touched by an Angel or 7th Heaven or one of those feel-good family schmaltz shows where there's always a unrealistic happy ending. Not the gritty drama this show used to be. Give me a serial killer pedophile whose mother molested him over this shit any day. Edit: I didn't even notice "RedChanIt" until I saw it in the recap. What on earth? Why? Just make up a fake website and we'll all get the point. What's next? Streaming shows on Netlu? Ordering a car on Lyfber?

The injuries caused were minor and generally healed on their own. It's probably not frequent incidents. It was never so bad that she feared for their lives. The kids still had a relationship with their father; he wasn't just a monster to them. She rationalizes it as "He's stressed about work/money and the kids push his buttons. If they didn't set him off, this wouldn't happen." Had it not escalated due to the assault, this would have flown under the radar and probably would have stopped when Kyle was big enough to fight back. Kyle probably doesn't even recognize it as abuse; he would have been raised to view it as punishment for his behavior. Just saying. Been there. It's not as black and white as the obvious child abuse cases where the dad beats his kids within an inch of their lives and the whole family lives in constant, debilitating fear. I was going to mention that as well and forgot. Jack and Kyle were really good for child actors, especially Kyle. A huge upgrade from the kid in Motherly Love. I first thought it would be a relative too, but Carisi having a direct parallel to the victim because his own dad or whoever hit him would have been way more OTT. I interpreted his story as he knew what it was like to feel you have to man up and take the hits and not be a snitch. Not "I was bullied, poor us." It reminded me of that scene in S2 Legacy, when Munch remembers the abused neighbor girl from his childhood and says he always wonders if his intervention could have saved her.

That scene with Rollins acting all holier than thou about the mother was totally out of line for an SVU detective. "Why doesn't she leave" is the "She was drunk and wearing a short skirt" of domestic abuse. It did seem pretty in character for Rollins though; she's gotten super judgy about other moms since she had a kid 5 seconds ago. I don't think Carisi talking about being bullied to get Kyle to open up is any more pandering than every episode where Benson uses her motherly empathy to get rape victims to talk (all 400 thus far). Kyle is a 13-year-old boy who's been raised in a toxic masculinity environment with a weak mother. It wouldn't make sense for him to open up to Benson or Rollins. A "Carisi was bullied" backstory brought up in a single episode isn't worse than the Benson's mom was raped/Stabler has kids/Amaro has kids gong they used to ring in every episode. Why did SVU confront the dad with only 4 cops, no back-up, with his child right there and assume it would all go well? Did they learn nothing from the Season 17 finale? He was built like a refrigerator and on the run for beating his child within an inch of his life. Someone like him should have fought back. Loved the D2 shout-out. Classic. And literally my only frame of reference for hockey. Awkward dialogue of the week- Rollins to the mother: "At least do it for Kyle's little brother, Mark." Obviously she knows her own child's name. "At least do it for your other children"? "At least do it for Mark" [pan to younger son drawing]? Something else would have worked better.

Mariska and Raul love each other in real life, so I doubt she wants him gone. I wonder if the huge uptick in courtroom scenes this season are a response to Raul considering moving on due to lack of content. Season 16 and 17, his sole function was to swoop in and say "Get me enough for a warrant" and disappear until the next episode. Back in the Cabot years, they had trial scenes in nearly every episode. By the time Warren Leight took over, they became the exception instead of the norm. I'm curious if the big secret is professional or personal. None of the spoilers hint at the nature of it. ADAs are public figures, so a personal secret could very well put his career at risk.

Quoting myself because I saw this deleted scene was posted and it specifically addresses some of my issues with how the case was portrayed. The detectives talking out 3 possible scenarios of this crime to show how they latched onto the "Mom is a psycho" option, instead of just leaping to that assumption as it was portrayed on the broadcast. Why was something that actually explains how the plot got from Point A to Point C cut in favor of the creepy car scene, or courtroom reaction shots?