an463

I have the episode on my laptop and he definitely is saying, "This one don't" which lines up with the transcript here: https://subslikescript.com/series/Law__Order-98844/season-8/episode-24-Monster

I need help with a quote from the Season 8 episode "Monster" that has always confused me, as it doesn't seem to make sense. I feel I'm missing a reference. This is the only place I can think of to go for an answer. In the scene where Judge Gary Feldman dismisses the charges against the previous defendant Stokes and then immediately arraigns the new suspect Jessie Castillo (he moves the case to his court) he and jack have this exchange: Feldman: Step up, Mr. Considine. I'm gonna arraign your client right here. McCoy: Your Honor... Feldman: Quiet, Mr. McCoy. Feldman: I want this case assigned to this part for trial. McCoy: With all due respect, Your Honor, you can't handpick your cases. They're put into the wheel. Feldman: This one don't. Then there's a pause as he stares at McCoy and Jack gives him a look of bafflement. What the hell does "This one don't" mean?! It doesn't make any sense as a response to Jack's comment. I would expect, "Not this one" or maybe "this one isn't [put into the wheel]". Or if Jack had said "New cases GET put into the wheel" then "This one don't [get put into the wheel]" would at least make more sense, but still, why is he suddenly talking this way? Any thoughts? I've wondered about this one for years.

Now if memory serves, which it may not, the dude who reads the opening schtick ("In the criminal justice system...") plays one of the cops who is staking out the restaurant at the end (isn't William H. Macy in there, too?). Not sure if I'm completely making that up.

You know, I totally agree, because wow, he's a completely different person, and the kind of person that Paul always saw right through and was disgusted by. But the one tiny sliver of credit I give the show as a whole - and again, I totally agree that the new Paul isn't Paul at all - is that at least there was a setup and a pay off with his change of heart. The writers at least put in the minimal effort to go back and check the character's history and find some way to at least TRY to justify the character arc. I guess considering the way things eventually went downhill with this show, I'm impressed by the earlier years when there was more thought and effort (however minimal or misguided) put into things. There were a couple of times in early seasons where they at least setup the idea that Paul was unsure of his identity and was searching for an answer: the discussion he has with Ben (which he references in Custody) about whether he's a black lawyer or a lawyer who's black, and an episode where Marcus Tate's widow tells him to look into the hearts of the men he has coffee with every morning, and we see him stop alone in the dark at the end of the episode, clearly questioning things. So when he finally shows up again, it pays off those moments, though in no way do I think they actually planned for that so far in advance, nor do I think the answer he would have arrived at is his new persona. Also...Richard Brooks did get paid, so there's that.

Thanks, I think you're exactly right! I re-read a synopsis of the episode and apparently the origin of the case in question was 30 years prior (don't know why I didn't notice that before) and Adam prosecuted it himself. So probably the first time he said something along those lines was 30 years ago when he prosecuted the case, and clearly both times he let a nasty case affect him personally.

Naw, I think when you love a show these things just rankle. I always found these sorts of instances to be sloppy, lazy, formulaic writing. Thankfully rare from this show, but to be expected on network TV. How many times does Jack cross the line or give his own detectives the go-ahead to do what they need to? That's his whole character - he rides and occasionally crosses the line. But because the script in this case needs a conflict - (here's the formulaic part) because this is what we're all supposed to expect in this sort of a movie/tv situation, namely a turf war - the writers just go ahead and assign the stock reactions to whatever characters they have. I could see Adam or Rey or Claire being outraged, but from Jack this doesn't fit for me. Coming from Ben it would have made perfect sense, or Jack being pissed that they failed to go FAR enough to get what he needed. But not this. I actually just watched a Season 9 episode (Episode 4, Flight, I think) where the FBI comes together to help the police on a case, and they're all sitting at a table discussing, and just as I'm wondering when the cliche turf war will start, out of nowhere an FBI guy says (paraphrasing), "By the way, our usual turf wars are all on hold, we're all going to cooperate, etc." and without even acknowledging the non-sequitur the discussion continues. To me this almost felt like the writers breaking the fourth wall and saying to the audience, "you know that thing that happens in every cop movie/tv drama ever, and that we ourselves always do? Well we don't have time for it this time, so we're not gonna do it because reasons. Ok, back to the show."

I found Lowell absolutely mesmerizing, in both looks and acting, wardrobe be damned. The sexiest female character on the show. It actually annoyed me that the writers felt it necessary to treat Jamie like Rey by constantly having characters gush about how she's so gorgeous. We know, we can see it, just move past it. Other than her first or second episode where they had her outright yelling at Jack (if memory serves) there was generally a quiet, soft-spoken toughness to her, a no-nonsense, understated quality. Competence. Someone (I think Jack) asks her if she's ever been to Niagra Falls, and she just blithely throws off this line about her brothers trying to throw her in, and then immediately gets back to business. There's none of Claire's naivete or uncertainty, and you can tell Jack's usual tactics with his ADAs are not going to work. And her EYES. And the hair. And the voice. I mean compare her soft, soothing tones to Abbie's hoarse, ex-sorority girl bar voice. In her final episode, when she and Jack are sitting in his office and she tells him she's leaving, and he says "go out like you came in, you don't owe me anything," she seems honestly emotional but doesn't overdo it, much as it would be in real life, and I actually end up feeling something in a moment that otherwise could have been totally forgettable. For the record, Abby struck me as the sanctimonious poser, and I still can't stand her. Not attractive in looks or personality, and trying too hard to be a hard ass.

Please, for the love of god, can someone explain this to me? I've seen this episode a thousand times and watched and rewatched the exchange between Jack and Adam, and I keep feeling like the tag at the end ("second time in thirty years") is supposed to be a winking reference to the FIRST time he lied - otherwise, why not just leave it at "I lied"? - but for the life of me I can't figure out what that would be. I feel like I'm missing some crucial piece of information or that I'm somehow missing the joke here, and I feel like the answer is something simple staring me in the face and I'm just too dumb to see it. Season 6, Episode 10, Remand Jack: "Didn't you tell me you never make this job personal?" Adam: "I lied...second time in thirty years." Anyone?